The Death of the British Empire

Pocari Sweat

Sorry did I miss something?

InFront

No pocari I think you summed it up quite well.

juliuspret

mike65 wrote:

Its only since the mega-budget transfers from Europe (read UK and Germany) that money has been invested in any meaningful way. And the money is now at an end so we're on our own fron here on in.

Mike.

The British rebate (large portions of British EU money not used in the UK is returned) came into effect after about a decade so its been mostly German subsidies which made us what we are today in terms of EU funding.

And believe or not we are still gettting more money back than what we are putting into the EU

LordSutch

And so, the British Empire ceased to exist many decades ago, The Roman Empire ended two thousand years ago, the Austro Hungarian Empire ended a long time ago too, and today we have the USA Empire (after a fashion) and no doubt that too will come to an end at some stage in the future, only to be replaced by the ...................................... Chinese Empire?

LordSutch

Just thought I should point out; that when the British Empire was at its height the whole of Ireland was part of the UK, and Irish men made-up one third of the British Army! most Irish people would also have considered themselves "British" at that time (1860s) as well as being obviously from the island of Ireland.

There have also been a couple of comments in this thread about the 'Colonies' (Ireland inc) but let me inform you that in reality Ireland never was a Colony, but it was an integral part of the UK along with massive support for the Union especially at the height of the British Empire (1860s)..........

The idea of Ireland being a "Colony" is a relatively New mainstream idea, that you wont find in any literature even going back fifty years!

The Colonies were much much further afield, as in/ The USA, Canada, India, Australia, etc.

mike65

Thats true, Dublin was second only the London in the Empire city ranking. Many of the Empires most enthusiatic enforcers were Irish but that tends to get overlooked for some strange reason.

juliuspret I thought the monies (for infrastucture) dried up this year?

Mike.

juliuspret

ArthurF wrote:

Just thought I should point out; that when the British Empire was at its height the whole of Ireland was part of the UK, and Irish men made-up one third of the British Army! most Irish people would also have considered themselves "British" at that time (1860s) as well as being obviously from the island of Ireland.

There have also been a couple of comments in this thread about the 'Colonies' (Ireland inc) but let me inform you that in reality Ireland never was a Colony, but it was an integral part of the UK along with massive support for the Union especially at the height of the British Empire (1860s)..........

The idea of Ireland being a "Colony" is a relatively New mainstream idea, that you wont find in any literature even going back fifty years!

The Colonies were much much further afield, as in/ The USA, Canada, India, Australia, etc.

From memory(so I could be incorrect) Ireland was Englands property/colony until the 1801/Act of Union to form the UK.
When I say it was under Englands control I mean exactly that, even after England joined with Scotland to form Great Britain, Irelands fate was still under English control.

Im pretty sure that we still get more money from the EU than what we put in....but would like to see proof myself

Oh the height of the British Empire was ~1900 and not the 1860's....research and see for yourself.

Sgt. Sensible

The opportunity to develop a modern progressive nation was wasted almost immediately by primitivist nationalist looney arch conservatives (which our parents and grandparents were happy to keep returning to power) who let the church control education, health and the arts. Ireland would have been better off in the union after 1945 when Labour got in and introduced the welfare state.

Benedict XVI

For the umpteeth time the definitive answer to the infulence of the British Empire on Ireland is contained here,
http://www.langerland.com/content/view/37/59/
debate over !!!

Mad Finn

samb wrote:

interesting thread,
Just to be devils advocate I think that there were many good things that developed out of the British empire.

Devil's advocate,eh? Just as well coz, you're going to hell for that one!!

Mad Finn

mike65 wrote:

Thats true, Dublin was second only the London in the Empire city ranking. Many of the Empires most enthusiatic enforcers were Irish but that tends to get overlooked for some strange reason.

.

Not at the height of Empire it wasn't. You're thinking of the Ascendancy period in the mid-late 18th century. When wealth and power was concentrated in the hands of the minority Anglican population.

And as for the Irish being the 'Empire's most enthusiastic enforcers' well that's very true as well. But then so were the Sikhs in India, and the Australians in the Boer War and the Turks in Cyprus.......it's the old concept of 'Divide and Rule.' Every empire uses it.

The point is, apart from some aganda-driven neocons, nobody really wants to look back on that period with too much pride now. We should be made to face up to it, fair enough, but to look back on it with shame.

LordSutch

Benedict XVI wrote:

For the umpteeth time the definitive answer to the infulence of the British Empire on Ireland is contained here,
http://www.langerland.com/content/view/37/59/
debate over !!!

And so, for the umpteenth time/
We Irish, or should I say (our ancestors) were all part of the British Empire!

(We were an integral part of that Empire, we were not on the outside)

One third of the British Army was Irish, many of the most powerful men in the Colonies were Irish, Many generals were Irish, and most of these Irish men considered themselves British too, as the notion of being Irish but (not British) was alien to their way of thinking in those days, this way of thinking remains to this day in the North where over a million Irish people consider themselves British & obviously Irish as well.
(but within the context of the British family)!

Just needed to clear up any confusion about what made-up the British Empire.

Pocari Sweat

What if you mainly speak English and not so much Gaelic, would that mean you are slightly English. If you worked in England for a few years also would that mean you are a bit more English than just slightly English?

LordSutch

Whats all that stuff about the English? (please explain)

Rhubarb & custard please.

Flex

Mad Finn wrote:

Not at the height of Empire it wasn't. You're thinking of the Ascendancy period in the mid-late 18th century. When wealth and power was concentrated in the hands of the minority Anglican population.

And as for the Irish being the 'Empire's most enthusiastic enforcers' well that's very true as well. But then so were the Sikhs in India, and the Australians in the Boer War and the Turks in Cyprus.......it's the old concept of 'Divide and Rule.' Every empire uses it.

The point is, apart from some aganda-driven neocons, nobody really wants to look back on that period with too much pride now. We should be made to face up to it, fair enough, but to look back on it with shame.

Indeed

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

Just thought I should point out; that when the British Empire was at its height the whole of Ireland was part of the UK, and Irish men made-up one third of the British Army! most Irish people would also have considered themselves "British" at that time (1860s) as well as being obviously from the island of Ireland.

There have also been a couple of comments in this thread about the 'Colonies' (Ireland inc) but let me inform you that in reality Ireland never was a Colony, but it was an integral part of the UK along with massive support for the Union especially at the height of the British Empire (1860s)..........

The idea of Ireland being a "Colony" is a relatively New mainstream idea, that you wont find in any literature even going back fifty years!

The Colonies were much much further afield, as in/ The USA, Canada, India, Australia, etc.

AFAIR, the primary reason for Ireland's annexation by Britain at the time wasnt because of some idea that the Irish should be happy productive members of the 'British family', but rather a reaction by the British to the fact that the United Irishmen had succesfully petitioned French military support against British rule for an Irish Republic

Kaiser_Sma

It may not have been the stimulus, but it certainly was reasoning that drove the annexation (the 'british family' or maybe the 'british right to owner ship' idea?)

Húrin

1947

Mick86

magick wrote:

On the bbc website ( http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=2763&&&edition=2&ttl=20060726021618 )their talking about the Suez crisis and how it spelt the death kneel for the British Empire , i remember also looking at a documentry about the Boer War.

The commentator said that this was the beginning of the end of the British empire, what do u think?
At what point did the Empire Finally die or begin to die?

The British Empire was India. When tehy left India the Empire was gone.

Tom Barry

ArthurF wrote:

And so, for the umpteenth time/
We Irish, or should I say (our ancestors) were all part of the British Empire!

(We were an integral part of that Empire, we were not on the outside)

One third of the British Army was Irish, many of the most powerful men in the Colonies were Irish, Many generals were Irish, and most of these Irish men considered themselves British too, as the notion of being Irish but (not British) was alien to their way of thinking in those days, this way of thinking remains to this day in the North where over a million Irish people consider themselves British & obviously Irish as well.
(but within the context of the British family)!

Just needed to clear up any confusion about what made-up the British Empire.

The generals would've been mostly Anglo-Irish, and thus in the upper curst of society. The sort that benefited off the backs of the common Irish peasanty. Besides, I for one would not be proud of Anglo-Irish generals who participated in mass genocide in what was the British Empire. Also, the one third statistic is of course true, but I doubt men enlisted for anything other than a few coins, enforced poverty in those days resulted in few options, one of them the army. Indeed, the common Irishman had the piss taken out of him in British theatre. He was regarded as inferior, as a cross between a negro and a whiteman. So, common Irish people where not really equals. Just the protestant ascendancy.

You obviously haven't been to the North if you think those one million consider themselves Irish. As the English say, they're more British than the English. Nothing would be a greater insult to call a Loyalist an Irishman, these days at least. And as a Northerner, I don't consider myself British BTW. Britishness is a concept that involves racial intolerance and superiority based around a class system.

Oh, and the British ******* up India, I think you'll find. They constructed railways sure, but during the famine in 1876, the British Viceroy, Tylott I believe, used the railways to ship out the grain to England. The worst thing was, that grain was actually in surplus supply at the time. A decree against providing charity to starving Indians was then passed to protect profits. Those who broke the rule where imprisoned. God bless the several humane Britains who did. Starving Indians where subjected to work camps and paid a pittance in grain to do hard labour hour after hour. This was the ONLY way to obtain relief. Millions died.

Not to mention the Potato famine. God sent the blight, Britain created the famine, through policies in much the same vein.

Infastructive was placed to facilitate exploitation. Also, India was quite prosperous when the East India company arrived in the 18th century with a booming textile industry, which Britain subsequently ruined by flooding the countries economy with cheap imports. There's other facts as well, but the increased occurance and death rate in famines in India under British rule should speak for itself.

And the world probably isn't a better place because of Britain. Northern Ireland is a complete ****hole, as well as many other places, not least Africa because of Divide and Rule, exploitive racist policies. But I suppose it's alright if the Western Imperial heartlands advance eh, and the rest of the world is turned to *****? That goes for all former Imperialist nations, not just Britain.

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd have to argue imperialism with an Irishman. I smell a West Brit. This disease of 'inferiority' to the mighty British has affected many Irish to the point where they believe that they are indeed inferior to Britains great civilisation, which was built on rape, plunder and racism. Let's all crawl back into the commonwealth shall we? And apoligise to Britain for being naughty, and get a wee slap on the wrist and 800 more years of being the target of British contempt. Actually I'm already an unwilling British Citizen...

I have no hatred for the British public, but attempting to argue the pros and cons of imperialism is akin to arguing the pros and cons of rape. From your manner you seem to imply that Irishmen should take pride in being part of the great World Rape that was the British Empire. Maybe if you where able to visit the West during the potato famine you'd find out what the working class, serf Irishman, (and not the wealthy dublin based Anglo Irish Landlord) truly thought of Good Queen Victoria. Not much I can tell you.

sceptre

Tom Barry wrote:

I smell a West Brit.

Knock off the personal comments about other posters please as per the posting guidelines. I'll do you the courtesy of not making a comment about your comment.

Tom Barry

sceptre wrote:

Knock off the personal comments about other posters please as per the posting guidelines. I'll do you the courtesy of not making a comment about your comment.

Sorry, didn't intend offence. I gave an honest assessment of what I thought.

Jackie laughlin

Tom,
I can't figure out whether you are anti-British, anti-imperialist or anti-liberal economic policy. It was the latter that caused famine here and in Scotland.

The British didn't exist 800 years ago and Irish identity certainly didn't either.

Go easy on the Anglo-Irish. They saved the Irish language between the famine and the end of the 19th century. Today they are certainly the least objectionable component of the wealthy Irish.

The Corinthian

1914. The First World War saw the end of that period of European history know as La Belle Epoc, that was the last chapter in European expansionism. Such was the cost of that war, not only in resources but politically that the British, like all the other European empires was essentially living beyond its means from that point on. 1929 further saw Britain slip behind with the collapse of the gold standard and the Second World War finished it all off.

Suez was simply the realization that Europe’s empires were dead, but the point of no return had taken place long before, in Sarajevo. As sir Edward Grey, foreign minister on the eve of war in 1914, famously prophesised "the lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them in our lifetime."

Tom Barry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Tom,
I can't figure out whether you are anti-British, anti-imperialist or anti-liberal economic policy. It was the latter that caused famine here and in Scotland.

I'm anti-imperialist. Like I said, I've no dislike of the British public, but I dislike the British Empire. Britain practised liberal economic policies throughout it's Empire. However, I don't see how that's an excuse for exporting a grain surplus and hindering relief efforts while millions of Irish and Indians starve. It's greed, and at worse, indirect genocide. As Trevelyan said,

"The Famine is a punishment from God for an idle ungreatful and rebellious country; an indolent and un-self-reliant people. The Irish are suffering from an affliction of God's providence"

Bare in mind, this was the man in charge of famine relief. This was common opinion among the English at the time. I was just trying to illustrate that the Irish where not equal partners to the English at all, as the poster who seemed to take pride in being part of the Empire seemed to think. The common and poor Irishman was ridiculed. Here's an extract from Punch Magazine 1862 that illustrates the common British contempt for the Irish,

"A creature manifestly between the gorilla and the Negro is to be met with in some of the lowest distrcits of London and Liverpool by adventurous explorers. It comes from Ireland, whence it has contrived to migrate; it belongs in fact to a tribe of Irish savages: the lowerst species of Irish Yahoo. When conversing with its kind, it talks a sort of gibberish. It is moreover, a climbing animal, and may sometimes be seen ascending a ladder laden with a hod of bricks."

The British didn't exist 800 years ago and Irish identity certainly didn't either.

Eh, the Irish identity certainly did. It's true we where not unified yet but the Irish had traditions, culture, sports, mythology and their own language. Irish Nationalism/Republicanism didn't exist until the late 18th century but there was certainly an Irish identity and quite a strong one at that before the time of Tone.

Yeah, the concept of the British would have been introducted in the Scottish Act of Union in 1707. I know, but the English, who where, in reality, the real architects of Empire where in Ireland for several hundred years before. The Normans became more Irish than the Irish and had no significant effect on Ireland. Personally I'd date the real start of English/British mistreatment at around the 16th/17th centuries with the Elizabethan and Cromwellian plantations etc.

Go easy on the Anglo-Irish. They saved the Irish language between the famine and the end of the 19th century. Today they are certainly the least objectionable component of the wealthy Irish.

Well I mean no offence to the Anglo-Irish, though, it is however a fact that most but not all of the upper class gentry in Ireland where Anglo-Irish protestants. This just illustrates the common British practice of divide and rule. Certainly, many Anglo-Irish at the time may have considered themselves British, they benefited from the Empire, however I have difficulty believing that the common Irish labourer during the Potato Famine would want to be associated with the name of his oppressers. Even if he did, he would have no love for England.

The Anglo-Irish have provided Ireland with some of it's greatest writers and patriots, but unfortunately they have constituted some of the greatest oppressors also, with the harsh landlord system and figures like Craig, as well as the Northern Unionist government until the 60s.

Anyway, I don't mean to come across as offensive, but I feel strongly about this. There's a trend in Ireland today that seems to want to pander to the British. Look at the media, Irish history and culture is played down to be "politicially correct". Our patriots are cast in a continually negative light as if rebelling against the established, oppressive authority of a British regime where a crime, and that we should feel shame. Anyway, that's just how I see it.

Well, I've been off topic. Sorry.

I reckon the British Empire started to decline post WW1, like others said. Though, I think, in truth it started it's death in India and Ireland with the 19th century famines.

Mad Finn

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Tom,
I can't figure out whether you are anti-British, anti-imperialist or anti-liberal economic policy. It was the latter that caused famine here and in Scotland.

Now wait there just a cotton-pickin' minute.

Liberal ie laissez faire economic policies applied to an appallingly unbalanced, discriminatory and illiberal status quo in which a populous peasant class had virtually no chance of social mobility, was effectively bound to its tenant class status unless its members emigrated, and which had almost no room for manouvre when a natural disaster beckoned.

In terms of supply chain economics the peasantry was squeezed financially to the point where it became overly dependant on a single foodstuff: one that made the most economic sense for a subsistence farmer to concentrate upon at that time. While the potato thrived, they survived. When it failed, they starved.

The blame lies with the monitors of that system, who allowed it to grow and become entrenched and who spouted free market mantras as a cure to the problem when people started to starve. That is, the government of the time, namely the British one, and its agents and those of the landlord class in Ireland at the time.

Jackie laughlin

Tom,
You don't come across as offensive.

You ignore the role of the emerging Irish ruling class in the famine/genocide.

I didn't mean to suggest that there was no Irish language, customs etc. 800 years ago. I was referring specifically to a feeling of identity, nationhood.

We would never agree. I deplore the glossing over of savagery and calling it "nationalism" or "republicanism" and the like. I admire constitutionalism. There's been no excuse for violence in these islands since the time of Parnell at the latest.

I have particular contempt for the kind of pseudo-nationalist and pseudo republican who is insufficiently Irish to be culturally aware and wouldn't even bother his/her arse to learn the language. (No, of course I don't mean you.)

Tom Barry

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Tom,
You don't come across as offensive.

You ignore the role of the emerging Irish ruling class in the famine/genocide.

I didn't mean to suggest that there was no Irish language, customs etc. 800 years ago. I was referring specifically to a feeling of identity, nationhood.

We would never agree. I deplore the glossing over of savagery and calling it "nationalism" or "republicanism" and the like. I admire constitutionalism. There's been no excuse for violence in these islands since the time of Parnell at the latest.

I have particular contempt for the kind of pseudo-nationalist and pseudo republican who is insufficiently Irish to be culturally aware and wouldn't even bother his/her arse to learn the language. (No, of course I don't mean you.)

Well, the debate I was engaged in was to do with whether or not the Irish man was an equal partner within the British Empire. I think I've proved otherwise. That's all I needed to prove. The "Emerging Irish Ruling Class", could you clarify? Not 100% sure what you mean. I know that landlords where not exclusively Anglo-Irish, that would be a sweeping generalisation, but the culpability for the famine rests largely on the shoulders of the mostly Anglo-Irish landlords and the British response.

Regarding violence, to be frank with you, violence has at times been a neccessary evil in Ireland in the post Home Rule Era. 1969 for example, far be it for me to condone what is now a terrorist organisation, but at the time the Provisional IRA formed a neccessary militia to protect catholic areas from Loyalist pogroms. Even your own Free State Army mobilised to the border. And whereas I have some sympathy for Redmond, I disagree that Irish men should be slaughtered in France for something which they where entitled to has a consenting majority in the first place: Home Rule. "Freedom for small Nations" indeed. Besides, Carson's UVF would never have allowed Home Rule to sustain itself for long and undoubtedly a Torie government would have found another way to undermine the Irish and placate the Unionists.

Even where Home Rule to be institued, I doubt that it would've had a significant effect upon the landlord system, so Ireland would still have been in abject poverty. This is all overlooking the fact, that the future of Ireland was in the hands of an arrogant nation, the British, who had done nothing to earn the respect or right to do so in the first place. I very much doubt Home Rule would've been the massive breakthrough the Irish needed. If you look at the Emancipation Act closely, you'll see that the value of property required to have a vote was doubled simultaneously, still leaving most catholics disenfranchised. So Britain was never very honest with the Irish. And why would this change? Remember that the Irishman was regarded as racially and intellectually inferior.

sceptre

Tom Barry wrote:

Sorry, didn't intend offence. I gave an honest assessment of what I thought.

No worries. I'd hate to see considered analysis as you've contributed spoiled by a nod towards some of our more abrupt posters. Please carry on.

InFront

TomBarry, I agree with much of what you said in your posts. Except these bits!

Tom Barry wrote:

Even where Home Rule to be institued, I doubt that it would've had a significant effect upon the landlord system, so Ireland would still have been in abject poverty.

The land question was more or less settled by 1910 or before. True, what few remaining landlords were left were gotten rid of after the Irish administration arrived (Paddy Hogan as Minister? can't remember the Act), but the Landlord system was annhilated by the British under their own tenure in this country.

I very much doubt Home Rule would've been the massive breakthrough the Irish needed.

I doubt so too. However, independence would have come eventually to the South to leave them in much the same 'state' as it is today: independent and cut away from the North. This would hardly have happened until after WWII, but if there was no gun fired in Ireland or England between 1916 and 2006, I for one am confident that I would still be sitting here today in an independent Ireland under exactly the same conditions because of the inevitable breakdown of the British administration overseas post war.

Remember that the Irishman was regarded as racially and intellectually inferior

Remember that the Indian was regarded as (possibly even more) racially and intellectually inferior. Yet Indian independence did not rely on the gun.

In my opinion, if WWII hadn't broken out, India would almost definitely have secured indebendency by 1941-42.
Yet, whenever it was to come, look at what was achieved with much less of a focus on violence than there was in Ireland.

You could, quite easily, argue that the methods of peaceful protests delayed Indian independence, and led to 'the impatience war' with the Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, but that isn't relevent.
The fact is, that the raj, as it was, was not dismantled with a hammer but with a feather. Was a civil war inevitable? Maybe. But, was independence through violence inevitable? Certainly not.