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
Comments
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »Massacred? By who?
There are no pure blooded Tasmanian aborigines left, a lot were killed in the black war, the vast majority died from smallpox and a lot married into other communities.
That is a massive, massive step from the OP's claim that the redcoats killed them all, which is why I questioned where his history came from
They were killed off due a large influx of settlers I'd imagine.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »While all things including Imperialism have their negitive effects, such as the massacres in Tasmania I think that overall Imperialism has been good for the world ......
How?0 -
How?
- Modernisation.
- Spread of democracy.
- Utilization of previously unused land.
- Reduced the population density in Europe.
- Opened up new markets for European traders.
- Spread European technology to other parts of the world.
- Made previously unattainable or scarce resources suddenly usable.
0 -
Imperialism,be it British ,French, Spanish,Islamic ,whatever has invariably been a bad thing. Without going into all the pros and cons of it, one thing it has done is to prevent or delay the natural evolution of states.
Europe and the west in general is only what it is today because we have gone through our race wars, religous wars, our persecutions, our reformation and enlightment.
To believe road,rail, good government was brought by empire may be true, but to believe that it would not have come about otherwise is not true. Of course it would.
This is not to say that some empires were not better than others or that within empires the attitudes between the governers and the governed was static. It was'nt,. it was modified and modernised over time.0 -
I'm wondering whether Ireland would have been sucked into the Spanish Empire, had the Armada not been defeated, or whether Ireland would have become part of the French Empire had the British been trounced after 1798.
Ireland could have been like Poland, hacked around and kicked from pillar to post for centuries, before finally becoming independent.0 -
Advertisement
-
Really? Indigenous Australians had only progressed as far as the stone age by the time Europeans came. What evidence is there to suggest they would be on par with modern Australia had they been left alone?To believe road,rail, good government was brought by empire may be true, but to believe that it would not have come about otherwise is not true. Of course it would.0 -
Well I'll start the ball rolling on Africa,
The continent was divided between, the British, French, Portuguese, Spanish and German empires.
As will be said soon enough, the natives were massacred and robbed of everything and were left in a destitute state of nothingness.
It is true that they were conquered but it is also true that had they evolved to a level similar to that of Europe, then there is no concievable reason why African nations wouldn't have over run Europe.
But the fact of the matter is, the African question has conveniently left us a base-level measure. Ethiopia. They proudly state that they were the only country who were left un-colonised by European powers.
Yet Ethiopia is hardly the bread-basket of Africa today.
While empire was not the be all and end all, it certainly benefited countries as well as perhaps disadvantaging others.
The real problem was that when Imperial powers, colonised countries they destroyed all remnants of their culture so that they had little to base their morals and history on, and then they left too quickly before they could restore a replacement system.0 -
merge0
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Really? Indigenous Australians had only progressed as far as the stone age by the time Europeans came. What evidence is there to suggest they would be on par with modern Australia had they been left alone?
That is possibly quite true, more or less like those tribes in the Amazon rainforest today or in Borneo earlier in the 20th century. Who are we to say if they would have been be happier or not.More might have lived.
But it is also possible that they could have gradually modernised if the contacts with Europeans had been more benign.
Japan (and to a lesser extent China) is an interesting case, went from being a potential colony in 1854 to a massive coloniser in 70 years and modernised with such astonishing rapidity as to defeat the Russians in 1905.
But to go back to my main point , religion/race/borders have all been worked out in Europe over many bloody centuries.We only seem reasonable now. And that same working out is what is at the root of a lot of post-colonial struggles wherby the straight-line borders drawn up by the empire builders took no account of older differences. Those difference are now being worked out.0 -
I doubt Indigenous Australians would be happier without modern technology. Hell if that was the case they would be abandoning it en mass. As for more living the population of Australia was around eight thousand when Europeans came and had likely remained steady for thousands of years. Today their population stands at over half a million. ( though the vast majority of them are half blood).That is possibly quite true, more or less like those tribes in the Amazon rainforest today or in Borneo earlier in the 20th century. Who are we to say if they would have been be happier or not.More might have lived.
