Britain is responsible for "so many of the world's problems", said David Cameron

Vourney

Yes, of course his statement is not genuine or sincere, it's a calculated statement, which he and his kind most likely prefer to call "diplomatic". It has nothing to do with the true facts and history of the British presence in India. And it relies on the fact that nowadays pseudo history and superficial and incomplete understandings of history are now the norm. We used to complain (Irish) about skewed history in the past, but it's actually getting worse. It is more accurate to say that the British East India Company, their shareholders and beneficiaries were responsible for their actions in India, as well as the other countries and their corporations' presense in India. While at the same time that BEIC consolidated their power in India, how many children and adults were living in the workhouses of England? He is putting the blame on them as well? I don't feel that travelling down the corridors of historical details and subplots will lead to any clarity on the main issue. David Cameron may have ties to BEIC, and if so, then he can choose to take responsibility for the actions, good and bad, of the BEIC. Ethically he is wrong to attempt to speak for all Britons with his imperial "we". Including all Britons in his sense of guilt, and spreading guilt to those who were blameless and innocent, is disgusting and deeply immoral.

dpe

Vourney wrote: »

Yes, of course his statement is not genuine or sincere, it's a calculated statement, which he and his kind most likely prefer to call "diplomatic". It has nothing to do with the true facts and history of the British presence in India. And it relies on the fact that nowadays pseudo history and superficial and incomplete understandings of history are now the norm. We used to complain (Irish) about skewed history in the past, but it's actually getting worse. It is more accurate to say that the British East India Company, their shareholders and beneficiaries were responsible for their actions in India, as well as the other countries and their corporations' presense in India. While at the same time that BEIC consolidated their power in India, how many children and adults were living in the workhouses of England? He is putting the blame on them as well? I don't feel that travelling down the corridors of historical details and subplots will lead to any clarity on the main issue. David Cameron may have ties to BEIC, and if so, then he can choose to take responsibility for the actions, good and bad, of the BEIC. Ethically he is wrong to attempt to speak for all Britons with his imperial "we". Including all Britons in his sense of guilt, and spreading guilt to those who were blameless and innocent, is disgusting and deeply immoral.

To be fair, he was talking about Partition in particular and that had nothing to do with BEIC which hadn't been in charge in India since 1857. You're point is still broadly correct though; my (English/Welsh) ancestors were working, fighting and dying for the British Empire but I'm pretty sure they weren't deciding Imperial policy!

MarchDub

dpe wrote: »

Well if you're going to go down that road, you could make the same argument (albeit on a smaller scale), about Ireland.



*runs away*

*Before you get away* -

Not the same argument - the factional issues specific to Ireland at the date of independence were the result of the colonial presence - they did not predate it.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was it Mountbatten that made the Lehore Declaration?

According to the Indian historian Claude Markovits in his History of Modern India - I just checked it - the Lehore Resolution of 1940 was "a clever piece of propaganda" which he attributes mostly to Jinnah.

According to Markovits it was the result of a false version of Indian history propagated by the colonial government and actually beginning with Aurangzeb, the Indian Mughal Emperor.

Vourney

dpe wrote: »

To be fair, he was talking about Partition in particular and that had nothing to do with BEIC which hadn't been in charge in India since 1857. You're point is still broadly correct though; my (English/Welsh) ancestors were working, fighting and dying for the British Empire but I'm pretty sure they weren't deciding Imperial policy!

Oh I thought he was apologizing for the economic aspect of it. If he's apologizing for the political aspect of it, it seems even more ridiculous to say that his fellow Britons share the blame.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

According to the Indian historian Claude Markovits in his History of Modern India - I just checked it - the Lehore Resolution of 1940 was "a clever piece of propaganda" which he attributes mostly to Jinnah.

According to Markovits it was the result of a false version of Indian history propagated by the colonial government and actually beginning with Aurangzeb, the Indian Mughal Emperor.

I know.

The partition of India had many protagonists, but it is handy to blame mountbatten

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I know.

The partition of India had many protagonists, but it is handy to blame mountbatten

The only thing I 'blame' Mountbatten for is the Duke of Edinburgh.:eek:

Einhard

brianthebard wrote: »

What are these advantages and benefits? If you attempt to stand in an objective, non-Eurocentric position, can you really say that they are benefits? Do they outweigh the damage done or just partially make up for it?

