Well, it became something they had no choice about. They had no business TAKING it in the first place. They need to get out of Africa too, probably. Damned bloody English. They just gotta try and conquer everything those guys.
Aww hey :( you are talking as if this is how we are currently and it isnt :( I have heard Americans say this kind of thing before.. and it always gets nasty :( but the point you seriously need to remember, and i mean this respectfully, is that the empire was a long time ago. YES we did wrong but please, please remember we KNOW that.. and we have tried to make up for it.. there are NO excuses here but please bear in mind the following..
Brits were NOT the only ones doing this.. the Dutch, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Germans ALL had empires too.. that doesn't make it right but how come we only ever here England being slated :(
This was a long time ago as i say.. it started hundreds of years ago.. in a different time.. as i say when ALL were doing it.. that doesn't make it ok but it was a conquering time.. when people really didn't seem to know better
the Indians and most of the rest of the countries we invaded, raped and took advantage of have MOSTLY forgiven us.. many will point to good things that came out of it too.. yes we did wrong.. but if THEY can forgive us, work with us and respect us WHY do other nations seem to bang on about it?
WE the people of the UK at that time had NO say.. most of us were poor, and servants ourselves.. most of these decisions were never put to the people, most of us had no power no say and aristocrats who were rich and powerful controlled the people here as much as they controlled other lands
The *invaders* were successful MOSTLY because they bought off and negotiated with the people in these countries they invaded.. so it wasnt like we did it all on our own.. to a large extent all these countries were partially got under control/part of the empire because they were SOLD OUT by their own people.. none of this is ok but they SHOULD take some of the blame for their greed.. MANY natives got very rich from the empire too...
Sadly even in countries which were not made into empires by other countries still face this problem where the rich get richer at the poor's expense and their slavery..
WE got out of it a long time ago.. mostly we handed countries back because WE wanted to.. because it was the right thing to do...we KNEW that.. Those who want to criticise need to KNOW that many of these countries didnt want to be handed back!! Indeed that caused more and trickier negotiaions than anyhting..
MANY if not most of these countries we DID do wrong by CHOSE to join the commonwealth. they chose to. they were free.. they didnt have to but they choose to keep those connections.. you have to ask why? if it were as bad as that for MOST why would they want that? Point is they forgave us a long time ago and know that their own people would still have exploited them without us.. and indeed that still happens round the world.. by their own admission countries like Pakistan and India have a LOT of corruption.. arguably this is one of the weaknesses that caused them being so susceptible to being made into the empire..
WE actually send more aid, more trade and more support to countries such as INdia etc than anyone else.. maybe it's right we do. maybe we DO owe them.. but we ARE trying.. and its often UK organisations that are there now supporting poor, trying to retrain and rescue girls forced into prostitution, trying to change child bride marriages,... so yea we owe them but please DONT make out that we haven't learned and haven't changed..
If we hadn't changed we WOULD still hold those countries.. most of them were given back.. negotiated back.. we didnt try to fight for them.. NOR should we have..
OUR country is actually, factually way more inclusive and far less racist than erm some other countries I would mention.. and that's written into the law it's illegal to be or say anything racist here..
We have HIGH populations of many of these countries that were part of the empire.. so many are here and why would they be here? Because they dont hate us...
People NEED to remember too.. that while WE in the UK are no longer empire mongers... there are ahem some countries that are actively raping other countries and continents of their wealth and their resources.. poluting and poisoning.. Rich powerful countries that are taking in order to make themselves richer while leaving the natives of that country poorer.. Clearly tho those countries that remain nameless here don't see that they are actively still DOING what we stopped doing a long time ago.. just cos they don't call it an empire..
NO excuses as i say.. just trying to explain.. what you read what you are taught.. isn't the whole story.. just a very simplified versions.
That's a very strange question. If you think about it it makes no sense whatsoever. :) Some people here couldn't find it on a map. Some wouldn't know that it was once part of the British Empire, and some wouldn't know there was a British Empire. Almost none will know in detail how India was run, what effects that had globally and why the country eventually gained independence.
Since I was born after independence, I never 'had' India in any way - with the exception of exposure (outside a test match) to various cultures from that part of the world. That has in itself been a very good thing, although I like almost no Indian foods.
The old idea of Empire is long dead and I think I can speak for the majority who live here when I say it's not missed. How can you miss what you've never had? No nation now has the manpower, technology or military capacity to achieve anything similar as things currently stand. Nor would global politics allow it. Add in the fact that it wouldn't be profitable either (the ultimate decider if land is worth grabbing) and it is easy to see that the breakup of geographical empires during the 20th century was an inevitability and Britain got out just in time.
