Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

Quote: Britain must stop apologising for its colonial past and recognise that it has produced some of the greatest ideas in history, Gordon Brown has declared.

The Chancellor called for the "great British values" - freedom, tolerance, civic duty - to be admired as some of our most successful exports.

He used a visit to one of Britain's former East African colonies and one of the strongholds of the campaign against 'white imperialism' to make an unabashed pitch for a return to patriotism.


Mr Brown wants to make it acceptable again to talk about Britishness after the term was widely discredited by Left-wing critics and social commentators.

In Tanzania, on the third day of his four-nation African tour, the Chancellor made a discreet dawn visit to Dar es Salaam's small Commonwealth cemetery where he laid a wreath in honour of fallen servicemen.

Surrounded by the impeccably tended graves of more than 300 soldiers of the Empire, Mr Brown said Britain no longer had to make excuses for its record. as a colonial power.

The small plot administered by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was deserted when Mr Brown, in a dark suit and tie and accompanied only by a couple of aides, paused alone before the Cross of Remembrance.

Mr Brown recalled the sacrifices made by British and Tanzanian volunteers, many of whom fell in long forgotten battles with the Germans in the First World War.

Speaking to the Daily Mail he said: "I've talked to many people on my visit to Africa and the days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial history are over. We should move forward.

Brown: 'We should celebrate much of our past'

"We should celebrate much of our past rather than apologise for it.

"And we should talk, and rightly so, about British values that are enduring, because they stand for some of the greatest ideas in history: tolerance, liberty, civic duty, that grew in Britain and influenced the rest of the world.

"Our strong traditions of fair play, of openness, of internationalism, these are great British values."

Dar es Salaam was for years a base for the African National Congress in its war against apartheid in South Africa and was a haven for activists against white colonialism.

Mr Brown chose to display his enthusiasm for Britain's achievements ahead of his last stop in South Africa, whose government is an outspoken critic of colonialism and has used attacks on former colonial powers as a way of distracting attention from its own difficulties.

Last week President Thabo Mbeki caused a storm when he launched an aggressive assault on the British Empire's record in Africa in general, and Sir Winston Churchill's part in it in particular.

Speaking to the Sudanese assembly in Khartoum, he said that British imperialists such as Churchill travelled to South Africa and the Sudan "doing terrible things wherever they went".

Long-term aim to reduce debt burden

Mr Brown's final day in Tanzania brought him in close contact with further examples of extremes of African poverty, as he talked up his long-term project for relieving the debt burden faced by some of the world's poorest countries.

The Chancellor was taken on a tour of Dar es Salaam's markets where he walked through piles of rubbish past stallholders selling bananas and rice.

Afterwards Mr Brown talked emotionally about the importance to him of his first visit to sub-Saharan Africa by revealing that his wife Sarah was born in Tanzania and spent her first seven years there.

Mr Brown said his passion for promoting the cause of Africa was developed by his father John, a Church of Scotland minister who had close links with missionaries bringing tales of their work home to Scotland when Mr Brown was a boy.

Mr Brown has announced that British taxpayers will take on debt payments worth more than £1billion for up to 70 of the world's poorest countries.

He has also used his visit to launch an ambitious 10-year plan to fund the discovery of an Aids vaccine.

Last night he arrived in Mozambique, and will travel on to South Africa today for meetings of the Commission for Africa set up by Tony Blair.

Source

Tell you what, if Gordy manages to oust Tony, I might just be persuaded to vote Labour..... :shock:

[Eonve]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: to Mr. Brown. way too many people choose to blame all their troubles on the past colonialism without doing anything to improve their present. Britain has civilized half of the world and should be praised for that.

[ET Brit]

thundertaker wrote:

Tell you what, if Gordy manages to oust Tony, I might just be persuaded to vote Labour..... :shock:

:shock: You think Tony is 'oustable'???? I thought he was super-glued to his little throne.

[Das Uberdog]

From people that I've spoken to, it sounds to me as though there's widespread support for Brown.

I know who I prefer - though patriotism is not my cup of tea personally, Brown takes the biscuit for me. My only regret would be that we'd lost the best Chancellor of the Exchequer that we've had in a long while.

