I see that Aldeth's topic is spiralling horribly out of topic so I'll redirect the discussion of the colonial history here. ;)

@ Morg - It wasn't a case of 'invade, make a mess of then leave' by any stretch of the imagination. What would anybody, in the Age of Discovery (as the early part of it was known) gain from such wreckless sacking? pretty much nothing, really. Far better to give them some semblance of culture so that they might become a fully fledged part of the empire with it's own defences, structure and more importantly, a taxable population. That's what we aimed for. Just look at India, which was one of our biggest colonies. It had a large population which were well under control and we were recruiting and training the population in order to form an effective fighting force (The British East/West India Companies became quite the shock troops under our leadership and successfully defended British rule in India quite a few times). The locals were hardly happy to be under British rule. India had quite a successful culture before Europeans came and made a mess of it, Portugese first, the rest closely afterwards. They did not want your culture but you choose to force it upon them. It's not like they voted to become a part of the British Empire. Also it was never the aim of the British to make any natives fullfledged citizen with all the same rights as those who live on the mainland have. After all that was the cause of the American Revolution, equall rights which the British were not exactly willing to give.

Now, from around the start of the 20th century and onwards, a few of our colonies asked for their independence, which they were given. Out from under our protective wing (and without our tax subsidies and other financial help I should add) some countries deteriorated. How can Britain be blamed for that? What else could we have done? If a colony asked for independence and the empire said "No, you'll only ruin yourselves" we would be being called tyrannical now. Oh spare me. There were numerous colonial uprisings within the British Empire and only when it was clear that the British could not supress these uprisings they retreated leaving the countries in the hands of military dictators and corrupt governments. If the British would have ever actually intended to liberate the colonies they would have included the natives in decision making and adminstration. That way the disasters of today might have been avoided.

So why were the Canadian, Australian and US governments any different? Well do you see any of the natives ruling the country today? I thought not. The same could have been said of South Africa up until Nelson Mandela became the first Black president of that country and the apartheid system was once and for all abolished.

That was hardly my point though, was it? I didn't say they welcomed us with open arms. I was replying to your idea that instead of progress, we brought destruction. I was just proving that it wasn't true and cited India as an example of a place we improved and brought progress too. That place would likely have fell into a 3rd world country without our interference. We helped build the place and turned their pathetic army into a pretty effective fighting force.

I'm not being funny, but if you really wanted to get stuck into the British empire, you're choosing the wrong whack-stick.

Oh spare me. There were numerous colonial uprisings within the British Empire and only when it was clear that the British could not supress these uprisings they retreated leaving the countries in the hands of military dictators and corrupt governments. If the British would have ever actually intended to liberate the colonies they would have included the natives in decision making and adminstration. That way the disasters of today might have been avoided. Err, like what? No, honestly, I'm not saying you're wrong as I might be way off, but besides the American revolution, how many other uprisings of note can you name? Mahatma's peaceful campaigning could hardly be called an uprising. You cited Africa as a prime example, what uprising happened there? The only one I can think of was the Zulu wars of the late 19th century, which hardly falls under a 'corrupt dictator' tag. That was a rebellious tribal leader, who was dealt with by 139 men. I'm sure the leaders at home were quaking with that one :D .

So why were the Canadian, Australian and US governments any different? Well do you see any of the natives ruling the country today? I thought not. The same could have been said of South Africa up until Nelson Mandela became the first Black president of that country and the apartheid system was once and for all abolished. Wait, hold on, are you trying to say that we installed their governments? They were quite capable of electing their own leaders. So long as we could collect their tax, we didn't really give a poo poo who they decided to have in charge.

Of course, the Yankees starting a war to stop the South seceeding isn't as despicable as British colonialism, is it?

Bah! We'll take our damn empire back, one day. Then we'll see...

I was just proving that it wasn't true and cited India as an example of a place we improved and brought progress too. That place would likely have fell into a 3rd world country without our interference. We helped build the place and turned their pathetic army into a pretty effective fighting force. The Mughal and Maratha Empires were quite powerful in its time up until their disintegration. Without the internal strife it's difficult to imagine that the British would have considered victory in India worth the costs. The British played quite brilliantly with the Indian politics to gain themselves the supremacy over that land. Also India was in a better position than the African colonies in that various smaller kings were given considerable freedom to rule the land as long as they paid their taxes.

