The British Empire Thread

partyguinness · 17-04-2009 10:55am

getz wrote: »

ireland has joined the eu, as a independent state its days are numbered all its laws its constitution will go by the board within the next few years,brussels will soon dictate what you can drink, eat ,work ,you are already further down the road than the uk is,forget your nationality soon you will be just european-at least the uk with the commonwealth has a get out

Ireland can leave the EU whenever it wants i.e. via a referendum (and not going to happen)

Whats wrong with being just European? We are that anyway. The sooner Britain realises this and stops dragging its heels the better.

Will the UK step up to the plate and fund the modernity of India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe like the EU has done in the past? I dont think so.

Swapping the EU and embracing the Commonwealth is a pretty poor deal for UK citizens and not going to happen.

17-04-2009 11:39am

partyguinness wrote: »

Ireland can leave the EU whenever it wants i.e. via a referendum (and not going to happen)

Whats wrong with being just European? We are that anyway. The sooner Britain realises this and stops dragging its heels the better.

Swapping one empire for another! The Sinners won't wear that!

Personaly, I believe the EU will be an empire, but with power shared equally (similar to the US electoral college) between member states.

I'd like the UK to be a key part of such an empire.

IIMII · 17-04-2009 1:27pm

getz wrote: »

forget your nationality soon you will be just european

I have always 'just' been European. If you are Irish you are European, and surprisingly I've heard it said if you are British you are European too, not Commonwealthian

getz wrote: »

at least the uk with the commonwealth has a get out

Yeah right. That over-trumpeted cricket club everything the EU isn't. Not overly fond of some developments of the EU but at least it seeks to move on from the past whereas the Commonwealth is all about living in the past, with a dash of Stockholm syndrome

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like the UK to be a key part of such an empire.

conchubhar1 · 13-06-2009 1:59am

can i ask why you stop at european? ^

IIMII · 16-06-2009 10:58am

conchubhar1 wrote: »

can i ask why you stop at european? ^

Sorry, don't get you..?

tennessee time · 15-07-2009 12:35am

ok we get that they had an empire , its just the historical revisionism that gets to alot of irish people, good p.r seems to have elevated the british empire to a level entirely removed from where they belong imo, i.e an empire of untried war criminals which i dont think anyone can deny they were... ireland never got our nuremberg...

McArmalite · 31-07-2009 11:18am

Was the british empire the "Cancer of Humanity " ? A Scandinavian journalist who witnessed britain's atrocites in India and was so shocked at the babarbrity of ' british fairplay' he described britain and it's empire as the "Cancer of Human Society ". I was reading up on the history of India and came across the picture below which was circulated in the british media as propaganda of the mighty britannia and how she could put the ' wogs' in their place :mad:

britain is polluted with memorials to the war criminals who carried out such deeds and many others including mass murder and rape in Kenya, Sudan, using concentration camps decades before the Nazi's etc. And it should be noted that many of these war criminals were from Ireland to our eternal shame, although they were in the britsh army thru economic consciption it still does not excuse them in any way.

So, do you think it a fitting title the british empire the "Cancer of Humanity " ?

Morlar · 31-07-2009 11:33am

I think it is a fundamental mistake to look back on history through the politically correct goggles of today. There are racial differences between white europeans and people from african and the indian sub-continent. Yes the media of the day caricatured them in a negative manner. They also did that to Irish people - get over it. Regarding india or africa at that time in particular there were significant differences in the levels of education and the basic levels of civilisation we take for granted today. The indian caste system itself is no more tasteful than the then european outlook of that time in my view. The african slavetraders (who were themselves african & middle eastern) are no less distasteful than white people involved in the same - arguably more so as they did it to their own.

Irishmen who fought in the british army are not 'to our eternal shame' regardless of why they signed up.

If the british had never set foot in india they could possibly have had a religious armageddon by now, currently they are a democracy with a vast civil service and judiciary modelled on the british one (which is not the worst in fairness). Where they would have been had there never been a british empire in india is supposition, but to assume they would be better off now in the 21st century if the british empire had never encompassed india is hard for me to believe.