To say that Britain "got out" somehow implies a sentiment of voluntary retreat. And not of being pushed out. Also in view of the dogged presence in Ireland and in Argentina!! of the English, and the obvious expansions of Russia and China, I think your dismissal of the whole empire concept in modern times, is a little off.
'Voluntary retreat' is an interesting concept. The UK government knew after WW2 that the Empire as it stood could not be run as it had, for the simple reason that the UK was essentially bankrupt. Pressure was certainly applied to the UK after WW2 by the US to relinquish the geographical empire - rather a fait accompli rather than anything we might recognise as a negotiation.
So while pressure was applied, there was no appetite for anything much after '45 that could be considered 'continuation' of empire. A few Tory types and wives of senior civil servants rattled on about it for a while but if you didn't read the Telegraph, the Times or the Daily Mail nobody really noticed.
The idea of empire simply wasn't viable any more, and I would stand by my assertion that it is no longer viable today - for any nation. Geopolitics has changed among the larger powers, and I think we would agree that is a good thing. :)
You can go ahead a stand as much as you want to, I'm pretty certain that more than a handful of Irishmen, Argentinians, Ukranians, and many of the Inhabiants of the Chinese South sea, may tend to disagree with your appreciations on modern day colonialism. Oh, and by the way, for a government with little appetite for dominance, the Bitish surely beat down on a lot of heads while waking to get some salt.
That's fair enough, though I would say such an observation is of limited worth historically. The vast majority of people negatively affected by elements of what might be called 'empire' are long dead. In no sense have I attempted to paint the British Empire as a fluffy wonderland of grateful natives and fawning subjects; I have merely stated that, as a governing entity, the UK left behind the idea of empire at just the right socio- and geo-political time.
There are, of course, left-overs. You refer to the Falklands and Ireland specifically as more modern aspects of remnants of empire, yet both present complications politically. The partition of Ireland was unfortunate from a long distance political perspective, but it should be remembered that this is still a country segregated in many ways along religious lines. It was much worse almost a century ago and there were significant fears during the early 1920s that a decision for independence would spark a civil war between Unionists and Nationalists in northern counties. The idea of, 'Go! Be free!' and happy smiles all round as an end to empire is simplistic at best - these things never end without some mess, usually as a development of events rather than direct decisions made with predictive foreknowledge.
As far as the Falklands, that's less complicated by far and I would dispute it's inclusion as an example of the UK attempting to maintain or increase it's land holdings against timid opposition. International law accepts the rule of self-determination above all else when forming alliances and the Falklands is a perfect example of this. Were Argentina to become popular on the islands and were the population to vote to ally itself with Argentina that is their absolute right. So far, they have not only not done so, but have consistently voted to remain as part of the UK by a huge majority. I have yet to hear a reasoned argument for Argentinian prerogative over the islands that does not disregard the wishes of almost the entire population.
Politics sometimes involves difficult problems and sometimes there are no solutions that are good for everyone.
Should the UK have run the risk of a nation wide vote with the issue of Ireland and risked armed uprising? Or was partition the safest way forward for the general population? It should not be forgotten that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 contained measures designed to accord all of Ireland both unification and independence (unfortunately an Act overtaken by events). This is an indication that the universal idea of politicians grimly hanging on to empire against all odds is a false one, and indeed moves by UK politicians towards Irish independence dated back to the late 19th century.
Or should the UK have agreed to an Argentinian invasion and abandoned one of the most significant parts of international law? Until the demographics change on the islands that is the only way I can see for a political solution. Yet abandonment of international law is something no politician or nation will willingly contemplate.
In short then, problems. :)
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 15, 2016 3:40 AM MST
Come on man. To say that the victims of modern day colonialism are long dead is. . I don't know ...I've already explained the fallacy of the argument. In terms of Argentina expressing its undeniable love to maintain the said alliance sort of falls when think about that little war thing they had some time ago. About the noble considerations of a colonial power in terms of.not wanting to.disrupt too badly the status quo of their protectorate for their own good is a little bit disingenuous.