It's true that colonialism did not allways bring destruction, just in most cases. ;)

The Maharattas and Sultans in India were not very powerful at all. British armies beat much bigger Indian armies time and again. Look up the Battle of Assaye for an example there. They basically had loads of men but didn't train them. They even took in French experts to train their armies for battle and recruited other European generals and leaders to command their troops. None of it worked, because they lacked the central structure that we could, and did, bring.

I'm by no means saying we were angels (hell no, far, far from it) but by and large we brought progress to our colonies and helped them. If we didn't we wouldn't have become the biggest empire the world has ever seen. To get that tag, you had to know how to play your cards right with your colonies.

If you really want to get stuck into us, use something like Copenhagen 1807 as an example (but even that can be argued as being an harsh but necessary step :p ).

What about the Treaty of Waitangi then, Mr British Colonial History Expert? What's your view on that wonderful piece of imperial documentation that continues to cause drama (and make plenty of money for lawyers) to this day.

If you really want to get stuck into us, use something like Copenhagen 1807 as an example (but even that can be argued as being an harsh but necessary step ). Yeah, but the danes never took it that bad compared to what the Germans did to them some fifty years later ;)

What do you want me to say about that? From what little I know there, it's just a signed treaty that's been misinterpreted by various people and got spiraled out of control. It's insignificant in todays world anyway, really.

I'm afraid I don't know much about all that. If loads of life's weren't lost in battles, I'm afraid I'm a bit sketchy. Rather bloodthirsty and macabre of me really.

It's insignificant in todays world anyway, really. You pompous clown! :p It might be insignificant to ivory tower imperialists like you, but it's still a major factor in race relations in New Zealand in the 21st century, so it's not insignificant for everyone.

And we certainly had land wars in New Zealand in the 19th century. Not sure if they met your body count threshold for attention, but I'm sure the people who were killed in them thought they were pretty bloody.

On the other hand, if the British hadn't conned the Maori into letting them take over New Zealand, I wouldn't be here, so I guess the Empire contributed at least one good thing to the world...... ;)

The same sort of huboo that the Australians kicked up about their independence? You know the one, where they moaned and moaned so we gave them a national poll and they chose to stay part of the commonwealth. Independence is overrated :lol:

You're better off with us anyway mate. By the sounds of it, that Treaty was an absolute masterstroke :lol:

What about the Treaty of Waitangi then, Mr British Colonial History Expert? What's your view on that wonderful piece of imperial documentation that continues to cause drama (and make plenty of money for lawyers) to this day. What about it? What would you like to discuss? The bit that was lost in translation?


Anyway, complaints baout the British Empire are futile, because what was the alternative?

Independance was not an option for any country. France, germany, Portugal, Spain, Russia, all were sniffing round for other places to dominate. Japan, even Holland.

If not a British colony, you could be a German or French one. Potato Potarto.

Oh yeah, we'd all be French in New Zealand if it wasn't for a freak storm that blew Dumont D'Urville off course and let James Cook arrive here before him. Not sure why Britain was so keen on taking over New Zealand though. What was the point of bothering? Was it all just a pride thing? They can't have made any money out of it.

Nope, but we got some good opponents for Rugby. Notice how all the colonies are good at our sports? Well, there's an advantage for you right there. If the French had colonised, you'd all be playing petanque.

Praise us :D

And you'd all be in touch with your feminine side ;) .

Yeah, but the danes never took it that bad compared to what the Germans did to them some fifty years later thats cause when the english bombed us and stole our navy, we where the first town to be rocket bombed. hurrah for us ;)

I was just proving that it wasn't true and cited India as an example of a place we improved and brought progress too. That place would likely have fell into a 3rd world country without our interference. We helped build the place and turned their pathetic army into a pretty effective fighting force @Barmy: :bs: I got two words for you...Jallianwala Bagh...

Some interesting reading... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh)

British Raj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj)

Here's some choice quotes:

By 1942, Indians were divided over World War II, as the British had unilaterally and without consultation entered India into the war. The stories of the Azad Hind movement and its army that came to public attention during the trials of soldiers of the INA in 1945, were seen as so inflammatory that, fearing mass revolts and uprisings — not just in India, but across its empire — the British Government forbade the BBC to broadcast their story[4]. Newspapers reported at the time a summary execution of INA soldiers held at Red Fort</ref>[5]. During and after the trial, mutinies broke out in the British Indian Army, most notably in the Royal Indian Navy; these found public support throughout India, from Karachi to Bombay and from Vizag to Calcutta.