McArmalite · 31-07-2009 11:46am

Morlar wrote: »

I think it is a fundamental mistake to look back on history through the politically correct goggles of today. There are racial differences between white europeans and people from african and the indian sub-continent. Yes the media of the day caricatured them in a negative manner. They also did that to Irish people - get over it. Regarding india or africa at that time in particular there were significant differences in the levels of education and the basic levels of civilisation we take for granted today. The indian caste system itself is no more tasteful than the then european outlook of that time in my view. The african slavetraders (who were themselves african & middle eastern) are no less distasteful than white people involved in the same - arguably more so as they did it to their own.

Irishmen who fought in the british army are not 'to our eternal shame' regardless of why they signed up.

If the british had never set foot in india they could possibly have had a religious armageddon by now, currently they are a democracy with a vast civil service and judiciary modelled on the british one (which is not the worst in fairness). Where they would have been had there never been a british empire in india is supposition, but to assume they would be better off now in the 21st century if the british empire had never encompassed india is hard for me to believe.

" They also did that to Irish people - get over it. " Says it all doesn't it :rolleyes:

" Irishmen who fought in the british army are not 'to our eternal shame' regardless of why they signed up. " Ah yes, we should honour the mass murders and mass rapists once they wore a britsh uniform it's honourable mass murder and mass rape. Again, says it all doesn't it :rolleyes:

mike65 · 31-07-2009 11:52am

Yes McArmalite I do agree.

Morlar · 31-07-2009 11:53am

McArmalite wrote: »

" They also did that to Irish people - get over it. " Says it all doesn't it :rolleyes

I wouldn't say one sentence out of context 'says it all really' - I could have easily done that to your post if I operated at that level, instead I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Kind of wondering why now to be honest.

McArmalite wrote: »

" Irishmen who fought in the british army are not 'to our eternal shame' regardless of why they signed up. " Ah yes, we should honour the mass murders and mass rapists once they wore a britsh uniform it's honourable mass murder and mass rape. Again, says it all doesn't it :rolleyes:

How about some names for these Irishmen who were mass murderers and mass rapists ?

Fratton Fred · 31-07-2009 12:00pm

wow, a british Empire bashing thread from McArmalite. Who'd have thunk it.

And to think people call you a one trick pony:D

weepee · 31-07-2009 12:02pm

The British simply copied the Roman Empire model, very successfully.

Morlar · 31-07-2009 12:06pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wow, a british Empire bashing thread from McArmalite. Who'd have thunk it.

And to think people call you a one trick pony:D

I think there is a good chance you two could be related, either that or you are both the same person, just from some kind of mirror/ paralell universe

& Yes I do smell a sitcom somewhere here.

McArmalite · 31-07-2009 12:09pm

weepee wrote: »

The British simply copied the Roman Empire model, very successfully.

Well since the Roman empire was dead for almost a 1,000 years I'd be doubtful of that one

Did child molesters, slave traders, torturers and serial killers like Drake and co. ( though you'll know them as good old british 'heros') sit down and read the history of Rome before setting out on their pilforing and slave trading ?

Still the Nazi's copied all that was best about british fairplay and justice, invading and carrying out mass murder, ethnic cleansing, destruction of language and culture. Guess who Adolf got the idea of concentration camps from ?

dpk · 31-07-2009 12:10pm

Surely all empires are a 'cancer in human society' and the British one was no different to other empires of its day save it was larger. British troops regardless of their country of birth visited horrors beyond imagination on local populations whilst carrying out their (or perceived) duties. The Chinese summer palace which was by all accounts a wonder of the world, was destroyed by British and French troops in the 19th century a case of Europeans smashing and stealing the artefacts of another culture through ignorance and avarice. on the other hand the British Empire stopped the practise of suttee ( the burning of surviving wives and their husbands funeral pyres) in north western India in the 19th century and was a good thing. people could swap horror stories and positive actions by empires all day, empires are wrong end of story but the British really wasn't any worse than other empires and there is an argument to make that says it was in fact more enlightened than some of its contemporises

Fratton Fred · 31-07-2009 12:14pm

Morlar wrote: »

I think there is a good chance you two could be related, either that or you are both the same person, just from some kind of mirror/ paralell universe

& Yes I do smell a sitcom somewhere here.

are you trying to imply I'm a bigot with a chip on my shoulder the size of the New Forest who constantly harps on about the same thing?

weepee · 31-07-2009 12:14pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Well since the Roman empire was dead for almost a 1,000 years I'd be doubtful of that one Did child molesters, slave traders, torturers and serial killers like Drake and co. ( though you'll know them as good old british 'heros') sit down and read the history of Rome before setting out on their pilforing and slave trading ?

