Nigel Farage was born in the wrong century. He should have been born in the 11th century, he would have made a great village fool.
That's interesting, and helpful background. But it does not really contradict the points made so far, does it? Of course a colonial power would not want groups to fight each other; that brings them nothing and hurts their bottom line. But the text does say that group identities were emphasized and strengthened - which sows the seeds for later discord, when the colonial power is gone, removing the authority that can keep tensions in check and leaving a power vacuum to be filled. So to my mind, the point remains that colonial powers worsened the situation in terms of group identify and (potential for) conflict - which may have developed quite differently without their influence. (Or not, but you can't know either way. We only know what did happen.)
That's interesting, and helpful background. But it does not really contradict the points made so far, does it?
And it could become as fluid again, I don't believe the Belgiums really changed the position of the Tutsi fundamentally, they just made it more rigid. I know the colonial regimes usually preferred a relatively small local elite to support it and help exploit the rest, in case of Ruanda that took very little work. It's not like they had to draw the administrative division very creatively. Of course it's difficult to get from an (ethnic) elite to a situation of equality, but not just because of colonialism but also because decolonization held more promise for the bottom end than just going back to the situation from before colonization. Especially democracy is complicated with one big ethnic majority.True, the Belgians didn't invent the ethnonyms Hutu and Tutsi, but they made it into a rigid scheme based on physical features and wealth. The strong divide is really their creation; it was much more fluid before
On the other points, I agree that people fight each other for all kinds of things, be it religion or whatever. But colonial powers intentionally sharpened divides, this poisoning society. They have to take responsibility for that..
No, I don't believe so for several reasons. But if they had made a mess because of religion afterwards, they would have been to blame.You also can't just assume the strive would have happened anyway; it's not a given. For example, Catholics and Protestants are not fighting each other anymore in Europe. But they might have, if another power would have conquered western Europe in the 19th century and would have pitted these groups against each other to strengthen their own position. Same in India.
Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that; just trying to make the connection back to where the discussion was at.Sorry, I wasn’t trying to challenge anyone’s view here (otherwise I’d have quoted them), just adding to my own which I’d already stated earlier.
I'm no expert on the British Empire in particular, so I'll happily accept your position on this; it sounds sensible to me. So I suppose it would go too far to suggest any particular intent; rather perhaps a kind of historical opportunism (if not laziness), with little eye for long-term consequences for the local population.Having said that, I think where I’d perhaps depart from your own position (and correct if I’m wrong) is with the idea that there was a divide and rule master-plan determining British policy across space and time. I’d instead argue that the British played on divisions in certain times and places when it suited them, while in other contexts it was less useful for them to do so. I’d also argue that there was often little consistency in British approaches to the problem - policy could sometimes change quite drastically with the replacement of one administrator by another. Finally, I’d argue that British policies almost always produced outcomes which the British themselves did not expect. For example there were certain instances where British attempts to be neutral or even-handed actually provoked communal conflict, as this policy upset the previous balance of communal relations which had prevailed.
True, the Belgians didn't invent the ethnonyms Hutu and Tutsi, but they made it into a rigid scheme based on physical features and wealth. The strong divide is really their creation; it was much more fluid before.
On the other points, I agree that people fight each other for all kinds of things, be it religion or whatever. But colonial powers intentionally sharpened divides, this poisoning society. They have to take responsibility for that.
You also can't just assume the strive would have happened anyway; it's not a given. For example, Catholics and Protestants are not fighting each other anymore in Europe. But they might have, if another power would have conquered western Europe in the 19th century and would have pitted these groups against each other to strengthen their own position. Same in India.
Larger in scale, more vicious, more looting, more long-lasting negative impact, more racist. Aside from that, no different.No, it really doesn't. Seriously, take a moment and reread. No one, and I mean literally no one, is claiming those atrocities did not happen. Not a single person here. You've created a situation that simply doesn't exist. You have, in effect, created a strawman and you're doubling down on it, because you're too busy being outraged to actually consider it. But let's elaborate. What 'silly point,' specifically, did I make that evidence you supplied contradict. What is it, specifically, that it null and void because of your link?