These revolts, faced by the weakened post-war Raj, coupled with the fact that the faith in the British Indian Armed forces had been lost, ultimately shaped the decision to end the Raj.[6] By early 1946, all political prisoners had been released. British openly adopted a political dialogue with the Indian National Congress for the eventual independence of India. On August 15, 1947, the transfer of Power took place. At midnight on August 14, 1947 Pakistan (including modern Bangladesh) was granted independence. India was granted independence the following day. So yeah...prosperity and development?? :bs: I'd say you guys set us back by a couple of hundred years...

Edit: Updated some information

[ December 04, 2006, 14:19: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

Of course, the Yankees starting a war to stop the South seceeding isn't as despicable as British colonialism, is it?
Except that it never happened. The Confederate States started the Amercain Civil War at Charlestown, SC, April 1861, when they surrounded and fired on Fort Sumter.

Oh, come on Faraaz. Indians complaining about Jallianwala Bagh is the same as the Irish complaining about Bloody Sunday.

When you put it like 'unarmed people were killed' it sounds absolutely disgusting. But as is typical with these kinds of things, that's over-simplifying the matter. Many unprovoked attacks on British/European Indians, arson attacks and other incidents led up to that. Tensions were high and when a massive crowd gathered around asking for the release of some terrorists, and started getting a bit lairy, the soldiers did what they had to, to prevent an even worse incident.

Here's a letter that was presented to John-Paul II when he visited Peru...

"John-Paul II, we, Andean and American Indians, have decided to take advantage of your visit to return to you your Bible, since in five centuries it has not given us love, peace or justice. Please take back your Bible and give it back to our oppressors, because they need its moral teachings more than we do. Ever since the arrival of Christopher Columbus a culture, a language, religion and values which belong to Europe have been imposed on Latin America by force. The Bible came to us as part of the imposed colonial transformation. It was the ideological weapon of this colonialist assault. The Spanish sword which attacked and murdered the bodies of Indians by day and night became the cross which attacked the Indian soul."

A popular saying amognst black South Africans is:
"When the white man came to our country he had the Bible, and we had the land. The white man said to us, 'Let us pray'. After the prayer, the white man had the land, and we had the Bible."

I'm by no means saying we were angels (hell no, far, far from it) but by and large we brought progress to our colonies and helped them.Okay, so I'll list the places that were ****ed over by British colonialism (you'll note I don't call it 'your' colonialism, since you weren't alive when it happened), and you can list the places it helped. I have a feeling the bad will outweigh the good, but let's see.

North America -- screwed by british colonialism
India -- see above (unless you want to argue that creating a cold-war situation with nukes and all is a good thing)
Mid East -- see above
South Africa -- see above
Oceania -- see above

So, what places did british colonialism help out?

North America -- screwed by british colonialism The economic history of the United States is a story of economic growth that began with successful colonial economies and progressed to the largest industrial economy in the world in the 20th and early 21st century. With the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the nation emerged as the world's sole remaining superpower, and today, the United States plays a major role in world affairs. Recent events have served to highlight the nature of the special relationship by increasing the importance of Britain in relation to the US. Following the September 11th Attacks in New York and Washington DC, British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Washington. In a speech to the United States Congress, nine days after the attack, President Bush declared "America has no truer friend than Great Britain."

India -- see above (unless you want to argue that creating a cold-war situation with nukes and all is a good thing) India has the world's fourth largest economy in purchasing power and the second fastest growing large economy. With an active space program, India is considered an emerging superpower.

South Africa -- see above South Africa is one of the most advanced African nations with a well-developed financial, legal, communications, energy, and transport sectors; a stock exchange that ranks among the 10 largest in the world; and a modern infrastructure supporting an efficient distribution of goods to major urban centers throughout the region.

Oceania -- see above Due to a colonial based economic foundation Australia has an enviable Western-style capitalist economy with a per capita GDP on par with the four dominant West European economies. Rising output in the domestic economy, robust business and consumer confidence, and rising exports of raw materials and agricultural products are fueling the economy.

Over the past 20 years the government has transformed New Zealand from an agrarian economy dependent on concessionary British market access to a more industrialized, free market economy that can compete globally.

Mid East -- see above The mid East has been politically instable for thousands of years so how can you place that on British colonialism.