[Kalu]

Quote: The Chancellor called for the "great British values" - freedom, tolerance, civic duty - to be admired as some of our most successful exports.
What a load of rubbish. "Freedom" is a British value that was brought to the "Dark Continent." HAH! Freedom is a value admired and sought after by all peoples. The British didn't "discover" it and then "teach" it to the "savages." In fact, Britain's past in Africa is highly condemnable for destroying freedom and implanting tyrannical governors, stripping indigenous populations of their status as humans in the eyes of the British. "Tolerance"? That's a British value that- again- was exported to the "savages"? Hm, let's see, after calling indigenous populations in Africa "darkies", designating a subhuman status for them and subjugating Africa's people (along with the other European colonial powers), you tell me that's a British export? Nevermind the Indian subcontinent and countless other parts of the world where the British exported "tolerance." :roll: Everything about that quote reeks of colonial arrogance- like the world was some place filled with savagery before the "noble" British conquerors and evangelical missionaries expelled it (despite all the evidence to the contrary- slavery, genocide, racism, segregation, the uprooting of entire cultures, etc.)

Quote: Mr Brown said Britain no longer had to make excuses for its record. as a colonial power.

Yes, no more excuses. Let's see some damn help for the peoples and cultures that were pissed on during and even after colonialism.

Quote: Speaking to the Daily Mail he said: "I've talked to many people on my visit to Africa and the days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial history are over. We should move forward.

Move forward and not forget the grave and reprehensible actions committed in such places as the Indian subcontinent, Africa and so on.

I am encouraged by the last part of that article (debt relief) as it is a small part in trying to fix the lasting effects of colonialism and slavery. Britain and the European powers cannot be blamed directly for what continues to this day in Africa and other places occupied by the Europeans, but the fact remains that the legacy of colonialism cannot be forgotten as it's effects can still be seen today (arbitrary borders, uprooting of cultures, divisionism, etc.) especially since colonialism has only ended recently after centuries of destruction.

Quote: to Mr. Brown. way too many people choose to blame all their troubles on the past colonialism without doing anything to improve their present. Britain has civilized half of the world and should be praised for that.

Why are so many troubles blamed on colonialism? Because it's effect has not dissapeared!

And to say that Britain has "civilized half of the world" is downright racist, following the theme of Kipling's "The White Man's Burden." The fact remains that whatever technological advances Britain or other European powers may have "brought" to "savage places" is far undone by the fact that entire cultures were damaged in the process of colonization. Slavery, racism, segregation, oppression, taking away land from indigenous populations, promoting arrogance and "racial superiority", promoting divisionism between and within ethnic groups, creating arbitrary borders and intervening in the affairs of various nations even after they have been freed from the brutality of colonization is not what I'd consider "civilizing" in manner.

Also, one forgets this simple fact too:

You claim the British exported so much to "dark places." What about what was taken from these places? Hm? The markets, resources, architecture, influences in art, music, food, etc.

It is very sad to see that colonial mentalities still exist. No, you should not kill yourself because of your country's deplorable past, but you should realize that no amount of apologizing will make up for what was done and that saying "let's just move on" is not enough. You should realize why there are so many problems in these countries and what contributed to these problems and even created them: colonialism.

[Eton]

Quite right Devaka, couldn't add anything more to that.

[thundertaker]

Rudolf wrote: Quite right Devaka, couldn't add anything more to that.

Hello Eton...... :roll:

I have never claimed that the British Empire was an entirely benovolent institution, or that bad things did not happen in it's name. But you have to realise that often, the native rulers of the indiginous peoples were often far worse than the British when they cam along.
Read about Shaka, King of the Zulus, an abomnible tyrant, responsible for the death of millions, who had a member of every family in his kingdom murdered when his mother died, so that they could 'share his pain' or the Mughal emperors, who had their enemies eaten alive by tigers or had their genitals ripped off by strong men.
These places were rife with poverty, tribal warfare and despotism long before we arrived. But when you look at India today, it is the world's largest democracy, with the best civil service in the world. It would not have had these were it not for the fact that these were institutions introduced by the British.
Although in it's early days, the British Empire was one of the greatest exponents of the slave trade, from the early 19th century onwards, it did more than any other nation to stamp out this evil, by intercepting slave ships bound for the americas and bullying other nations into signing treaties promising to end the practice. This fact is often forgotten by leftists who hate the Empire instinctually.
As for Africa today, we were not there long enough to modernise the countries as we were India, and when we left, most of them sunk back to their old ways of tribal warfare, tyranny, genocide and corruption, for which the same african leaders responsible for this have the gall to blame Britain's colonial legacy for.

I suggest you both read more about the Empire before waffling off about something you do not understand. I reccomend Prof Niall Ferguson's book 'Empire: How Britain made the Modern World'.

[Kalu]

Quote: But you have to realise that often, the native rulers of the indiginous peoples were often far worse than the British when they cam along.