The key point to they're success, as with the Romans, was that anyone could become a 'citizen/subject'.

Thats why so many served in British wars, and such. Really a clever idea if ya think about it.

McArmalite · 31-07-2009 12:32pm

dpk wrote: »

Surely all empires are a 'cancer in human society' and the British one was no different to other empires of its day save it was larger. British troops regardless of their country of birth visited horrors beyond imagination on local populations whilst carrying out their (or perceived) duties. The Chinese summer palace which was by all accounts a wonder of the world, was destroyed by British and French troops in the 19th century a case of Europeans smashing and stealing the artefacts of another culture through ignorance and avarice. on the other hand the British Empire stopped the practise of suttee ( the burning of surviving wives and their husbands funeral pyres) in north western India in the 19th century and was a good thing. people could swap horror stories and positive actions by empires all day, empires are wrong end of story but the British really wasn't any worse than other empires and there is an argument to make that says it was in fact more enlightened than some of its contemporises

" Surely all empires are a 'cancer in human society' " Fair enough. But if you look at the legacies and worst hotspots today Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, tensions between India and Pakistan, our own northeast still under occupation ofcourse, much of these problems are the direct legacy of the british empire. The French and Spainish etc left problems behind, but not as bad as britain. Hence I think the title the Cancer of Humanity will apt indeed.

And another little pioint, listening to a discussion on segragtion in the US and apartheid in South Africa a few years ago, a black American historian made an interesting point - wherever the English language is spoken, rascism and discrimination is always at it's worst. ( And that includes Ireland ofcourse)

weepee · 31-07-2009 12:35pm

I must be honest here. A lot of northern nationalists are glad they arent in the Republic at the present time.

McArmalite · 31-07-2009 12:41pm

weepee wrote: »

I must be honest here. A lot of northern nationalists are glad they arent in the Republic at the present time.

Sorry, what has this to do with the thread ??

( BTW, did you enjoy the 12th of July parade, must be hard to get a bowler hat these days is it ? )

blinding · 31-07-2009 12:43pm

If Empires were/are such a good thing why did countries like England not invite in the Spanish/French/German Empires in and enjoy the "advantages" of these other Empires.

weepee · 31-07-2009 12:50pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Sorry, what has this to do with the thread ??

Its got something to do with mentioning the 'north'.

McArmalite wrote:

( BTW, did you enjoy the 12th of July parade, must be hard to get a bowler hat these days is it ? )

I dont enjoy sectarian parades, what about yerself ?

dpk · 31-07-2009 12:55pm

McArmalite wrote: »

" Surely all empires are a 'cancer in human society' " Fair enough. But if you look at the legacies and worst hotspots today Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, tensions between India and Pakistan, our own northeast still under occupation ofcourse, much of these problems are the direct legacy of the british empire. The French and Spainish etc left problems behind, but not as bad as britain. Hence I think the title the Cancer of Humanity will apt indeed.

And another little pioint, listening to a discussion on segragtion in the US and apartheid in South Africa a few years ago, a black American historian made an interesting point - wherever the English language is spoken, rascism and discrimination is always at it's worst. ( And that includes Ireland ofcourse)

I don't think to be fair that you can lay blame at the feet of the British empire for the current situation in Iraq, yes the Brits went in as American allies or lap dogs (depending on your point of view) but the current Iraq debacle is largely an American creation, Afghanistan has been hostile to invaders since Alexander the great and the current situation is as a result of extreme Islamic rule, terrorism and American reaction thereto. Yes the Brits created the division between Pakistan and India but this was at the request of Jenna and the promise of horrid civil war if no partition, and still a million lives were lost, and that was quite some time ago now, the bloodletting and wars since then have been created and perpetrated by Indians and Pakistanis and there has been tensions between Hindus and Moslems since the thime of the Moughal empire. I can't really disagree with you on NI but I believe the attitude of the current British Government is a positivie in NI politics, I'm sure I'll get called on that. As to the Spanish and French empires, the devastation visited onto the native peoples in South American by the Spanish was genocide, and I believe some Latin American countires have no aboriginal or very few aboriginal peoples at all. I don't reqally know what the French got up to