After looking at these facts how then hell can you call these countries screwed by British colonialism.

you'll note I don't call it 'your' colonialism, since you weren't alive when it happened Even if we were what gives you the right to call all British people colonial tyrants?

Over the past 20 years the government has transformed New Zealand from an agrarian economy dependent on concessionary British market access to a more industrialized, free market economy that can compete globally. Compete globally at what exactly? Rugby?

Yachting...

Sheep herding?

So we have British colonialism to thank for our global "competitiveness" in rugby, yachting, and sheep herding? Woohoo! If the French had landed here first, maybe we'd be better at soccer.....

Duffin while you set up a fine list of examples lets not forget that in all the cases (except india) the British brought the people too in addition ot the "great development". Do you see any great prosperity that the British brought the natives in Australia, New Zealand or North America for that matter? South Africa being an even finer example because there the white minority are the ones who almost exclusively have the wealth and the blacks the ones who have the poverty. So I can't possibly agree that British colonialism brought these people great progress.

India is another case, while it is indeed growing and becoming one of the most formidable economies in the world I tend to believe that it's despite of colonialism more than because of it. It's not like China has had much worse economical development recently and they were never colonized by any European nation.

Up until the industrialisation India was doing quite well, but without effective industry the Indian textile trade was completely destroyed by European industrial competition and the economy set for decline which the Europeans were more than willing to exploit.

That was a rebellious tribal leader, who was dealt with by 139 men. I'm sure the leaders at home were quaking with that one It was a valiant effort considering the odds. I'd like to see you try and charge with spears against firearms. Quite frankly most had no means to rebel against the Brittish. In India the Brittish played quite brilliantly the political game sparing them from uprisings up until the time they became independent. Most uprisings were small because there was no way for independent tribes to organize, small rebellions that the British had no trouble in crushing.

Wait, hold on, are you trying to say that we installed their governments? They were quite capable of electing their own leaders. Not directly no. The white colonists set up their own governments but never got any natives involved. Or are you perhaps suggesting that the blacks in South Africa were the ones who voted for apartheid? I didn't think so. ;)

[ December 05, 2006, 05:55: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

The economic history of the United States is a story of economic growth that began with successful colonial economies and progressed to the largest industrial economy in the world in the 20th and early 21st century. Your narrative completely and totally overlooks the fate of the peoples who were present in North America prior to European colonization. Their fate can be summed up with one word: genocide.

And genocide isn't usually a good thing for the folks on the receiving end (though as my nation's history illustrates, it can be great for the people practicing it).

And for the next three, you simply state they're doing well economically at present (hardly true of India, incidentally; the majority of the country is extraordinarily poor, rapid growth or no. To say nothing of AIDS, or relations with Pakistan, or nuclear proliferation). This is, you'll forgive my saying so, a nonsensical response. At risk of stating the obvious, areas can suffer and later recover. The fact that they recover is not a testament that they benefited from their suffering.

Furthermore, one cannot simply refer to economic statistics as though they are the only relevant information; doing so is at best woefully inaccurate, at worst dishonest.


The mid East has been politically instable for thousands of years so how can you place that on British colonialism.I didn't. I said the area was screwed over by British colonialism. I didn't say there were no other factors in the region's instability.

Put simply, the colonialism made things worse, not better.

Even if we were what gives you the right to call all British people colonial tyrants? I didn't.

The economic history of the United States is a story of economic growth that began with successful colonial economies and progressed to the largest industrial economy in the world in the 20th and early 21st century.I'm not sure what you saying here, but you may be correct. One of the driving forces behind the Revolution was that, while the American economy was beginning to prosper, British restrictions on American trade and commerce was hindering any real prosperity for the colonists themselves. As is often the case, the controling nation lives off the fat of what the colony produces at the expense of the locales.

After that though, the armies numbered 4 figures. We had 1,800 men at Concord and Lexington for example. This was not supposed to ba a "battle" in the real sense of the word. It was a "secret" operation in which the English would march to Concord and sieze a stockpile of arms and arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock. Instead, the colonists were warned in advance by a system of night riders, which included the famous Paul Revere. By the time the English force arrived in Lexington, a handfull of local militia had gathered on the town commons. The English ordered them to disband, which they did, but as they were leaving the commons, shots were fired. When the smoke had cleared several of the locals were killed (it's still unclear which side fired first).

Instead of turning back to Boston, which would have been smart, the commander of the English continued on to Concrod where the militia from the surrounding countryside was starting to form up lines. By the time the English arrived, the angry colonists were swarming in the surrounding trees along the road. After a short stay in Concord, the English began a hasty retreat back to Boston, and were fired on from the surrounding countryside almost the entire way. The orginal force would never have made it back without the timely arrival of reinforcements from Boston, which covered their retreat.

[ December 05, 2006, 08:00: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

It was a valiant effort considering the odds. I'd like to see you try and charge with spears against firearms. The Zulu's did have guns. In fact, they had more than the British did.

@ Chandos - Well, I mean you've got Bunker Hill (2400 engaged), Quebec (1200 engaged), Hubbardton (1000), Trenton (1400), Princeton (only 1200 properly engaged). I'm sure there are a couple I've forgotten about. Do you see why it might have been considered a little insignificant? Especially when compared with the likes of, Vitoria (72,000), Salamanca (52,000), Corunna (153,000), Talavera (46,000). I can see why it might have been decided that we'd concentrate on a bigger threat.

The Zulu's did have guns. In fact, they had more than the British did. Some had guns, and those were very few. While I do not know the amount of guns I'm under a very strong impression that only a select few had them. Even so, they certainly did not possess gatling guns or artillery which both were essential to warfare at the time.

Well I know and I'd be glad to tell you :D . The Zulu's had 'tens of thousands' of muskets and rifles, most of poor quality. However, they had 1200 British used Martini breech loading rifles which they had taken.

Neither force had any kind of automatic guns or artillery. There were 4500 Zulu's and 139 British soldiers (mostly Welsh).

It was just a case of brilliant defensive techniques. The Zulu's weren't, however, unorganized and they used a good, tried and tested attack technique (the "Horns").

I'm not sure where you are taking your facts but after my answer I decided to do a little wikipedia search on the subject and it does mention that the British had and used both of them in the war. Also according to the article the British needed a bit more than 139 men for victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zulu_War

EDIT: It just occured to me if we even are talking about the same thing now or are referring to some later rebellion that I'm not actually aware of?

Not at Rorke's Drift, they didn't. That's the entire Anglo-Zulu war you're looking at there in which there were 5 battles. The British used artillery at 3 of these. They didn't have artillery at either Islandlwana or Rorke's Drift. I was talking specifically about Rorke's Drift.

Also, all this 'spears and shields' stuff is really over-stated. Nearly ALL the British casualties in all 5 battles were shot, rather than stabbed. And I *mean* nearly all (at, at least 3 of the battles of the war, each and every one of the British casualties were shot, not stabbed).

Anyway even if you had gunpowder weapons and the opposition didn't you're only going to get a few shots off before the enemy is right at you. I myself would absolutely **** myself if natives were bearing down on me with spears and shields and I only had a musket for defence.

It's not like China has had much worse economical development recently and they were never colonized by any European nation.Just want point out that China was indeed colonized by some of Europe's nations. I dont know to what extend, though. IIRC, the Brits and, to a lesser degree, Germany were involved.

Yes Hong Kong was a British colony until it was officially handed over to the People's Republic of China in 1997.

Didnt Portugal also have a small area even throguh WW2?

Hong Kong :doh:

Dalveen, jap. Macau was a colony of Portugal. So sayeth Google. ;)

Just want point out that China was indeed colonized by some of Europe's nations. I dont know to what extend, though. IIRC, the Brits and, to a lesser degree, Germany were involved. True enough, but two small islands in the big landmass that is China does not mean all that much really, they were both more like trading posts to guarantee the British and Portugese intrests in Chinese trade. China basically was smacked around by Germany, France, Japan, Russia, Britain and France ifor a good part of the 19th century. Brought quite some devastation to the country. Not that it was anything special, China is a country which has been united and torn apart more times in history than I can really even count. ;)

Oh, come on Faraaz. Indians complaining about Jallianwala Bagh is the same as the Irish complaining about Bloody Sunday.

When you put it like 'unarmed people were killed' it sounds absolutely disgusting. But as is typical with these kinds of things, that's over-simplifying the matter. Many unprovoked attacks on British/European Indians, arson attacks and other incidents led up to that. Tensions were high and when a massive crowd gathered around asking for the release of some terrorists, and started getting a bit lairy, the soldiers did what they had to, to prevent an even worse incident. @Barmy: Locking the gates and opening fire on unarmed women and children is over-simplification?? Mate, if that is your attitude, I don't even know if we can actually discuss these things. However, I will guarantee you one thing. You will not find a single Indian who thinks the British were anything BUT bad news in India...

I know for a fact there are STILL some very anti British folks here in India to this day, especially the older generation.

Also, you haven't commented on the fact that India was entered into the second World War even though we were not actively involved in any way to begin with...the term Cannon Fodder comes to mind..if you still maintain that all of this was for the benefit of India then I have just lost a lot of respect for England...

Locking the gates and opening fire on unarmed women and children is over-simplification?? Do you realize the events that led up to that incident? Unprovoked attacks on innocent people. Oops, that kind of messes up the idea that you've been doctored to believe. (Let's just gloss over that... *whistle*... MURDERERS!) Much better for yourself like that, no? :)

I know for a fact there are STILL some very anti British folks here in India to this day, especially the older generation. Not that anti-British to not come over in their droves though, eh? :p

Also, you haven't commented on the fact that India was entered into the second World War even though we were not actively involved in any way to begin with...the term Cannon Fodder comes to mind..if you still maintain that all of this was for the benefit of India then I have just lost a lot of respect for England... You were part of the Empire. If Britain was involved, then India was too. I don't really understand this one. Do you think that if the Germans succeeded in dominating the whole of Europe, they would have left the rest of the world to their own devises? Hitler was a complete and utter nut job and wanted control of the world. India got it's independence after that anyway, so I don't know what there is to complain about :p .

I can see why you have the views that you do, but you have to see the other side of things too. I doubt there's a single civilian anywhere in the world who thinks "Ah, I'm glad we got invaded by such-and-such". Nobody will think that, every member of every country in the world thinks that they would have been fine on their own. It's called pride, everyone has it. It's not true though.

1 question - Do you understand what happened in the Peninsula Wars very well? Do you know what the French did to the civilians and innocents in Portugal and Spain? If you don't, then I suggest we do as you say and drop this one mate. It's probably not worth either of our time.

Fair enough...we agree to disagree...

Quite a patronizing tone you have there BA. While you are quite correct about that no one likes to be invaded I'm not quite convinced that invasion has brought anyone any good in the long run. Progress can be quite well achieved as an independent nation too, I've yet to see good examples of progress brought by force. While I'm not an expert in the colonial rule over India I do know about the states before that and they were not all that backward. They were not industrialized sure and the British most certainly did bring some industry to the area but on the other hand neither was Japan and they sure managed to develop on their own.

In any case I wonder what makes you think that your views are less covered with pride than those of Faraaz?

They were not industrialized sure and the British most certainly did bring some industry to the area but on the other hand neither was Japan and they sure managed to develop on their own. Do you mean when they imported foreign advisors to help, or when the Americans rebuilt after WW2?

Of course they used foreign expertise. It would have been impossible for them to develop industry from scratch. Perhaps I was not completely clear on that one. I'm not proposing that Europe had no part in it, what I'm saying is that they were able to decide it by themselves and did the industrialization by themselves too. Japan was also a major power allready before WWI so I fail to see what Americas rebuilding of Japan has to do with anything. Except of course you mean that they got democracy, which is certainly true. British rulership over its colonies however had very little to do with democracy.

@Morg: In some cases, there just isn't any point arguing...

The argument, after wading through the bumf, is "They would have been fine on their own".

This may be true, it may be true. Who knows? Nobody can know. All people are saying is that the majority of British colonies were more advanced after, than before.

If you want to slap empires, get stuck into the Romans (who used slavery to a MASSIVE scale), the Persians (who killed and slaughtered), the Mongols (who killed and slaughtered an took slaves), the French (who ravaged Spain and Portugal beyond belief), the Spanish (who were probably the most religiously intolerant people of their age) etc. etc. etc. May as well leave Britain alone, as the British empire abolished slavery, were mostly religiously tolerant and allowed colonies to rule themselves to a large degree. Angels? No, of course not. The worst? Hell no.

I'll say it again, you're *really* choosing the wrong people if you want to slag off empires etc.

You do agree though, that we would have been fine on our own?

I don't know. Who knows? Who knows if any of the major empires colonies would have been fine on their own? There's no way of knowing or telling really.

The fact is though, if Britain hadn't won the war for India (we had a fight with the French about it) then someone else would have come along and claimed the place. India's army at the time was very very poor. If it wasn't Britain, then France, Spain or whoever else would have taken the place.