Wrong yet again. Indigenous populations were guided by democratic principles. After suffering from repression, many overthrew autocratic leaders and democratic institutions arose. I suggest you look up the kingdom of Ashanti. Or Mali. Or Ufipa. Or the Gikuyu, etc. etc.

When the British came, they installed tyrannical and racist governors. They destroyed these fundamental democratic principals by taking away the rights of indigenous populations. Colonialism was far, far from a benevolent institution and no, the indigenous populations weren't being "liberated" from oppressive rulers, rather subject to a new form of tyranny.


Quote: Read about Shaka, King of the Zulus, an abominable tyrant, responsible for the death of millions, who had a member of every family in his kingdom murdered when his mother died, so that they could 'share his pain' or the Mughal emperors, who had their enemies eaten alive by tigers or had their genitals ripped off by strong men.

Read about how the British used machine guns on the Zulus (to test the guns' effectiveness out, of course), or read about the Sika Dwa of Ashanti. How about Akbar? Read about him too. Oh, and while you're at it, read about the repressive dictatorships installed by the British and other European colonial powers installed in various countries to continue the commercial exploitation and rape of the land.

Quote: These places were rife with poverty, tribal warfare and despotism long before we arrived. But when you look at India today, it is the world's largest democracy, with the best civil service in the world. It would not have had these were it not for the fact that these were institutions introduced by the British.

Are you kidding me?! The whole notion of tribal warfare and "primordial ethnic hatreds" is a myth often perpetuated by those seeking to cover up the horrible stain of colonialism. Many democratic kingdoms existed in Africa before the British arrived, with many ethnic groups cooperating together. When the British and other Europeans arrived, divisionism was promoted (ever heard the phrase, "divide and rule"?) The effects can still be seen today.

Example: before the British arrived in Sri Lanka, the Tamils and Sinhalese got along just fine. Then the British arrived, installed the Tamils and other minorities to be used as their subordinates in colonial government, and promoted ethnic tensions. After the British leave, guess what happens? Right, civil war that continues to this day. There are many other examples of this, seen in Nigeria, Ghana, etc.

The whole notion that the British "civilized" the governments of indigenous populations and that the "darkies" are only fighting because of ancient hatreds is absolutely ridiculous. I would direct you to read Basil Davidson's The Black Man's Burden about Africa and the curse of the Nation-State. It would do you well. :roll:

Quote: Although in it's early days, the British Empire was one of the greatest exponents of the slave trade, from the early 19th century onwards, it did more than any other nation to stamp out this evil, by intercepting slave ships bound for the Americas and bullying other nations into signing treaties promising to end the practice. This fact is often forgotten by leftists who hate the Empire instinctually.

Who traded in slaves originally? Who exported slaves to their colonies in the Americas (along with the Spanish)? Who helped start the entire system? Yes, the British. The whole notion that Britain should be thanked for ending slavery after realizing it was a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution is like saying whites in America should be thanked for freeing the slaves from slavery after they initially subjected them to it. Also, you forget that despite ending slavery, the British continued to repress indigenous populations. One would only need to direct you to places such as Kenya where racism and intense segregation continued to exist, leaving many in a cycle of poverty, their land stripped from them and their cultural traditions being destroyed.

Yes, thank you Britain for that. :roll:

Quote: As for Africa today, we were not there long enough to modernize the countries as we were India, and when we left, most of them sunk back to their old ways of tribal warfare, tyranny, genocide and corruption, for which the same African leaders responsible for this have the gall to blame Britain's colonial legacy for.

The British and European powers promoted divisionism and ethnic hatreds. What part of that phrase do you not understand? Before the British and colonial powers arrived, many indigenous populations were doing fine. Hell, if the British and colonial powers hadn't come, the Native American population most certainly wouldn't have to suffer genocide. Before the British arrived in Somalia, greater Somalia was a land in relative peace. Then the British came, promoted ethnic divisions and now look...civil war. Look at the case of Rwanda too: Before the Belgians came to Rwanda, it was a land comprised of the Twa, Tutsi and Hutu. These groups got along fairly well, the Tutsis and Hutus spoke the same language (Kinyarwanda), shared the same beliefs, and even the borders between the two groups were porous. A poor Tutsi could "become" a Hutu and a wealthy Hutu could "become" a Tutsi and hold a high position of power. Then the Belgians came, promoted the Hamitic hypothesis (or myth, whichever you'd like to call it) which stated that Tutsis were Nilotic peoples and therefore racially superior to the Hutus who descended from Bantu-speaking peoples from the south. They promoted divisions, installed brutal Tutsi governments and then when they left there were massacres by the Hutus after having been repressed so long under the Belgian-Tutsi colonial government. And what do you know, after some time and hundreds of thousands of Tutsi exiles leaving Rwanda, there would eventually be genocide.

