Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The British Empire Thread

Options
1…2021232526…29

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    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.
    biggest empire maker of all, was the catholic church,it was with the churches backing, that the native population of south america was forced to convert or eliminated.all the major empires were at it ,but the catholic countries did it with church blessing


  • Options
    #663
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    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.

    Berlin Conference?
    ilkhanid wrote: »
    Well,Rwanda and Burundi fell within the French sphere of influence.

    Actually German, then Belgian.


  • Options
    #664
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Berlin Conference?

    The Treaty of Tordesillas is another good example.

    The Guatemalan claim to Belize (Which is the first part of the Guatemalan constitution I believe) is based on this treaty.


  • Options
    #665
    ilkhanid
    Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Actually German, then Belgian.

    I stand corrected :o. However my point is still valid, despite my error.


  • Options
    #666
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    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.
    In broad reply to some of the posts remarking on this post.

    It seems that Empiring was much more fun than being Empired.

    Funny how any Empire that was able to keep out the opposition never just said to another Empire come on in we would really enjoy you lot lording it over us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    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
    Ah yes, britain the benign, benevolent bearer of the white man's burden :rolleyes: Indeed, the image below just about sums up what the british empire didin 'civilising' the natives.

    And as previously stated " 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. " Altough most of them were far from been Irish. When asked about his Irish roots Wellington used to reply " If one was born in a stable would it make you a horse ? ". Indeed the same fella showed his appreciation of the cannon fodder who fell for him at the Battle of Wellington as " the scum of the earth ". ( Goggle it and you'll find it)

    JusticeTenniel1857Punch.jpg


  • Options
    #668
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    I always knew they were evil.

    evil.jpg


  • Options
    #669
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    McArmalite wrote: »
    Ah yes, britain the benign, benevolent bearer of the white man's burden :rolleyes: Indeed, the image below just about sums up what the british empire didin 'civilising' the natives.

    And as previously stated " 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. " Altough most of them were far from been Irish. When asked about his Irish roots Wellington used to reply " If one was born in a stable would it make you a horse ? ". Indeed the same fella showed his appreciation of the cannon fodder who fell for him at the Battle of Wellington as " the scum of the earth ". ( Goggle it and you'll find it)

    JusticeTenniel1857Punch.jpg
    so you believe there was a big british woman with a sword killing little brown people ?


  • Options
    #670
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    getz wrote: »
    so you believe there was a big british woman with a sword killing little brown people ?

    If it is written in An Phoblacht, it must be true;)


  • Options
    #671
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Empires. All bad? No. The Roman Empire is widely regarded as having left a very positive legacy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Furet wrote: »
    Empires. All bad? No. The Roman Empire is widely regarded as having left a very positive legacy.
    the british empire hasent done so bad either,30% of the worlds population are still in the commonwealth, and others are wanting to join -dispite all the passed ,they must have done somthing right


  • Options
    #673
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The Economist wrote: »
    I always knew they were evil.

    evil.jpg

    Sure it was posted by the devil himself. :D


  • Options
    #674
    McArmalite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭McArmalite


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    If it is written in An Phoblacht, it must be true;)
    And this comiing from the fella who gets his history from Errol Flynn movies where jolly old chaps put some manners on the fuzzy wuzzys and teach them a thing or too about british 'civilization' with the aid of a trusty Martini Henry and some great british pluck.


  • Options
    #675
    BossArky
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 9,496 Mod ✭✭✭✭BossArky


    McArmalite wrote: »
    And this comiing from the fella who gets his history from Errol Flynn movies where jolly old chaps put some manners on the fuzzy wuzzys and teach them a thing or too about british 'civilization' with the aid of a trusty Martini Henry and some great british pluck.

    Warning --> Attack the post not the poster.


  • Options
    #676
    weepee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 290 ✭✭weepee


    getz wrote: »
    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.
    Your missing the point here. They're view of being Irish was the same as Welsh and Scots who view themselves as British subjects.
    getz wrote: »
    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.
    You could say the same about Ireland.
    getz61428913 wrote:
    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.
    No thanks.


  • Options
    #677
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    ilkhanid wrote: »
    I stand corrected :o. However my point is still valid, despite my error.

    Sorry didn't mean to be rude I'm just a stickler for historical accuracy (at least when I know what's accurate :pac: ).


  • Options
    #678
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Any thoughts on this from the BBC?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html
    "Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes.

    Some three million Indians died in the famine of 1943. The majority of the deaths were in Bengal. In a shocking new book, Churchill's Secret War, journalist Madhusree Mukherjee blames Mr Churchill's policies for being largely responsible for one of the worst famines in India's history. It is a gripping and scholarly investigation into what must count as one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the Empire.

    The scarcity, Mukherjee writes, was caused by large-scale exports of food from India for use in the war theatres and consumption in Britain - India exported more than 70,000 tonnes of rice between January and July 1943, even as the famine set in. This would have kept nearly 400,000 people alive for a full year. Mr Churchill turned down fervent pleas to export food to India citing a shortage of ships - this when shiploads of Australian wheat, for example, would pass by India to be stored for future consumption in Europe. As imports dropped, prices shot up and hoarders made a killing. Mr Churchill also pushed a scorched earth policy - which went by the sinister name of Denial Policy - in coastal Bengal where the colonisers feared the Japanese would land. So authorities removed boats (the lifeline of the region) and the police destroyed and seized rice stocks.

    I never heard of this 'famine' but it don't surprise me that the British establishment did not give a fluck about the people they ruled :mad;

    I wonder did any British people on this forum know about this complicit starvation?


  • Options
    #679
    #15
    Registered Users Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    gurramok wrote: »

    I wonder did any British people on this forum know about this complicit starvation?

    Even if they did, what do you expect them to do about it now?


  • Options
    #680
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    #15 wrote: »
    Even if they did, what do you expect them to do about it now?

    To reflect on what was done in their name by one of their glorious leaders?


  • Options
    #681
    #15
    Registered Users Posts: 2,784 ✭✭✭#15


    gurramok wrote: »
    To reflect on what was done in their name by one of their glorious leaders?

    Do you reflect upon the violent actions of our ancestors?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    #15 wrote: »
    Do you reflect upon the violent actions of our ancestors?

    Does 1943 count as ancestors? Some people from that age are still alive.

    And what has the Irish state got to do with the subject? Please tell.


  • Options
    #683
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    gurramok wrote: »
    To reflect on what was done in their name by one of their glorious leaders?
    Well, their national broadcaster is hosting the information their for all to see, so who's to say they don't reflect on it? I'm sure some do, but probably not many as it was almost 70 years ago now.

    Apart from that, not sure what you want to come of it, terrible as it appears to have been (Churchill is not universally popular in Britain however, maybe a glorious leader to an average Tory voter but not to an average Labour one I dare say).


  • Options
    #684
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    murphaph wrote: »
    Well, their national broadcaster is hosting the information their for all to see, so who's to say they don't reflect on it? I'm sure some do, but probably not many as it was almost 70 years ago now.

    Apart from that, not sure what you want to come of it, terrible as it appears to have been (Churchill is not universally popular in Britain however, maybe a glorious leader to an average Tory voter but not to an average Labour one I dare say).

    Why does it take an Indian to highlight the famine rather than an Englishman?

    3 million is alot of preventable deaths.


  • Options
    #685
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    The figure is 3 million from starvation and disease. The details of this have been around historians for some time but maybe not part of the average British narrative on India. It's called the Bengal Famine. Not sure what the programme on the book said but it was caused by the British by many actions including the destruction of several thousand boats that transported rice.

    A French historian Claude Markovits called it a 'scorched earth policy' in India that cared little for the average Indian - but only in protecting the Empire from Japanese attack at any cost - and the cost was 3 million Indian lives.


  • Options
    #686
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    gurramok wrote: »

    I wonder did any British people on this forum know about this complicit starvation?

    What sort of loaded question is that? Lets try to be a bit more civil in our discussion of the topic. As I understand it like most famines this was a problem with hoarding of supplies rather than a complete lack of food. This was carried out by both the British and some locals in Bengal with the power to do so. I realise that's incredibly simplified but I think it covers the important parts.


  • Options
    #687
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I dunno why this forum isn't just re-titled

    "Republicans Kick Brits as Often as Possible Under the Guise of History Discussion" forum.

    :pac:


  • Options
    #688
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    brianthebard wrote: »
    What sort of loaded question is that? Lets try to be a bit more civil in our discussion of the topic. As I understand it like most famines this was a problem with hoarding of supplies rather than a complete lack of food. This was carried out by both the British and some locals in Bengal with the power to do so. I realise that's incredibly simplified but I think it covers the important parts.

    Did you read the article?
    bbc wrote:
    The scarcity, Mukherjee writes, was caused by large-scale exports of food from India for use in the war theatres and consumption in Britain - India exported more than 70,000 tonnes of rice between January and July 1943, even as the famine set in.

    The British didn't give a fluck about starving Indians as long as it served their own purpose. :mad:


  • Options
    #689
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    mike65 wrote: »
    I dunno why this forum isn't just re-titled

    "Republicans Kick Brits as Often as Possible Under the Guise of History Discussion" forum.

    :pac:

    I personally find this to be grossly insulting, presumptuous - and contentious.

    How much of an expert on this forum or indeed on history are you that you presume to make a statement like this?


  • Options
    #690
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    mike65 wrote: »
    I dunno why this forum isn't just re-titled

    "Republicans Kick Brits as Often as Possible Under the Guise of History Discussion" forum.

    :pac:

    Oh boy, does it affect you that a recent British hero purposely starved 3million Indians?

    Deal with the facts without using false labels instead of using jibes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    mike65 wrote: »
    I dunno why this forum isn't just re-titled

    "Republicans Kick Brits as Often as Possible Under the Guise of History Discussion" forum.

    :pac:
    gurramok wrote: »
    Deal with the facts without using false labels instead of using jibes.

    Yes, this goes to the very heart of an important matter - it is the use of bogus labels like this that has effected Irish historiography since the early 1970s.

    Many historians - fearful of the 'republican' epithet so easily flung around as a insult and a means of silencing ugly truths - fled from the reality of Irish history.


Advertisement