Unfortunately, back in those days it was the lot of weak countries (you understand I use this term in military terms) to be conquered by stronger nations. Britain would be French owned now were it not for our strong military, ruthlessness and clever diplomacy. It was just the way of things.

Which is not to say that it was the right way of things?? Just saying "someone else was bound to have done it eventually" does not let England off the hook!

As I said I'm not really lashing out against British colonialism in particular, just against colonialism in general, and I can't really agree that the system brought prosperity to the countries where it was implicated. In most places the natives were completely pushed aside by the colonials who took over the power and the government and reaped the profits. Later came the "white mans burden" to bring civilization to these "backward" countries including christianity and western culture. Which really was a very shortsighted way of thinking and completely disregarded any value in the native culture. Imperialism or cultural imperialism are idelogies that I really can not agree with under any circumstances and I have very difficult time in believing that they brought any progress that could not have been achieved by the countries themselves. Not to mention the genocide of the American natives (more or less unintentional through diseases but it's not like the Europeans shed much tears because of it).

As for why not criticize other empires simply because we have none to defend these really. The only ones here defending their colonial mastery are British so I think it's quite obvious why we're predominantly debating about the good and bad brought by British colonialism.

However there are plenty of countries whose actions bother me a lot more. It's quite disgusting that in Brussels you can see statues of Leopold II a man who in his personal colony had going on one of the largest genocides in human history with highest estimates reaching up to 30 million dead, numbers that make guys Hitler look like lightweighters.

*sigh* My point Faraaz is that India could (and probably would) have been subjected to much worse under the wing of Spain or France.

The Spanish would have tried to 'purge' the 'heathens' and would likely have gone on about killing all those who didn't convert to Christianity. They even tried to invade Britain and Holland because those countries weren't devout enough (that was comical actually, the Spanish invaded the Holland and Britain sent soldiers over to help the Dutch... we just can't help interfering!). India was far better being conquered by a country who couldn't really give a flying poo-poo about religion.

When the Spanish natives rebelled against French domination (and the British helped them... we weren't all bad!), the French army used a war of terror to try and subdue the locals. They would ride into a town, kill the men and children, rape the women and burn everything in hopes that this would quell any more rebellions. The British went around equipping and training the locals and giving them aid where possible, whilst we won the big battles (Fuentes de Onoro, Talavera, Cuidad Rodrigo, Badajoz etc. etc.).

Basically what I'm saying is that India would have been conquered anyway and Britain was surely the 'lesser of the evils', so to speak.

Pretty cavalier way of referring to Britain's evils in India mate! But no, you are right..we are not accomplishing anything by this discussion, so we might as well agree to just disagree...

Reading that post would lead anyone to believe that only the French and the Spanish have blood on their hands. Wake up! Colonial wars were waged for world supremacy and colonial powers didn't give a $%§! about the people they subdued, killed or used as pawns to fight their enemies.

Remember the Boers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#The_concentration_camps
I won't even mention India since I don't know the history of this country that well (nevertheless the Amritsar/Jallianwala Bagh Massacre naturally comes to mind).

There is no "good guys" and colonial powers were all greedy and bent on getting as much as they could out of the locals, saying that the British were "better" or were a "lesser evil" is either naive or the expression of some misplaced nationalistic pride...

They even tried to invade Britain and Holland because those countries weren't devout enough (that was comical actually, the Spanish invaded the Holland and Britain sent soldiers over to help the Dutch... we just can't help interfering!) The duchy of Burgundy (which owned at the time the current area of the Benelux countries) was inherited by the Habsburgs of Austria in the late 14th century and in the Habsburg wedding the Spanish and Austrian lands were united under one ruler in Vienna, this was broken with the abdication of Emperor Charles II who divided the the Empire and gave parts of the then Austria controlled lands to Spain, including the Netherlands. Anyway the point of this small background story is that the Netherlands were never (neither was Britain btw unless I'm very badly mistaken) attacked for religious reasons, it was allways a question of politics. The Spanish wanted to hold their domination over the Netherlands which they had gained by legal inheritance and Britain wanted to undermine the power of the increasingly weak and bankrupt Spain even further, claiming that it was a question of religion is simply false. It was all pure politics.