Lago they got out.. it's important to understand that things like the Irish issue is NOT straight forward and that it isnt that we stayed there against their will.. it was that most of the inhabitants wanted to remain in the uk.. simple as that.. yes a minority and perhaps a minority that were more directly descended from the (more) native population wanted Brits out.. but see it's not that simple.. if most want to stay then you cannot just abandon people who were Irish too, born and bred for generations.. . that's like saying all Australians who descended from Brit settlers should get out.. it isnt that simple.. and trying to make it so does all concerned an injustice... Important to note too that a big part of the Irish issue is to do with religion... protestants are the majority in Northern Ireland and they wanted to stay.. it was little to do with what we wanted..
THat said yes we did hideously wrong to even have gone there in the first place and we treated them and many other countries we invaded appallingly.. we are NOT proud of that past.. but please don't lets forget this invading conquering was a feature of pretty much every country everywhere... name one country that has not been invaded by another force that took, stole, abused and killed? Remember too that the UK also has been invaded many times itself...
I understand A, I can see how things, with time, get more and more complicated. I will think more on it. Maybe I'm being too simplistic. Thank you for responding.
Thank you for your graciousness... I do think we are ALL guilty of this.. where we feel something and tend to see it from one side... but the truth is not always black and white. there are many perspectives... we were NOT innocent here.. we DID behave appallingly.. make no mistake about that.. but none of us are snow white.. and I do get puzzled that UK always seems to get singled out.. while others are forgotten.. wasn't INdia itself also in the past an invader.. human nature can be a horrible thing.. what's worse is that you would hope we had all learned better by now but still invasions and wars over territory persist...
It's interesting that you'd say that. The bit about thinking that we have had enough time to figure this one out. I was talking to Lucia the other day about the same thing. I asked her why, with England having had so much more time to work on this than the Americans, you know the racial thing, they were still trying to get a hold of it. She mentioned that if that was the case, we would be seeing the oldest civilisations in Africa as being the model of race relations . . . Since they've had more time to work on it than anybody else. I couldn't really come up with an argument against that. So I'm thinking that the whole thing is not about national identity, but more, like you say it, a matter of human nature. Maybe if we were all exactly the same physically, we would still find a way to make others less. Good point A.
With all graciousness, I wonder how well recieved or legitimate an answer of mine would be if I prefaced it with 'they' if, for example, I was answering a question about American history, as a Briton. This is merely a point of curiosity, nothing more.
I suppose I would probably use it if I'm talking with a group of "us" about "them". I wouldn't think bad about it. Although I u.understand the subtlety of what you are saying. Sort of like saying "you people", no?
*They* formed the commonwealth cos THEY were actually not as despised and hated as you love to think.. the nations of the commonwealth had choices and they CHOOSE to be part of this. Like it or not the nations that were once part of the empire, for the most part love the UK and hold us in esteem as a part of their history which wasnt ALL bad.. Try talking to some Indians...I know many.. and i sm sorry but the commonwealth was something the nations of those countries WANTED and valued.. it was kinda sad that we turned our bck on them when we entered the EU if you ask me... now that was ill mannered on our part.. but hey the EU and their dictates prevented us from havin that trade..
If you think about the countries that we *ruled* Canada included.. most of them LIKE the Brits.. so thats where your argument falls down.. but i know none of those who spout this stuff ever even consider that..they are sooo sure that the indians hate us..sorry they dont.
It seems I have ruffled a lot of Brit feathers with that answer, That was not my intention ;-)) I know that the commonwealth have been a boon for most of the former colonies, and that it is appreciated by most members. That does not change the fact that India's independence was hard won and took a lot of effort for the Indians (is there a good single word to distinguish between American Indians('Amerinds') and Indian Indians('???'))
No worries JakobA i wasn't offended by your comment so don't worry.. it was a difficult time in the histories of both India and UK.. The point i guess that often escapes people though is that these things are never black and white...and it's often the case that while idealogically it's ALWAYS better to give back a country's independence sometimes they don't *all* want to go..there were some elements, and i utterly promise this is true, who didn't want the Brits out.. Perhaps some who profited from us being there.. Either way pretty much all of the colonies have been given back and that is without question the right thing to do.
The assertion that an oppressed people somehow loves and holds it's oppressor in high esteem I find laughable, as I do the assertion that those colonised territories (because of economic pressures) "chose" to join the English because they liked them so much.
Nah, there are always some. 'Oppressing' (even if it wasnt all that oppresive) takes a lot of manpower and support, and that usually means hiring a lot of locals and paying them good wages. That it a lot of people that have a good reason to want the power-holders to stay in power. In Iraq Saddam and the Bath party put the Sunni in that role. And there can be hundreds of other reasons for people to support the rulers. Sometimes reasoned, sometimes silly ;-))
WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH 