England, More Rights than Wrongs?

R0ot

Had a little discussion with an english mate the other day about something random and we ended up arguing over ^^ the point in question. Now im irish and from Donegal at that, I travel across the border to Co. Derry almost 4 times a week if not more and i've got a good few mates from all around ireland and england and scotland and wales (even a few from the states, but ill leave that), well all of the countries in question have a bit of a 'tight' history but id like someone to convince me and anyone else who has this question, Has england done more Rights or Wrongs to these countries and itself (and hell why not other countries) throughout history?

I mean i don't want to dwell alot on the plantation but I want to consider all elements, take Scotland for example or Austrillia (spelling?) id take Austrilla as a Right thing because england essientially created a country (maybe by accident).

So can someone please at least try to set my mind to think that England has done more rights than wrongs, because I personally don't think they have by a long shot.

Pighead

Pigheads off to bed. Thanks Root.

Lambsbread

R0ot wrote:

I mean i don't want to dwell alot on the plantation but I want to consider all elements, take Scotland for example or Austrillia (spelling?) id take Austrilla as a Right thing because england essientially created a country (maybe by accident).

I'm not so sure about Australia. The indigenous people have been completely marginalised so i'd hardly say they were benefitted by the English. The same could be said for the native Americans. Are these people better off because of the English. I doubt it.

luckat

Sure, England has done plenty of good things. But annexing other countries isn't one of them.

All empires have this logic - the British, the Roman, the American, the Japanese, the Ottoman, the Russian Communist. And in every case it's true. They *do* bring the benefits of a large-scale economy - schools, hospitals, roads, business.

But the benefits provided to the occupied countries are moot, and the profit tends to flow to the centre of the empire. And the cultures of the occupied countries are often destroyed, for the "greater good" of the culture of the empire.

To choose a country far away, for which we don't have any strong emotions, look at Tibet, for instance.

Now, from the point of view of Chinese Communists, Tibet was an awful place: ignorant, poor, suppressive of dissent, sexist, with huge disease rates and deaths in childbirth, with a religious class that bullied and dominated the people, and routine child abuse in the lamaseries where all small boys were sent at six to be raised till their teens.

From this point of view, "planting" Tibet with thousands of Chinese families, bringing in roads and an efficient rail service, ensuring that everyone was fluent in Mandarin and given a good schooling, suppressing superstition and fostering medicine - they're all good things.

But many Tibetans don't see it this way. They see their country annexed - China doesn't admit that Tibet exists, refuses to use the name and says it's part of the greater China.

They see their religion and customs suppressed. They feel themselves to be discriminated against by those who have been moved in to take over the best land; they see Tibetan ways, Tibetan songs and Tibetan laws as things that are now punishable by jail or death.

They see a foreign justic system that they feel is corrupt and biased against a people who have become a dispossessed "minority" in their own country.

Who's right, the people of the empire, or the dispossessed people of the country that it's annexed and occupied?

zuma

R0ot wrote:

Had a little discussion with an english mate the other day about something random and we ended up arguing over ^^ the point in question. Now im irish and from Donegal at that, I travel across the border to Co. Derry almost 4 times a week if not more and i've got a good few mates from all around ireland and england and scotland and wales (even a few from the states, but ill leave that), well all of the countries in question have a bit of a 'tight' history but id like someone to convince me and anyone else who has this question, Has england done more Rights or Wrongs to these countries and itself (and hell why not other countries) throughout history?

I mean i don't want to dwell alot on the plantation but I want to consider all elements, take Scotland for example or Austrillia (spelling?) id take Austrilla as a Right thing because england essientially created a country (maybe by accident).

So can someone please at least try to set my mind to think that England has done more rights than wrongs, because I personally don't think they have by a long shot.

What positive points about England did your English friend make?

Morgans

In general I would say greater rights than wrongs. Yes the aborigines and the native americans did lose out in a big way - but essential elements that make up our world such as free market, (as the english empire building was pretty much done by businesses rather than any other factor) and a democracy with checks and balances were forwarded globally by their expansion. Maybe the world was ripe for the education then, and should it not have happened by the english in the 17th and 18th century, the French Revolution may have started something similar with bloodier results. Sorry rambling now.

AdrianR

All empires have this logic - the British, the Roman, the American, the Japanese, the Ottoman, the Russian Communist. And in every case it's true. They *do* bring the benefits of a large-scale economy - schools, hospitals, roads, business.