Yes, of course you can say there are benefits. Everything has benefits. The Nazi regime in Germany had some positive aspects. I think it's a peculiarity that people have to look at things as black or white, with no shades of grey, and no nuance permitted. Thus, nothing good can ever come out of empire. This is simply not the case. The spread of liberal ideas and freedoms across the world was facilitated by imperialism. Democracy is a case in point. The rise of English as global languages, with Spanish and French following behind, has had massive benefits for global communications, and trade. These are all benefits. One could also argue that the significant infrastructural developments brought about by empire, in areas which might otherwise not have seen such developments, was also a great positive of imperialism.

None of this though, is in defence of imperialism. It was a wicked system, and has left behind a legacy of devestation and turmoil in practically all former colonies. Even In Ireland, 90 years after de facto independence, I think the legacy of empire continues to hang over us, and influence the Irish pysche. However, it is entirely wrong I think, to seek to remove all positives from the system. Nothing is so simple as to be entirely good or bad.

brianthebard

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, of course you can say there are benefits. Everything has benefits. The Nazi regime in Germany had some positive aspects. I think it's a peculiarity that people have to look at things as black or white, with no shades of grey, and no nuance permitted. Thus, nothing good can ever come out of empire. This is simply not the case. The spread of liberal ideas and freedoms across the world was facilitated by imperialism. Democracy is in a case in point. The rise of English as global languages, with Spanish and French following behind, has had massive benefits for global communications, and trade. These are all benefits. One could also argue that the significant infrastructural developments brought about by empire, in areas which might otherwise not have seen such developments, was also a great positive of imperialism.

None of this though, is in defence of imperialism. It was a wicked system, and has left behind a legacy of devestation and turmoil in practically all former colonies. Even In Ireland, 90 years after de facto independence, I think the legacy of empire continues to hang over us, and influence the Irish pysche. However, it is entirely wrong I think, to seek to remove all positives from the system. Nothing is so simple as to be entirely good or bad.

The point I was making which you seem to have missed is that those benefits you list are only benefits if you wish to live within the western system, if you believe they are benefits that people need and outweigh or negate some or all of the negatives. What about the right to self determination? What about the right to not be exploited? To not have your national resources pillaged? What about a nation being able to choose its own mode of production?

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

The only thing I 'blame' Mountbatten for is the Duke of Edinburgh.:eek:

The DofE is an after-hours legend though.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote: »

The point I was making which you seem to have missed is that those benefits you list are only benefits if you wish to live within the western system, if you believe they are benefits that people need and outweigh or negate some or all of the negatives. What about the right to self determination? What about the right to not be exploited? To not have your national resources pillaged? What about a nation being able to choose its own mode of production?

They are all pretty fundamental rights sure enough, but ones that we have only fairly recently enjoyed and come to think of as fundamental.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They are all pretty fundamental rights sure enough, but ones that we have only fairly recently enjoyed and come to think of as fundamental.

Hardly, they would go back to the french revolution at least if not the english civil war. Regardless we are now in the present day, then we should judge empire and how we remember it by present day standards, that is the only way.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

Hardly, they would go back to the french revolution at least if not the english civil war. Regardless we are now in the present day, then we should judge empire and how we remember it by present day standards, that is the only way.

Yes, and actually many of these values and sense of indigenous national rights go back further. Donal Ui Neill's letter of remonstrance in 1317 makes particular reference to local Irish rights being trampled upon by the English authorities - likewise "The Articles to be Stood Upon' by Hugh O'Neill in 1599 are a declaration for rights for the Irish that the English Crown refused to grant.

Just two examples from a list of 22 articles:

16 That the Queen nor her successors may in no sort press an Irishmen to serve them against his will...

20 That all Irishmen may freely traffic with all merchandises that shall be thought necessary by the Council of State for Ireland for the profit of their Republic, with foreigners or in foreign countries, and no Irishmen shall be troubled for the passage of priests or other religious men.

There is also a clause asking that no Irish heir be kidnapped by the Crown and made a crown ward - a common practice at the time.

The point is - even by the standards of their day they felt the foot of the colonial presence to be harsh and unjust.

Einhard

brianthebard wrote: »

The point I was making which you seem to have missed is that those benefits you list are only benefits if you wish to live within the western system, if you believe they are benefits that people need and outweigh or negate some or all of the negatives. What about the right to self determination? What about the right to not be exploited? To not have your national resources pillaged? What about a nation being able to choose its own mode of production?