McArmalite · 31-07-2009 4:37pm

dpk wrote: »

I don't think to be fair that you can lay blame at the feet of the British empire for the current situation in Iraq, yes the Brits went in as American allies or lap dogs (depending on your point of view) but the current Iraq debacle is largely an American creation

As I said " But if you look at the legacies and worst hotspots today " Check out the British Mandate of Mesopotamia which came into been after WW1 and see how they f*cked up Iraq.

Afghanistan has been hostile to invaders since Alexander the great and the current situation is as a result of extreme Islamic rule, terrorism and American reaction thereto.

Check out the Anglo-Afghan wars 1839–42, 1878–80, and lastly in 1919. In more recent times ( 70's and 80's ) they were among the main supporters of the supposed good guys, the Mudjahdeen, who are now the bad guys, the Taliban.

Yes the Brits created the division between Pakistan and India but this was at the request of Jenna and the promise of horrid civil war if no partition, and still a million lives were lost, and that was quite some time ago now, the bloodletting and wars since then have been created and perpetrated by Indians and Pakistanis and there has been tensions between Hindus and Moslems since the thime of the Moughal empire.

"divide and conquer" - and the policy was central to both conquest and continued control. The mess was all down to britian's divide and rule policy and it's use of agent provocateurs ( a person or persons employed by an entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit a wrong or rash action ) in Jinnah and the Muslim League to intimadate the Congress into submission - sort of, don't rock the boat or else this Jinnah guy and his buddies will start bloodletting. The divisions - so carefully nurtured - were not to go away so easily. I frankly don't see how the fact of the British being forced out of anywhere negates their culpability in the resulting chaos of this policy.

I can't really disagree with you on NI but I believe the attitude of the current British Government is a positivie in NI politics, I'm sure I'll get called on that.

The only positive attitude the brit govt. can have on Ireland is to leave ASAP.

As to the Spanish and French empires, the devastation visited onto the native peoples in South American by the Spanish was genocide, and I believe some Latin American countires have no aboriginal or very few aboriginal peoples at all. I don't reqally know what the French got up to

Ok.

getz · 01-08-2009 4:01pm

i can only think that some of the posters know nothing about the british in india,both the indian and pakistan goverments ,look upon the british raj as a positive in india,and are amongst the biggest supporters of the commonwealth, also maybe most of you do not realise, that the bulk of the BA in india were irishmen,even the governers and generals.check out these great irishmen-DUKE OF WELLINGTON born dublin, SIR JOHN CRADOCK,comander in chief of madras[son of the archbishop of dublin] SIR ROLLO GILLESPIE co/down LORD ROBERTS OF KANDAHAR commander in chief of india born waterford GENERAL CHARLES NAPIER co meath, WALTER HAMILTON VC, kilkenny,but if you are trying to find one nasty irish general you dont need to look further than a general called custer who loved to massacre american indian woman and children

ilkhanid · 01-08-2009 6:12pm

McArmalite wrote: »

And another little pioint, listening to a discussion on segragtion in the US and apartheid in South Africa a few years ago, a black American historian made an interesting point - wherever the English language is spoken, rascism and discrimination is always at it's worst. ( And that includes Ireland ofcourse)

Well,Rwanda and Burundi fell within the French sphere of influence.

dpk wrote: »

I don't think to be fair that you can lay blame at the feet of the British empire for the current situation in Iraq, yes the Brits went in as American allies or lap dogs (depending on your point of view) but the current Iraq debacle is largely an American creation, Afghanistan has been hostile to invaders since Alexander the great and the current situation is as a result of extreme Islamic rule, terrorism and American reaction thereto. Yes the Brits created the division between Pakistan and India but this was at the request of Jenna and the promise of horrid civil war if no partition, and still a million lives were lost, and that was quite some time ago now, the bloodletting and wars since then have been created and perpetrated by Indians and Pakistanis and there has been tensions between Hindus and Moslems since the thime of the Moughal empire.