Sure they could have but why wait? Europe was much more densely populated then Australia and peopel were suffering as a result. Colonising Australia lowered the density of Australia, opened up new markets and provided more arrible land.But it is also possible that they could have gradually modernised if the contacts with Europeans had been more benign.
Yeah but the Japanese were extremely agressive and war like. Not very good colony material. Besides Japan offered very little in the way of natural resources, one of the reasons why Japan was so eager to expand into mainland Asia.Japan (and to a lesser extent China) is an interesting case, went from being a potential colony in 1854 to a massive coloniser in 70 years and modernised with such astonishing rapidity as to defeat the Russians in 1905.
What problems? These problems are only an African phenomenon, other post colonies with straight line borders like Canada, the USA and Australia don't have these problems and indeed are three of the richest countries in the world. If you are looking for something to balme for Africas woes blame it's climate or it's large number of land locked countries or it's rapidly expanding population or the Aids epidemic.But to go back to my main point , religion/race/borders have all been worked out in Europe over many bloody centuries.We only seem reasonable now. And that same working out is what is at the root of a lot of post-colonial struggles wherby the straight-line borders drawn up by the empire builders took no account of older differences. Those difference are now being worked out.0 -
Advertisement
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I doubt Indigenous Australians would be happier without modern technology. Hell if that was the case they would be abandoning it en mass. As for more living the population of Australia was around eight thousand when Europeans came and had likely remained steady for thousands of years. Today their population stands at over half a million. ( though the vast majority of them are half blood).
Not everyone has to progress at the same speed.
Wow. You're not entitled to another person's continent because you want it.Sure they could have but why wait? Europe was much more densely populated then Australia and peopel were suffering as a result. Colonising Australia lowered the density of Australia, opened up new markets and provided more arrible land.Yeah but the Japanese were extremely agressive and war like. Not very good colony material. Besides Japan offered very little in the way of natural resources, one of the reasons why Japan was so eager to expand into mainland Asia.
Wrong, coal, fish, other stuff.What problems? These problems are only an African phenomenon, other post colonies with straight line borders like Canada, the USA and Australia don't have these problems and indeed are three of the richest countries in the world. If you are looking for something to balme for Africas woes blame it's climate or it's large number of land locked countries or it's rapidly expanding population or the Aids epidemic.
Canada, the US and Australia are nothing like Africa, mainly because the vast majority of the native population in those places were killed off. And if you think those three countries don't have race problems you're wrong.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »
- Modernisation.
- Spread of democracy.
- Utilization of previously unused land.
- Reduced the population density in Europe.
- Opened up new markets for European traders.
- Spread European technology to other parts of the world.
- Made previously unattainable or scarce resources suddenly usable.
1. It's true that colonial powers were often a moderninsing influence on the territories they occupied, but it was alays at immense cost, both in terms of human suffering, and in setting back the general development of the colonised. European powers helped modernise Africa in a technological and infrastructural sense, but left a political and societal legacy which has torn the continent apart over the past few decades, and is still a malign influence today. Also, not to play Godwin here, but the Nazis would undoubtedly have modernised many Europen nations and their economies, but no one would suggest that a Nazi triumph in WW II would have been a positive thing.
2. Ah yes, because all nations with a colonial past became stable democracies upon independence. Egypt, Libya, Syria- paragons of democracy all. And everyone knows that democracy in South America has been continuous and non-interrupted since independence.
3. Unused only because there was nobody there to utilise it. And the word "exploit" is probably a more apt description of the actions of the colonisers, which kick started the worldwide desecration of the natural world which is still having consequences today.
4. Great for the Europeans. The Dutch have a high population density. We don't. It would be a great positive if the Dutch forcibly settled themselves in ireland eh?
5. Again, great for the Europeans. And it didn't open the markets. They were already there, and would have been open to Europeans without imperialism. What you mean is that it allowed Europeans to impose themselves on, manipulate, and dominate new markets at the expense of the locals. Such a positive...
6. Europe acquired much of its pre-Renaissance technology from the Middle East and China, and we didn't have to be conquered in order to benefit. Also, as much of the indigenous population of occupied territories were killed off by the European presence, it's somewhat hard to argue that it was a positibe for them, especially as the technology was often used to enslave and exploit them.
7. You seem to think that if Europeans are not utilising a resource, then nobody is using that resource. In South America, across the Middle East and Asia, and in parts of Africa, metal working was highly developed, and extraction of raw material quite sophisticated. I'm not sure how anyone, looking at the exquisitive metal craftworks from South America or SE Asia could possibly argue that such resources were unused or scarce. You have a disturbingly Eurocentric view of things, almost as if you believe that if the Europeans are not involved in something, then it's not worth mention.Iwasfrozen wrote: »Really? Indigenous Australians had only progressed as far as the stone age by the time Europeans came. What evidence is there to suggest they would be on par with modern Australia had they been left alone?
What evidence is there to suggest that modern Australians are better off than their 17th century indigenous predecessors? From the few reports on early aborigine society that I have read, they seemed to have been extremely in tune with nature, and to have lived in harmony both with the natural world and with themselves. Yes, we have advanced technologies and systems, that is not to say that our society is in any way better than other, earlier societies.0 -
Imperialism,be it British ,French, Spanish,Islamic ,whatever has invariably been a bad thing. Without going into all the pros and cons of it, one thing it has done is to prevent or delay the natural evolution of states.
Europe and the west in general is only what it is today because we have gone through our race wars, religous wars, our persecutions, our reformation and enlightment.
To believe road,rail, good government was brought by empire may be true, but to believe that it would not have come about otherwise is not true. Of course it would.
This is not to say that some empires were not better than others or that within empires the attitudes between the governers and the governed was static. It was'nt,. it was modified and modernised over time.
I would have thought that is precisely what Imperialism was - evolution. Imperialism didn't suddenly appear one day it evolved. We have come along way towards a more civilised world since our ancestors crawled out of the primeval slime and the Age of Imperialism was part of this evolution. Sadly some states such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and, arguably the USA are dragging far behind the rest of us in evolving and if they don't catch up soon evolution may come to an abrupt end.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I doubt Indigenous Australians would be happier without modern technology. Hell if that was the case they would be abandoning it en mass. As for more living the population of Australia was around eight thousand when Europeans came and had likely remained steady for thousands of years. Today their population stands at over half a million. ( though the vast majority of them are half blood).
So advanced technology = happiness in your book. That's a very naive way to look at things, and completely ignores that fact that Western societies with advanced economies, and all sorts of gizmos and gadgets to supposedly enhace quality of life, have far higher rates of stress and anxiety than less developed societies. Not much point in living to 120 if you hate every moment of it, or having a top of the range car if it's most used for commuting.Sure they could have but why wait? Europe was much more densely populated then Australia and peopel were suffering as a result. Colonising Australia lowered the density of Australia, opened up new markets and provided more arrible land.
This is actually kind of scary. Why wait?! Possibly because it would not have entailed the massacre of entire peoples and the destruction of unique cultures. And because, contrary to imperial notions, might is not always right.What problems? These problems are only an African phenomenon, other post colonies with straight line borders like Canada, the USA and Australia don't have these problems and indeed are three of the richest countries in the world. If you are looking for something to balme for Africas woes blame it's climate or it's large number of land locked countries or it's rapidly expanding population or the Aids epidemic.
Africa, Ireland, South and Latin America, the Middle East, South East Asia- you harp on about North America and Australia as these great shining examples, yet they are in the minority in terms of post colonial stability and prosperity, and only achieved such because their natives people were systematically wiped out. Not to difficult to avoid the ethnic consequences of colonialism when you wipe out all ethnicities but your own...0 -
Again you are singling out Africa as the fault of Colonialism but there are many problems with Africa such as it's climate or it's large number of land locked countries or it's rapidly expanding population or the Aids epidemic1. It's true that colonial powers were often a moderninsing influence on the territories they occupied, but it was alays at immense cost, both in terms of human suffering, and in setting back the general development of the colonised. European powers helped modernise Africa in a technological and infrastructural sense, but left a political and societal legacy which has torn the continent apart over the past few decades, and is still a malign influence today. Also, not to play Godwin here, but the Nazis would undoubtedly have modernised many Europen nations and their economies, but no one would suggest that a Nazi triumph in WW II would have been a positive thing.
blaming colonialism for all of Africas woes is a bit lazy.
Do I sense a hint of sarcasm in your post? If so you can agree that the concept of democracy was spread by colonialism, if the local populace didn't embrace it after the occupiers had left that is hardly their fault.2. Ah yes, because all nations with a colonial past became stable democracies upon independence. Egypt, Libya, Syria- paragons of democracy all. And everyone knows that democracy in South America has been continuous and non-interrupted since independence.
Exactly nobody was there to utilise it so it was to humanities benifite to use it but the native population hadn't the technology to do it so why shouldn't foreigners? Increased land use means more food which means cheaper food which means better quality of life.3. Unused only because there was nobody there to utilise it. And the word "exploit" is probably a more apt description of the actions of the colonisers, which kick started the worldwide desecration of the natural world which is still having consequences today.
You're missing the point, the Dutch don't have better technology then us.4. Great for the Europeans. The Dutch have a high population density. We don't. It would be a great positive if the Dutch forcibly settled themselves in ireland eh?
No, it opened new markets. Take Japan and America for example. Before America opened Japan up to trade at gunpoint they had no interest in outside trade. Now they produce more cars then anyother country. Another example would be the Chinese tea trade and the Opium wars.5. Again, great for the Europeans. And it didn't open the markets. They were already there, and would have been open to Europeans without imperialism. What you mean is that it allowed Europeans to impose themselves on, manipulate, and dominate new markets at the expense of the locals. Such a positive...
Granted ensalvement was wrong and I'm not hear to defend all aspects of Imperialism (that would be impossible) but I do believe it was a necessary progression to the modern age.6. Europe acquired much of its pre-Renaissance technology from the Middle East and China, and we didn't have to be conquered in order to benefit. Also, as much of the indigenous population of occupied territories were killed off by the European presence, it's somewhat hard to argue that it was a positibe for them, especially as the technology was often used to enslave and exploit them.
Where have I said that? I only said that Imperialism made previously unattainable or scarce resources suddenly available for our use. As for having a Eurocentic view, it's hard not to when the whole issue of Imperialism is eurocentric.7. You seem to think that if Europeans are not utilising a resource, then nobody is using that resource. In South America, across the Middle East and Asia, and in parts of Africa, metal working was highly developed, and extraction of raw material quite sophisticated. I'm not sure how anyone, looking at the exquisitive metal craftworks from South America or SE Asia could possibly argue that such resources were unused or scarce. You have a disturbingly Eurocentric view of things, almost as if you believe that if the Europeans are not involved in something, then it's not worth mention.
Ask any modern day Aborigine with a toothache are they better off in a post colonialist Australia and you'll find your answer to that,What evidence is there to suggest that modern Australians are better off than their 17th century indigenous predecessors? From the few reports on early aborigine society that I have read, they seemed to have been extremely in tune with nature, and to have lived in harmony both with the natural world and with themselves. Yes, we have advanced technologies and systems, that is not to say that our society is in any way better than other, earlier societies.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »I doubt Indigenous Australians would be happier without modern technology. Hell if that was the case they would be abandoning it en mass. As for more living the population of Australia was around eight thousand when Europeans came and had likely remained steady for thousands of years. Today their population stands at over half a million. ( though the vast majority of them are half blood).
Sure they could have but why wait? Europe was much more densely populated then Australia and peopel were suffering as a result. Colonising Australia lowered the density of Australia, opened up new markets and provided more arrible land.
Yeah but the Japanese were extremely agressive and war like. Not very good colony material. Besides Japan offered very little in the way of natural resources, one of the reasons why Japan was so eager to expand into mainland Asia.
What problems? These problems are only an African phenomenon, other post colonies with straight line borders like Canada, the USA and Australia don't have these problems and indeed are three of the richest countries in the world. If you are looking for something to balme for Africas woes blame it's climate or it's large number of land locked countries or it's rapidly expanding population or the Aids epidemic.
This is an astonishingly eurocentric view and seems to show a positively Darwinian theory of history.
You seem to forget that we experienced our own dark ages where the Middle East and China were vastly more advanced and our regeneration came from the aquiring of knowledge from those civilisations which enabled us to leap ahead. And we aquired that knowledge without being colonised by them. Though not for want of trying by the great Suleiman in particular.In history what goes around invariably comes around and we are now witnessing that transition of power back to the far east again.
And it is not true to say those countries are only an African problem, witness the Middle East right now and the tension in Iraq to split into three states (four if you count Kuwait) . Asia if riddled with such disputes but they dont warrant coverage in the west .
Might I ask what do you define as ''good colony material'' ?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »
No, it opened new markets. Take Japan and America for example. Before America opened Japan up to trade at gunpoint they had no interest in outside trade. Now they produce more cars then anyother country. Another example would be the Chinese tea trade and the Opium wars.
Patently wrong, in both cases both countries were trading with the wider world long before European aggression.
You need to start backing up your posts with factual evidence or stop posting, this isn't AH.0 -
Japan wasn't trading with America before the arrival of the black ships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_shipsbrianthebard wrote: »Patently wrong, in both cases both countries were trading with the wider world long before European aggression.
You need to start backing up your posts with factual evidence or stop posting, this isn't AH.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »There's no Aborigines left in Australia? When did that happen?
Please read what I wrote!
Tasmania. No indigenous people. None! the last one died in 1905.Asking if British colonialism isn't a relevant question, because no colonialism is/was. A far better question would be was being colonized by the British better than being colonized by, for examp, Spain.
"What if" questions about which torture or massacre is worse are more relevant than pointing to examples tortures or massacres?If it hadn't been Britain, it would have been someone else.
So if a father didn't abuse a child the mother would? Or an uncle or a neighbour ? so the fact that the child was abused doesn't matter? If wrong is done sure someone else would have done it anyway so we can just forget the wrongdoing?0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Japan wasn't trading with America before the arrival of the black ships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_ships
That's not what you said though, you said outside world.0 -
Advertisement
-
Please read what I wrote!
Tasmania. No indigenous people. None! the last one died in 1905.
Do you have a link for that? because the article as I recall it clearly said the last pure blooded Tasmanian Aborigine. There are no pure blooded Gaels in Ireland, that doesn't mean they were all slaughtered."What if" questions about which torture or massacre is worse are more relevant than pointing to examples tortures or massacres?
so you're only reason to start this thread was to have a rant about the British?...yawn.
isn't there a forum somewhere you can all get together and do that? PM Dlofnep for details I believe.So if a father didn't abuse a child the mother would? Or an uncle or a neighbour ? so the fact that the child was abused doesn't matter? If wrong is done sure someone else would have done it anyway so we can just forget the wrongdoing?
this may come as a bit of a shock, but the world has, over the centuries been a bit of a nasty place. What exactly gives you the moral right to start lecturing about it?0 -
This is an astonishingly eurocentric view
I'm always a bit thrown by statements about eurocentric views and how dare people hold them.
I'm Irish, and therefore from Europe, and I presume the previous poster was also.
Therefore our view is naturally Eurocentric, and what's wrong with that? Why should I have to think in an Afrocentric, or Americocentric view? Why are they any better ?
Our history, culture, economy and lifestyle are clearly linked to Europe, and we have more in common with a Belgian, or an Italian than we do with a Nigerian, or a Brazilian, or a Malaysian. So what is wrong with viewing world problems and issues from a European perspective?
I'm fairly certain that people on other continents certainly don't change their view to meet the politically correct stance required of Europeans as some sort of embarrassment for colonizing.0 -
Simarillion wrote: »I'm always a bit thrown by statements about eurocentric views and how dare people hold them.
I'm Irish, and therefore from Europe, and I presume the previous poster was also.
Therefore our view is naturally Eurocentric, and what's wrong with that? Why should I have to think in an Afrocentric, or Americocentric view? Why are they any better ?
Our history, culture, economy and lifestyle are clearly linked to Europe, and we have more in common with a Belgian, or an Italian than we do with a Nigerian, or a Brazilian, or a Malaysian. So what is wrong with viewing world problems and issues from a European perspective?
I'm fairly certain that people on other continents certainly don't change their view to meet the politically correct stance required of Europeans as some sort of embarrassment for colonizing.
That's not what eurocentric means, it means only taking europe into consideration. You're entitled to think what is in Ireland/Europe's best interest, but why should you be entitled to think 'Congo has that neat coltan and I want it, better get it cause they don't use it and it doesn't matter if I exploit them or not'.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »That's not what eurocentric means, it means only taking europe into consideration. You're entitled to think what is in Ireland/Europe's best interest, but why should you be entitled to think 'Congo has that neat coltan and I want it, better get it cause they don't use it and it doesn't matter if I exploit them or not'.
Cheers, makes more sense now
0 -
take out the word british in empire,and insert the word vatican,now you see the problem ,blackships,south america,ireland,spain,ect0
-
If i'm going to get arrested in a foreign country I'd much rather get arrested in a country thats adopted british law.0
-
I'm sure the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and many others would agree with you :rolleyes: British justice - the best justice money can buy.InTheTrees wrote: »If i'm going to get arrested in a foreign country I'd much rather get arrested in a country thats adopted british law.0 -
PatsytheNazi wrote: »I'm sure the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and many others would agree with you :rolleyes: British justice - the best justice money can buy.
Oh I agree. Miscarriage of justice isnt confined to France. And I think we know about british abuse of power and injustice in ireland (and england).
But honestly would you rather be arrested in Australia or Brazil?
We even kept their system after independence so that tells you something.0 -
PatsytheNazi wrote: »I'm sure the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and many others would agree with you :rolleyes: British justice - the best justice money can buy.
10 wrongfully convicted, while the people who knew the real bombers and could therefore have got their cases reviewed, were pretending to campaign for their release.
Is that Republican justice?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Modernisation.
- Spread of democracy.
- Utilization of previously unused land.
- Reduced the population density in Europe.
- Opened up new markets for European traders.
- Spread European technology to other parts of the world.
- Made previously unattainable or scarce resources suddenly usable.
The modernisation and technology were introduced for the benefit of the colonists, not the native population. Likewise the utilisation of unused land. The resources were exploited with little benefit accruing to the colonised nations.
As for Democracy - this was usually mentioned in the speech before getting the plane back to the seat of Empire. Its hardly suprising many have never taken the idea entirely seriously.Iwasfrozen wrote: »I doubt Indigenous Australians would be happier without modern technology.
These are people who were listed as part of the flora and fauna, and were not granted actual citizenship until 1974....your analysis is childish in the extreme.Iwasfrozen wrote: »What problems? These problems are only an African phenomenon.
The middle east, an area you may have heard of, had its borders drawn up by foriegn powers as well.0 -
Advertisement