I haven't missed anything, although you seem to have missed my point that imperialism was a negative system. It had some positive aspects however, and to deny that is to deny reality. Ireland had a brutal colonial past, and still suffers the consequences of imperialism, yet nobody coiuld deny that our facility with the Englush language, a by-product of that imperialiams, is a boon to us. Nothing is entirely good or entirely bad. To state that imperialism had some positive aspects is not to condone empire building.

brianthebard

Einhard wrote: »

I haven't missed anything, although you seem to have missed my point that imperialism was a negative system. It had some positive aspects however, and to deny that is to deny reality. Ireland had a brutal colonial past, and still suffers the consequences of imperialism, yet nobody coiuld deny that our facility with the Englush language, a by-product of that imperialiams, is a boon to us. Nothing is entirely good or entirely bad. To state that imperialism had some positive aspects is not to condone empire building.

I haven't missed your point about the negative effects, but one can only believe the positive effects are positive if you believe living in the western system is preferable to the colonised people being able to decide their own destiny as I outlined before.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, and actually many of these values and sense of indigenous national rights go back further. Donal Ui Neill's letter of remonstrance in 1317 makes particular reference to local Irish rights being trampled upon by the English authorities - likewise "The Articles to be Stood Upon' by Hugh O'Neill in 1599 are a declaration for rights for the Irish that the English Crown refused to grant.

Just two examples from a list of 22 articles:

16 That the Queen nor her successors may in no sort press an Irishmen to serve them against his will...

20 That all Irishmen may freely traffic with all merchandises that shall be thought necessary by the Council of State for Ireland for the profit of their Republic, with foreigners or in foreign countries, and no Irishmen shall be troubled for the passage of priests or other religious men.

There is also a clause asking that no Irish heir be kidnapped by the Crown and made a crown ward - a common practice at the time.

The point is - even by the standards of their day they felt the foot of the colonial presence to be harsh and unjust.

That sound more like nobles sorting out who owns whom, not what rights their serfs have.

Einhard

brianthebard wrote: »

I haven't missed your point about the negative effects, but one can only believe the positive effects are positive if you believe living in the western system is preferable to the colonised people being able to decide their own destiny as I outlined before.

That's not true at all. The positive effects stand independently of the negatove effects. One doesn't have to be a fascist to state that the Nazi regime had some positives for Germany, or an arch-imperialist to argue that the Roman presence in Britain had beneficial aspects. There are very few things that are entirely positive or negative, and imperialism isn't one of them.

indioblack

brianthebard wrote: »

Is it really inherited though if a country continues the same treatment and policies of colonies after independence?

Could you explain this?

brianthebard

Einhard wrote: »

That's not true at all. The positive effects stand independently of the negatove effects.

No, they can't stand independent, you have already made the point that positives and negatives came about as a result of imperialism, you are trying to have your cake and eat it by separating them. In the west its generally accepted that democracy is the best political system, and that's why its a good thing it was brought to the colonies. Except why should it have been pushed on those countries by an outside power? Their right to self determination has been fundamentally undermined forever as a result. This is what I mean by saying those positive effects can only be seen as such if you believe the western system is the right system.

indioblack wrote: »

Could you explain this?

After imperial powers pulled out of official political control they continued to exert control from outside. They promoted certain individuals as political figureheads, their companies who had previously exploited the colonies continued to after independence, etc. You can see this now in libya and the ivory coast, in france especially people/politicians believe they have a duty and a right to enforce certain policies in their former colonies. Its known as neo-colonialism.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That sound more like nobles sorting out who owns whom, not what rights their serfs have.

It was more to do with culture/religion and personal freedom for Ui Neill without being a vassal to the Queen - but there was a huge amount of skulduggery about no doubt about that. Forged letters were produced in response to the articles to supposedly show support for Elizabeth and label Ui Neil's victories in the nine years war as the work of ambushing criminals and self serving opportunists. Ui Neill actually was granted the title 'earl' by Elizabeth with an income of 1,000 marks per year. Not at all bad for the time - a mark was equal to 2/3 of a pound so this was right up there with the highest income. A carpenter earned about 15 pounds a year.

But Ui Neill was trying to take advantage of the excommunication and deposing of Elizabeth by papal bull to get the English out of his Provence. His communications with the Spanish give support to this view.

BTW Ireland wasn't feudal - so there were no serfs in the real sense of the word.