Also by the time India was conquered by Britain, the Spanish Empire was growing weaker with internal strife, there is no way they could have spared the military to strike India. The only ones with relaistic possibilites for that were the French and the British.

The Spanish would have tried to 'purge' the 'heathens' and would likely have gone on about killing all those who didn't convert to Christianity You are showing a very one sided view of the Spanish colonialism here. While the Spanish conquest of America could be said to have followed those paths, it in general was not very different from the British rule in northern Africa, especially Marocco. They were not converting people there by the tip of the sword, I don't know where you get that from but it's simply wrong. Marocco was not an ideal colony and was in many ways worse off than most British colonies and was additionally wery unrestful the Spanish economy being completely unable to support any development, but forced conversions and inquisitions were not the policies anymore at that era by any European nation, and not knowing this shows your lack of understanding in non-British colonial rule.

[ December 07, 2006, 18:47: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

Reading that post would lead anyone to believe that only the French and the Spanish have blood on their hands. Wake up! Colonial wars were waged for world supremacy and colonial powers didn't give a $%§! about the people they subdued, killed or used as pawns to fight their enemies.Of course the wars were waged for world supremecy. Why the hell else would you invade and conquer? For the laugh? As a dare? Also, actually, most wars of that day were waged for the control of trade routes.

Remember the Zulus or the Boers? I won't even mention India since I don't know the history of this country that well (nevertheless the Amritsar massacre comes to mind).Err.. what about them? They were rebellions. Just like the Jacobites, Welsh under Owain and others. What do you want to say about them?

There is no "good guys" and colonial powers were all greedy and bent on getting as much as they could out of the locals, saying that the British were "better" or were a "lesser evil" is either naive or the expression of some misplaced nationalist pride...Who's talking about anyone being good guys? I've made a point in most of my posts here to point out that Britain were guilty of many things, just like the majority of nations. My descriptions of other atrocities by other empires was to show that the British alone weren't the big bad bullies in the playground (as was being portrayed).

Really pal, you should read through what I wrote before you start jumping up and down, as it's evident there that you haven't.

The Spanish wanted to hold their domination over the Netherlands which they had gained by legal inheritance and Britain wanted to undermine the power of the increasingly weak and bankrupt Spain even further, claiming that it was a question of religion is simply false. What I meant was, religion was the reason given to the people, as was the case when the Armada sailed to invade Britain. They even had hundreds of priests on the ships. The whole reason behind most 'religious' wars was politics, just like the Crusades etc.

What I meant was, religion was the reason given to the people, as was the case when the Armada sailed to invade Britain. They even had hundreds of priests on the ships. The whole reason behind most 'religious' wars was politics, just like the Crusades etc. EDIT: (quite a lot of edit)

I really should not make claims about the causes of war before reading enough on the subject. Now that I read it it's true that Spain was after the English crown and wanted to invade England. Also there was the papal blessing which can count as a symbol of crusades but still the causes were mostly political and the resentment between the two countries were quite equal at the time.

EDIT2 @Barmy below

Yes I think I understand what you're saying now and I can agree with the most part but this is getting quite offtopic now.

[ December 07, 2006, 19:00: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

I was illustrating that even wars that seem wholly religiously motivated were basically about politics, not comparing the two.

Spain had no means to conquer England? That was the idea of it, that's why the ships they sent were filled up with foot soldiers. They intended to invade, not just defeat our navy. Sure, the piracy against their merchant ships was a contributory factor, as was the fact that we helped their enemies in war. But they came over here with the intention of invading, which is why they were bringing thousands of foot soldiers. They got in a naval fight because Queen Elizabeth gathered nearly our entire navy and went to meet them (we won that one mostly on luck, let me tell you... of course, our more maneuverable ships and better leadership helped, but luck was the main reason!)

Sorry for resurrecting this topic, but what would be wrong with the Irish being a little pissed off at 'Bloody Sunday', Barmy? Unarmed protesters were shot dead by foreign paratroopers.

There was apparently a shot from the protesters before any action from the paras. It's very difficult for the peace-keepers in tense situations like that. They can quite easily escalate.

You may think it was justified, I however do not. We are still cleaning up the mess in which N.Ireland was left in and we are slowly but surely catching up with ROI.

All I will say on the subject is that had we (Ireland) been given the choice, we would never have accepted anything but Irish rule.

All NI people agree with that, do they? ;)

Of course the descendants of the Protestant Planters love British rule and they are the ones still oppressing the Irish language.