This comment is assuming that the native population couldn't do these things on their own if left alone, in my experience this is a very English attitude. I've heard English people claiming they brought civilisation to the world, and they really believed it. Just taking our own country for example, there was an education system in this country in the 5th centuary while at the same time the English (Angles, Saxons and Jutes who had invaded Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire) were illiterate and considered a bunch of Barbarians. If you compare 5th centuary Ireland to the end of the 18th centuary (End of penal times) we had taken a huge step backwards, all credit can be given to the English for that one.

Furthermore, can anyone honestly name a country that the English left in better shape than it would have been in anyway if left alone?

county

AdrianR wrote:

This comment is assuming that the native population couldn't do these things on their own if left alone, in my experience this is a very English attitude. I've heard English people claiming they brought civilisation to the world, and they really believed it. Just taking our own country for example, there was an education system in this country in the 5th centuary while at the same time the English (Angles, Saxons and Jutes who had invaded Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire) were illiterate and considered a bunch of Barbarians. If you compare 5th centuary Ireland to the end of the 18th centuary (End of penal times) we had taken a huge step backwards, all credit can be given to the English for that one.

Furthermore, can anyone honestly name a country that the English left in better shape than it would have been in anyway if left alone?

hong kong

Morgans

I think the 18th century education would have been more worthwhile than the 5 century one received. No one can predict how a nation would develop without British involvement. How could you? History doesnt work that way. I think that given that they dominated the world from an island, not much larger than Ireland for example, there was plenty that could be learned from them. Yes, of course they were mercenary in their conquests, as I said, most of the empire was developed by businesses, granted royal protection for the sale of their goods got in India, the caribbean, the americas etc. I know Iceland had a parliament earlier but England did most to develop the parliamentary democracy that has caught on big style. As Churchill said, it may not be the perfect political system, but its the best we've got.

Yes, the aborigines could have come up with the steam engine, the industrial revolution, the free market economy etc if they had been left to their own devices, and who knows they might yet advance human society in ways we cant imagine at the moment. Give it time.

Morgans

One thing concrete that they did was to end the slave trade, when it was still a profitable business. Having been one of the main purpetrators at one stage.

clearz

AdrianR wrote:

This comment is assuming that the native population couldn't do these things on their own if left alone, in my experience this is a very English attitude. I've heard English people claiming they brought civilisation to the world, and they really believed it. Just taking our own country for example, there was an education system in this country in the 5th centuary while at the same time the English (Angles, Saxons and Jutes who had invaded Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire) were illiterate and considered a bunch of Barbarians. If you compare 5th centuary Ireland to the end of the 18th centuary (End of penal times) we had taken a huge step backwards, all credit can be given to the English for that one.

Furthermore, can anyone honestly name a country that the English left in better shape than it would have been in anyway if left alone?

India, America, South Africa, Austrailia. No offence to the natives but I couldn't see them breaking away from their tribal methods and embracing modern rational thinking. I voted no btw and I think the poll will obviously be biased since it is been asked to an Irish audience.

AdrianR

hong kong

Mmmm don't know if I'd count it, it was only a piece of Rock before they started out, so nothing to F*** up. Also it started out as a Port to take goods out iof China, including Opium.

I think the 18th century education would have been more worthwhile than the 5 century one received.

Yes! of course it would have been, but you're missing the point, point being that we had a 5th centuary education system yet we had virtually no education system 1200 years later directly due to English occupation.

By the way, who do you think educated the 5th centuary barbarian English?

No one can predict how a nation would develop without British involvement. How could you? History doesnt work that way.

Why not predict? If you have a country with an advanced social and educational system which is invaded but a country which suppresses them then they are going to suffer for it, whereas if they are left alone it is only logical thet they are going to advance further.



The original question that was asked was did they do good for the countries that they took over, some posters idea of good seems to summount to introducing industrialisation and world trade no matter what the expense to the native population. I don't see that as being a good thing, in my original post where I said:

can anyone honestly name a country that the English left in better shape than it would have been in anyway if left alone?

I should have asked:

Can anyone honestly name a country that the English left the native people in better shape than it would have been in anyway if left alone?

mike65

Ah "what have the Rom-English ever done for us"?

I voted Atari Jaguar.

Mike.

AdrianR

India, America, South Africa, Austrailia. No offence to the natives but I couldn't see them breaking away from their tribal methods and embracing modern rational thinking. I voted no btw and I think the poll will obviously be biased since it is been asked to an Irish audience.

In each case the only ones who were better off were the colonists.
In America on the reservations in Dakota (Can't remember if it's North or South) the Lakota have an average annual income of $3,500 pa, pretty pathetic for the richest country in the world.

Morgans

By the way, who do you think educated the 5th centuary barbarian English?

I didnt miss the point about the education system, but comparing pre-Viking pre-Norman England to the 18th century is pretty much pointless. Just my opinion. Powers rise and fall. England werent a power in 5th Century and had little or now influence on the wider world. From the mid 16th c to the 20c, i think is the debate.

It is fair to believe that stuff like the free market, industrial revolution, etc hasnt progressed society, but plenty of the elements within the world we live in today were forwarded by the british when in their pomp.

Yes, initially it was done for profit, and to get a Protestant Empire to rival Spain's who lets face it didnt cover themselves in glory with their empire building in the americas, but havent had nearly the same lasting effect worldwide. More rights than wrongs, I say.

mike65

In America on the reservations in Dakota (Can't remember if it's North or South) the Lakota have an average annual income of $3,500 pa, pretty pathetic for the richest country in the world.

Blame the Americans for that not the English.

Mike.

Morgans

aaaah, they're all the one.

Poll closed

They are not allowed on this board.It's not actually possible to create one here as the mods have had that facility switched off.

mike65

Like the brooding sexy new look!

Mike.

clearz

Earthman wrote:

Poll closed

They are not allowed on this board.

Pretty ironic and frankly retarded on a politics forum.

johnthesavage

The influence of the English on the world has been much more negative than positive, although many countries in Europe and elsewhere have a long and bloody history of enslaving and destroying other cultures for financial gain. Empires have risen and fallen since prehistoric times - what the English did was no different, they just had the technology and military power to expand further than anyone else.

R0ot wrote:

...id take Austrilla as a Right thing because england essientially created a country (maybe by accident).

The people we call Aborigines lived quite happily in Australia for more than 40,000 years until Europeans arrived and tried to "civilise" them by exterminating their various languages and cultures. Before then, they lived quite happily without a free market economy or modern rational thinking or television dinners. How can anyone say that colonisation was good for them?

The reason for colonisation has always been to increase wealth and power - nothing more, nothing less.

R0ot

Earthman wrote:

Poll closed

They are not allowed on this board.It's not actually possible to create one here as the mods have had that facility switched off.

Sorry i had it in AH but some one of the mods must have moved it, apologies to the politics forum.

Sand

The people we call Aborigines lived quite happily in Australia for more than 40,000 years until Europeans arrived and tried to "civilise" them by exterminating their various languages and cultures. Before then, they lived quite happily without a free market economy or modern rational thinking or television dinners. How can anyone say that colonisation was good for them?

Sean Penn: "Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows, and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles."

TBH, this whole concept of people living in peace dancing with flower in their hair until the evil white man showed up is a load of cobblers. Whilst native american tribal warfare was fairly bloodless and limited to raiding theyre still digging up mass graves and evidence of one tribe comitting outright genocide against others as in the Crow Creek example I linked to. And that was an oddity because Native American tribes are understandbly very hostile to excavation of grave sites. Human beings are human beings regardless - violence and exploitation of others is a constant current throughout history. Some, most notably European empires between the 16th and 20th centurues, were just better at it.

Benedict XVI

There is only one answer to this question, and it is contained in the very brilliant 'Top Ten What Have The Brits Ever Done For Us' from the people at langerland.com
http://www.langerland.com/content/view/37/59/

therecklessone

mike65 wrote:

Ah "what have the Rom-English ever done for us"?

I can't believe Mike's the only one to hint at Monty Python. You people are slipping...:rolleyes:

Reg: Yeah, all right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us!?
Man: Brought peace.
Reg: Oh, peace. Shut up!

LordSutch

Not sure what is meant by "The English" in this thread, maybe the term British would be more precise seeing as Northern Ireland was colonised mainly by Scots, and to a much lesser extent by the English.

All Empires present and past have drawn-up new boarders throughout the world (Britain included) for better and for worse, when the British Empire was at its height (Ireland & the Irish) were an integral part of it, and remember that only a century ago one third of the "British" army was made-up of Irish men! the remainder being English/ Scots/ Welsh.

Regarding the boarder we share with the UK, I suspect that there was an unofficial boarder there anyway before 1922 seeing as the people up-there were (and still are) largely British since the plantations, and to this day they would see their allegience to the island of Britain rather than the rest of Ireland.

johnthesavage

Sand wrote:

TBH, this whole concept of people living in peace dancing with flower in their hair until the evil white man showed up is a load of cobblers.

Dancing and flowers?
I simply corrected the statement that the colonisation of Australia was "a right thing". I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that brutality and ruthless exploitation were confined to European or "white" cultures, in fact I said quite the opposite.