You are a British imperialist. Therefore by definition you are myopic to the extreme damage caused by Britain's exploitation of various colonies and indigenous populations. Before the British came, many peoples lived in relatively democratic societies, had diverse cultural traditions that supported such values as kinsmanship, freedom and so on, and had their own land. When the European colonial powers came, however, this was all pretty much destroyed. Their land was taken from them, many were massacred (Native American genocide, for example), and ethnic divisionism was promoted. Corrupt autocracies were installed in place of indigenous democratic institutions, and a cycle of poverty was created. Today, we are seeing those effects in the form of civil wars, broken governments and corruption in Africa and various other parts of the world. For you, however, to deny this and Britain's colonial past for what it is- absolutely horrific- and spew imperialistic and racist views, I have nothing to say to you other than what I posted. If you want to open your eyes, you can read a number of books on this subject, such as:

Basil Davidson- The Black Man's Burden
Howard French- A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedy and Hope of Africa
John Reader- Africa: A Biography of the Continent

[thundertaker]

Quote: Who traded in slaves originally? Who exported slaves to their colonies in the Americas (along with the Spanish)? Who helped start the entire system. Yes, the British.

I have some shocking news for you, slavery existed a long time before the British Empire. I have already stated that the British Empire was involved in the slave trade in the early days, but that later on, it was abolished, and with the zeal of a true convert, went about ensuring other empires and nations went about abolishing the institution in turn. Thus ending a tradition dating back thousands of years.

Quote: Read about how the British used machine guns on the Zulus

What, did you expect them to fight fair? British soldiers were heavily outnumbered. As the battle of Isandwala of 1879 showed, the Zulus were perfectly capable of defeating a european army armed with modern weapons.

Quote: Hell, if the British and colonial powers hadn't come, the Native American population most certainly wouldn't have to suffer genocide.

Sorry, but whatever happened after the British were kicked out in 1783 is not down to the British Empire, blame the american settlers for that.

Quote: Are you kidding me?! The whole notion of tribal warfare and "primordial ethnic hatreds" is a myth often perpetuated by those seeking to cover up the horrible stain of colonialism. Many democratic kingdoms existed in Africa before the British arrived, with many ethnic groups cooperating together. When the British and other Europeans arrived, divisionism was provided (ever heard the phrase, "divide and rule"?) The effects can still be seen today.

I've just given you the example of the Zulus under Shaka, under him, the Butelezi were almost wiped out, this was in the early 19th century, before the British arrived.

I know that the British Empire was not a wholely benevolent insititution, and that atrocities were commited, most notably the Tasmanian aboringinis who were wiped out by 1879, this is undeniable, but it is also undeniable that many people are better off today for the Empire having existed, to condemn it as a wholey evil enterprise is one-sided and wrong. It was an age of imperialism, and all the other empires I can think of where a hell of a lot worse.

I would like to see some links regarding democracy in pre-colonial societies as well, if you can provide them....

[Kalu]

Quote: I have some shocking news for you, slavery existed a long time before the British Empire. I have already stated that the British Empire was involved in the slave trade in the early days, but that later on, it was abolished, and with the zeal of a true convert, went about ensuring other empires and nations went about abolishing the institution in turn. Thus ending a tradition dating back thousands of years.

Slavery existed, right, but it didn't exist as the system the British used. In kingdoms such as Ashanti, when wars were fought, sometimes prisoners were captured and became slaves. They eventually were incorporated into the family they were serving and even married the daughters of those families. Eventually, they became regular members of society. The British and other European colonial powers, however, used slavery for pure commercial gain and upset the carefully balanced system, capturing millions of people and transporting them in cramped ships, destroying the population. When brought to the Americas, they were then given subhuman status. The British finally realized this was a morally bankrupt system and tried ending the system, after it had already dealt irreparable damages to countless African societies.

Quote: What, did you expect them to fight fair? British soldiers were heavily outnumbered. As the battle of Isandwala of 1879 showed, the Zulus were perfectly capable of defeating a european army armed with modern weapons.

When I said they used machine guns, I meant they literally tested the guns' effectiveness out on Zulus. Also, what were they doing in Zululand in the first place?

Quote: I've just given you the example of the Zulus under Shaka, under him, the Butelezi were almost wiped out, this was in the early 19th century, before the British arrived.

I know that the British Empire was not a wholely benevolent insititution, and that atrocities were commited, most notably the Tasmanian aboringinis who were wiped out by 1879, this is undeniable, but it is also undeniable that many people are better off today for the Empire having existed, to condemn it as a wholey evil enterprise is one-sided and wrong. It was an age of imperialism, and all the other empires I can think of where a hell of a lot worse.