It is well to remember that thee was no state of prelapsarian innocence and affluence for most parts of the world before the coming of the Europeans. Most of these lands were already under the sway of Asian Empires and were never 'independent' in the modern meaning of the word. Iraq went from being part of the Assyrian empire to being part of the Persian, Macedonian, Parthian, Sassanian,Islamic and and Ottoman Empires before the British arrived. Afghanistan went through Persian, Macedonian , Islamic, Mongol,Timurid and Mughal periods.

McArmalite wrote: »

Check out the Anglo-Afghan wars 1839–42, 1878–80, and lastly in 1919. In more recent times ( 70's and 80's ) they were among the main supporters of the supposed good guys, the Mudjahdeen, who are now the bad guys, the Taliban.

Thee is no simple continuity between the Mudjahadeen and the Taliban. Some of the former are now part of the Taliban, while others fought against the Taliban

weepee · 01-08-2009 10:33pm

getz wrote: »

i can only think that some of the posters know nothing about the british in india,both the indian and pakistan goverments ,look upon the british raj as a positive in india,and are amongst the biggest supporters of the commonwealth, also maybe most of you do not realise, that the bulk of the BA in india were irishmen,even the governers and generals.check out these great irishmen-DUKE OF WELLINGTON born dublin, SIR JOHN CRADOCK,comander in chief of madras[son of the archbishop of dublin] SIR ROLLO GILLESPIE co/down LORD ROBERTS OF KANDAHAR commander in chief of india born waterford GENERAL CHARLES NAPIER co meath, WALTER HAMILTON VC, kilkenny,but if you are trying to find one nasty irish general you dont need to look further than a general called custer who loved to massacre american indian woman and children

Interesting selection of British military figures used as an example here.
The Iron Duke, who refused to be called 'Irish'.
Sir John Craddock, who engaged Republican Forces at Vinegar Hill.
Sir Rollo Gillespie, a land owner from County Down, all good planter
families who viewed Ireland as subservient to the Empire, and it was
the duty of people like them to keep the natives in check.
I believe Roberts was born in India.
I also believe Napier was born in London.

Hamilton was one of many who received the Victoria Cross. Ironically, next to English recipients, Irishmen come second on the list of bravado for
'King and Country'.

Its a pity their loyalties didnt extend to the freedom of the Irish people.

getz · 03-08-2009 10:17am

weepee wrote: »

Interesting selection of British military figures used as an example here.
The Iron Duke, who refused to be called 'Irish'.
Sir John Craddock, who engaged Republican Forces at Vinegar Hill.
Sir Rollo Gillespie, a land owner from County Down, all good planter
families who viewed Ireland as subservient to the Empire, and it was
the duty of people like them to keep the natives in check.
I believe Roberts was born in India.
I also believe Napier was born in London.

Hamilton was one of many who received the Victoria Cross. Ironically, next to English recipients, Irishmen come second on the list of bravado for
'King and Country'.

Its a pity their loyalties didnt extend to the freedom of the Irish people.

what a load of crap, thats straight out of the republican 1001 reasons to hate the british note book, the duke of wellington was very irish,he was a member of the irish parliment in the house of commons,chief secretary of ireland[offices at phoenix park] he forced through the act that would allow catholics to have a seat in parliment ,even threatened to resign as prime minister unless it was passed, that dosent sound like someone who dident want to be irish. when the british entered india they had only one small part of it the rest was under the control of other countries mainly french/dutch/ russia, it was only under the british that india came as one country.try reading some of rudyard kiplings books,his dad was a irishman,and most of his stories are about irish/british soldiers .and he was there at that time.

Fratton Fred · 03-08-2009 10:32am

blinding wrote: »

If Empires were/are such a good thing why did countries like England not invite in the Spanish/French/German Empires in and enjoy the "advantages" of these other Empires.

Ever wondered why all of South America speak Spanish, with the exception of Brazil, who speak Portugese? Ever wondered why large parts of Africa speak French? How come Afrikaans is similar to Dutch?

Why not take a look at the Historys of two neighbouring countries in the caribbean, Haiti and the Dominican Republic and compare them with the neighbouring island of Jamaica? A brief read of the history of St Martin would be of interest as well.

The British Empire Thread

Comments