The British did infinite more damage to African societies along with other European colonial powers than could ever be dreamt of achieving by local African rulers.

It is undeniable that many people have been ruined by the Empire. You seem to have a racist mentality that indigenous populations were savages that needed to be "civilized." This is not so. Colonization was used as a tool to exploit the resources of various places. It was not a benevolent institution. Colonialism and imperialism were not to "better" the "savages", they were systems to gain strategic locations around the globe along with resources, the effects of which were the destruction of societies, the collapse of democracies and placing indigenous populations under a subhuman status leading to a cycle of poverty, corruption, and invigorated ethnic hatreds.

Quote: I would like to see some links regarding democracy in pre-colonial societies as well, if you can provide them....

I already provided you with my sources.

Also, to add on to my previous post: You say that the British and European colonial powers introduced "democracy" to the "savages", yet you fail to realize that in many European countries, democracy didn't even exist. Europe was led by despots, autocratic dictatorships and monarchies (ie. King Leopold of Belgium).

Also, to call ethnic tensions in Africa "tribal hatreds" is like saying that the Burgundians and the French were rival tribes fighting each other due to "primordial hatreds". Same goes for the Slovaks and Czechs, the Irish and the English, etc etc.

Also, as another example of British "divide and rule" policy: One only needs to look to Iraq. After WWI, the British installed the Sunni minority as rulers of Iraq and repressed the Shia majority. Oh, look at what you have now, "tribal hatreds." :roll:

[thundertaker]

I know all about the Belgian atrocities in the Congo, and the German atrocities in East Africa and the despotism of other European Empires, good job the British grabbed a decent-sized chunk before they got their hands on it eh?

[Kalu]

thundertaker wrote: I know all about the Belgian atrocities in the Congo, and the German atrocities in East Africa and the despotism of other European Empires, good job the British grabbed a decent-sized chunk before they got their hands on it eh?

Except it was a bad job since the British did pretty much the same damn thing as the other European colonial powers. Whatever romantic images you have in your head of the "noble" British civilizing the "darkies" are pretty much false. Look at Kenya for example. The people their had their own land, the ethnic groups were in a state of relative peace (the Luo, Maasai, Gikuyu, etc.) and they had diverse cultures.

Now here comes "big daddy" Britain! And before you know it, cultural traditions are uprooted (ie. extended family living on a nice, sizeable plot of land together), all ethnic groups are forced to work, with no land of their own, and their beliefs are denied by evangelical missionaries who then proceed to divide and rule the populace. Look at Iraq. Look at India (the effects of the partition and pitting the Hindus against the Muslims can still be seen today). Look at Ghana.

Look anywhere where the British have been. Yes, railroads were created. Yes, infrastructure was built up. But the damage done to the people overall had a severely retarding effect. Proselytizing British colonial education taught indigenous children to deny their heritage. Stripping the land of resources created a culture of exploitation.

I was referring to other European empires to provide a broader scope as to why so many regions of the world are now in trouble and the cross-border aspects of colonialism that involved subjugation of indigenous populations, racism, exploitation and so on.

British colonialism was no better than the colonialism of other European powers. All forms of colonialism designated indigenous populations to subhuman status. All forms exploited the environment and the indigenous peoples. And all forms were dastardly. It's time you recognize that, accept it and stop saying that British colonialism was even semi-benevolent. It wasn't, period. The damage done was tremendous.

[thundertaker]

Quote: Now here comes "big daddy" Britain! And before you know it, cultural traditions are uprooted

Like the old Indian custom of suttee (Throwing the widow of a deceased husband onto his funeral pyre)?
I bet there are millions of Indian women who are greatful to the British for abolishing this particularly barbaric practice when they ruled over India.
This is just one of many barbaric insitutions that were done away with by the British during the empire. As a liberal who no doubt champions the cause of women's rights, how could you deny this was a positive thing?

[Kalu]

thundertaker wrote: Quote: Now here comes "big daddy" Britain! And before you know it, cultural traditions are uprooted

Like the old Indian custom of suttee (Throwing the widow of a deceased husband onto his funeral pyre)?
I bet there are millions of Indian women who are greatful to the British for abolishing this particularly barbaric practice when they ruled over India.
This is just one of many barbaric insitutions that were done away with by the British during the empire. As a liberal who no doubt champions the cause of women's rights, how could you deny this was a positive thing?
That's one custom in one culture. Besides, the British had their own barbaric institutions. How about subjugating peoples because their skin is darker? And how about instilling the barbaric institutions of mass rape of the land and reckless commercial exploitation? I'm sure hundreds of millions of people are sorry that the British exploited their lands and subjugated them to slavery and a subhuman status. That's much worse than suttee. As a liberal, I also champion the cause of human rights and am against imperalistic and racist views. :wink:

In Britain anywho, women lived under barbaric conditions too (although it may not have been as bad, corsets and no education anyone?) Also, your borderline racism is disturbing. Are you insinuating that the "darkies" were "savages" with "barbaric insitutions" and needed to be "re-educated" through the system of colonialism (even though the British had their own traditions that were backwards)? Also mind you, important cultural traditions relating to kinsmanship and so on were destroyed by the British and European colonial powers.

Besides, you've only argued one of my points. What about all the others? :roll: Also remember my main point: British colonialism may have had some benevolent side effects but the overall effect was horrid to indigenous populations subject to British colonialism and the effect of such barbaric colonial institutions can still be seen today. Do you deny this?

[thundertaker]

I do not insinuate that the 'darkies' as you refer to them are inferior to anyone else, I do insinuate that their societies were barbaric and feudal compared to contemporary western civilisation, but that is more down to luck on our part than to their race, so to insinuate I am a racist is laughable. I think suttee was a far more oppressive custom than the social pressure imposed on women to wear corsets, don't you? :roll: What would have been racist would have been to tolerate that custom on the grounds that ' it's their culture'.
Yes, victorians were in many respect backwards compared to today, but you forget that concepts such as womens rights and universal education for all were born in the victorian age. The Victorian age was the age in which previously held values began to be questioned and changed for the better. No doubt future generations will find much to criticise us for....

As I said before, I am not blind devotee of the empire, I know that in many respects it was an exploitative institution, but the difference between the British Empire and say, the third reich, is that the British Empire gave as well as took.
There are people out there who can see no wrong at all with the British Empire, I am not one of them, I have a more balanced perspective, you on the other hand, are the opposite extreme, you can see no good to have come from the Empire, and that is an equally ridiculous position to take....

[Kalu]

First of all, I'm using the term "darkies" and "savages" to mock you. If you couldn't notice my blatant sarcasm, well, now you know.

Quote: I think suttee was a far more oppressive custom than the social pressure imposed on women to wear corsets, don't you?

I think the institutions of racism and exploitation were far more oppressive, don't you?

Quote: Yes, victorians were in many respect backwards compared to today, but you forget that concepts such as womens rights and universal education for all were born in the victorian age. The Victorian age was the age in which previously held values began to be questioned and changed for the better.

Yet in your myopia, you fail to recognize the achievements of other cultures. I'd recommend you read up on the Ashanti sometime, or perhaps the Indian ruler Akbar.

Quote: As I said before, I am not blind devotee of the empire, I know that in many respects it was an exploitative institution, but the difference between the British Empire and say, the third reich, is that the British Empire gave as well as took.
There are people out there who can see no wrong at all with the British Empire, I am not one of them, I have a more balanced perspective, you on the other hand, are the opposite extreme, you can see no good to have come from the Empire, and that is an equally ridiculous position to take....

The British Empire gave as well as took? Hah! Yeah, right, not nearly enough. Look back over my previous posts. You also fail to realize that the indigenous populations gave much to Britain. Their resources, land, influences in art, music, architecture and so on. In return they received slavery, racism, the exploitation of their land, divisionism, and the imposing of corrupt colonial institutions.

I can see no good from the Empire? Wrong, maybe you'd like to reread what I said before:

Quote: British colonialism may have had some benevolent side effects but the overall effect was horrid to indigenous populations subject to British colonialism and the effect of such barbaric colonial institutions can still be seen today. Do you deny this?

Let me remind of what you said when we first started debating:

Quote: But you have to realise that often, the native rulers of the indiginous peoples were often far worse than the British when they cam along.

Quote: These places were rife with poverty, tribal warfare and despotism long before we arrived. But when you look at India today, it is the world's largest democracy, with the best civil service in the world. It would not have had these were it not for the fact that these were institutions introduced by the British.

Quote: As for Africa today, we were not there long enough to modernize the countries as we were India, and when we left, most of them sunk back to their old ways of tribal warfare, tyranny, genocide and corruption, for which the same African leaders responsible for this have the gall to blame Britain's colonial legacy for.

Face it. You had some pretty damn racist views that glorified the British Empire. I see you've decided to repeal or ignore many of them (especially after I proved them wrong), but yet you still act as if all you said was in defense against the "mean old liberal lambasting the British for behaving in such a deplorable manner."

The fact is, I refuted these imperialistic views and now you are trying to behave like "Oh, you just hate the British Empire for all it has done, all I was doing was defending what we did well in various places." I do not hate the British, I hate the colonial system for some of the irreparable damage it has done. I recognize that there were a few benevolent sideffects of colonisation, but trying to defend the colonial system is like trying to defend Japan's exploitation of Asia during World War II: It really just won't work, no matter how many minor examples of "good" you can find, there has been a mountain of "bad" created by colonialism.

Finally, in relation to the original comments made by Gordon Brown, I think it's high time the British and other European powers recognized their immense failures during colonization and rightly provide funds, aid and debt relief to the peoples they exploited for centuries, the lasting effects of such exploitation which are still seen today. Also, a previous quote of mine:

Quote: No, you should not kill yourself because of your country's deplorable past, but you should realize that no amount of apologizing will make up for what was done and that saying "let's just move on" is not enough. You should realize why there are so many problems in these countries and what contributed to these problems and even created them: colonialism.

EDIT:

Quote: I do not insinuate that the 'darkies' as you refer to them are inferior to anyone else, I do insinuate that their societies were barbaric and feudal compared to contemporary western civilisation

I just noticed that. Wow. You sir are amazing. Read a damn book, it'll do you some good and maybe you'll get off your anglocentric high horse long enough to realize how incredibly myopic and ignorant that comment really is.

[thundertaker]

I have already refuted most of the points mentioned above. I have not denied that there where less than wholesome aspects to the empire, but that it is outweighed by the good.
There are more examples of good things the British Empire has done, and I'll research them and put them up tomorrow.

Comparing British Imperialism to Japanese Imperialism in WWII is outrageous, the British Empire never systematically slaughtered civilians the way the Japanese Empire did.
In fact, one of the greatest things the British Empire did was to sacrifice itself to help save the world from far more savage empires such as the japanese and Nazi ones.....

[Kalu]

Quote: I have already refuted most of the points mentioned above. I have not denied that there where less than wholesome aspects to the empire, but that it is outweighed by the good.

You've refuted nothing. Many of my questions and arguments remain untouched by you.

Don't bother "researching" anything, you've been defeated and your anglocentric rhetoric has been exposed.

Besides, we're not even discussing WWII, we're discussing colonialism. I used the example of Japan during WWII since well, British colonialism was as bad if not much worse (especially since it went on for so much longer). Many Zulus, Ufipa, Gikuyu, Luo, Ibo, Yoruba, Sikhs, Tamils, Xhosa, Shona, Somalis, Dinka and other indigenous populations were killed by the British (slowly, however, through a system of colonial subjugation). Also, ever heard of the Armritsar massacre? The Opium War of 1848 with China? The Boxer rebellion? Even if people aren't directly murdered, you still fail to realize the profound impact of colonisation and exploitation. Centuries of exploitation, racism, segregation, oppression, starvation and on and on and on. Sad.

Please, do the world a favour and read a book sometime (preferrably a good survey of Africa or India or any other place where Britain has colonized indigenous populations. Africa: A Biography of the Continent by John Reader is a good start, or a book by Basil Davidson). Trying to rid yourself of indoctrination will be difficult, good luck.

[thundertaker]

Don't be so quick to claim victory.

I'd like to see you provide some credible links to support your claims that the British Empire killed as many people as the Japanese Empire.
As I have mentioned, far more people in Africa were killed fighting each other than were killed by the British authorities. By imposing the Pax Britannica, it could easily be argued that the Empire saved far more lives than would have been taken by inter-tribal warfare.
WWII is relevent to the discussion because it helped destroy two far more evil empires, which is an achievement you ignore or belittle which to you is nothing compared to the exceptional cases of atrocity.
Yes, I have heard of the Amritsar massacre, but did you know that the genral responsible for that massacre, REH Dyer, was relieved of his command as a result? Sadly he wasn't prosecuted, but his career was over. Contrast this to the Japanese or Nazi Empires, where far from being relieved of his command, he would have been promoted.
The Empire was aquired out of economic greed and for reasons of gaining prestige over other nations, but it was administered far more justly than most other Empires. Natives were never systematically murdered by the authorities as they were in the Belgian Congo or in East Africa by the Germans. If we weren't there, you can bet they probably would have been.
In many respects, the Empire was repressive and the interests of the British usually took precedence over local interests. But the Empire carried within it the seeds of it's own destruction. The message of Liberty and Democracy. The american colonists, the Indians of the INC and many others learned of these values and wanted them for themselves, and fought or lobbied for independence in it's name.
These are surely worth celebrating as a beneficial legacy.
I have never pretended it was all good, or that benevolence was the sole motivation for the governing of the Empire, but it's achievements, The destruction of far more evil empires, the abolition of slavery, the spreading of parliamentry democracy and the concept of the rule of law etc far outweigh the bad.
As an inheritor of Pax Britannica, America is doing something great for Iraq. They may well have gone in to protect their own oil interests, but a magnificant side effect of this is getting rid of tyrannical mass-murderer of a leader and re-establishing democracy and (eventually it is hoped) the rule of law again. How could you deny something like that is wrong?

[Kalu]

Quote: I'd like to see you provide some credible links to support your claims that the British Empire killed as many people as the Japanese Empire.

Read what I said:

Quote: Even if people aren't directly murdered, you still fail to realize the profound impact of colonisation and exploitation. Centuries of exploitation, racism, segregation, oppression, starvation and on and on and on. Sad.

Quote: As I have mentioned, far more people in Africa were killed fighting each other than were killed by the British authorities. By imposing the Pax Britannica, it could easily be argued that the Empire saved far more lives than would have been taken by inter-tribal warfare.

Wrong yet again. The British may have not directly slaughtered civilians in the style of genocide, but the fact remains that the peoples were subjugated to oppressive slavery. Sorry sir, but you are infantilizing Africa's people and making it seem like they were killing and massacring each other when in reality the British and European colonial powers invigorated ethnic hatreds and tore apart kingdoms causing some of the problems we now see today.

Would it have been alright if Africans came to Europe and enslaved the British and Europeans to prevent them from getting into wars (such as the 100 years war)? You forget that the British and Europeans killed many of their own during their own wars. Stop acting like Africa was full of "savages" who fought each other and needed to be enslaved to be saved, because that mentality is thoroughly screwed up. You can look over my previous posts if you need more evidence as to why that is so.

Quote: The Empire was aquired out of economic greed and for reasons of gaining prestige over other nations, but it was administered far more justly than most other Empires. Natives were never systematically murdered by the authorities as they were in the Belgian Congo or in East Africa by the Germans. If we weren't there, you can bet they probably would have been.

British colonialism wasn't administered "far more justly." Colonialism was not "fixed" by the "noble" British, it was always an exploitative insitution that subjugated the indigenous populations to subhuman status, no matter who it was administered by.

Quote: I have never pretended it was all good, or that benevolence was the sole motivation for the governing of the Empire, but it's achievements, The destruction of far more evil empires, the abolition of slavery, the spreading of parliamentry democracy and the concept of the rule of law etc far outweigh the bad.

When did I say you pretended it was all good? I was arguing your point that the British Empire outweighed what it did wrong. Which I think is completely and factually wrong. Tell me, how did British colonialism aid in the destruction of far more "evil empires"? Also, you fail to mention with the abolition of slavery my previous point:

Quote: Slavery existed, right, but it didn't exist as the system the British used. In kingdoms such as Ashanti, when wars were fought, sometimes prisoners were captured and became slaves. They eventually were incorporated into the family they were serving and even married the daughters of those families. Eventually, they became regular members of society. The British and other European colonial powers, however, used slavery for pure commercial gain and upset the carefully balanced system, capturing millions of people and transporting them in cramped ships, destroying the population. When brought to the Americas, they were then given subhuman status. The British finally realized this was a morally bankrupt system and tried ending the system, after it had already dealt irreparable damages to countless African societies.

With parliamentary democracies, again, blinded by your anglocentric views you failed to read this:

Quote: Wrong yet again. Indigenous populations were guided by democratic principles. After suffering from repression, many overthrew autocratic leaders and democratic institutions arose. I suggest you look up the kingdom of Ashanti. Or Mali. Or Ufipa. Or the Gikuyu, etc. etc.

When the British came, they installed tyrannical and racist governors. They destroyed these fundamental democratic principals by taking away the rights of indigenous populations. Colonialism was far, far from a benevolent institution and no, the indigenous populations weren't being "liberated" from oppressive rulers, rather subject to a new form of tyranny.


Quote: concept of the rule of law

The British "discovered" the concept of rule of law and "gave" it to indigenous populations? Jesus, you do think that Africans and other indigenous populations were "savages"! Read my previous posts and examples. You've still left countless more of my points unanswered. And you failed to respond in an intelligible manner to the points you did decide to answer.

I'll be making a massive post to prove your idiocy and ignorance on this subject once and for all later. For you to spew such racist and imperialistic rhetoric is ridiculous.