Yes it is. One of the many, many instances of such attempts to isolate the British Empire as some unique evil in the world. It's not whataboutism. It's called context. The actions of the British Empire were no different to every other empire in existence. The atrocities committed are no different to the atrocities that were being committed before the empire arrived, and the atrocities that continued long after it left.
. And on that note, I'm out.Larger in scale, more vicious, more looting, more long-lasting negative impact, more racist. Aside from that, no different.
I can't think of a more ironic time, in my life anyway, for this to be number one.Land of hope and glory goes to number one as the old biddies decide to humiliate the BBC. Will they play it in the charts I wonder?
Its a massive own goal.
You'll have Indians, for example, rightly point out the atrocities caused by the British Empire during it's occupation, while downplaying any benefits.
You can disagree with me without making pathetic comments like this.There is no need to downplay anything as the atrocities far outweigh fringe benefits. It'd be foolish to debate otherwise. You do accept that atrocities have been committed, yet continue to rationalize the reasons for the same.
I won't be surprised if you were one of those who claim slavery helped Black people develop and they are downplaying the benefits of slavery.
You can disagree with me without making pathetic comments like this.
I won't be surprised if you were one of those people who think all white people are evil.
No. You need to justify you're ridiculous leap in logic. If you're incapable of approaching the conversation without such a juvenile attitude, then don't bother responding again.You tell me...what's the difference.
- You are the one who mentioned that the nations under Empire underplay the benefits....Seriously?
- If not British Empire, then someone will have...seriously?
Just accept atrocities and both parties find a way to move on to have better future. Stop rationalizing this.
No. You need to justify you're ridiculous leap in logic. If you're incapable of approaching the conversation without such a juvenile attitude, then don't bother responding again.
No it isn't. It's totally unjustified and it's made even worse by your refusal to back down from it. I asked to to explain it to me and your answer was for me to find the logic in it for you.I don't see it a any ridiculous leap in logic. It's just a parallel arguement to what you were making in here.
Anyway, I have no interest to continuing this.
You can disagree with me without making pathetic comments like this.
I asked to to explain it to me and your answer was for me to find the logic in it for you.
Great post.I agree that there was no need for that particular comment and I also partly agree that in this debate, some people can sometimes jump to hyperbole (without mentioning names)...which makes any reasoned debate, as 2cents is attempting to have for instance, much more difficult.
However, I do think the comment you made that was quoted was (probably unintentionally) quite inflammatory. What exactly do you personally think were the benefits of British rule in the subcontinent? The main ones I've seen/read have been 'advocating' against widow suicide, for the untouchables, English as a language and of course, the extent of analysis of literally 95% of British media regarding empire...the railways.
What this attitude presupposes in a way is that these practices would have continued if the British hadn't turned up/ they never would have been able to build those other things themselves. Of course there is a chance that this would have carried on, who knows. Or, like so many other practices, perhaps it would have fizzled out by itself. It wasn't that long ago in the grand scheme of human history that Americans were hanging witches. Nor that long ago that Europeans were homogenising their territories to avoid repeats of the world wars. As for the railways, again, there's no reason why India could not have simply purchased the equipment to do it as time went on. Same way most other countries are doing now/ have been doing.
I don't follow other countries' medias in the same way so I don't know what their analysis is like. I doubt the French or Spanish education systems go into detail on their atrocities for instance. So I don't agree that the British were uniquely savage, uniquely cunning, uniquely anything. But I guess they were just most successful at empire most recently and thus their actions are still impacting the modern world today (same with France's in fairness). The collapse of empire isn't some ancient event, its within living memory of a significant portion of the world population. Sadly, there is little critical analysis of the empire in British education or media, which leads to these two increasingly polarised views where one group makes out the British were uniquely x or y, while the other refuses to accept anything that happened as being out of the ordinary.
@africanspur I appreciate your attempts to continue to the conversation with a degree of civility and you raise some very interesting points, but I'm done with this thread.
This phrase is stupid at the best of times, keep it out of the CE.That's awesome. Don't hit the door on your way out
This phrase is stupid at the best of times, keep it out of the CE.
That's awesome. Don't hit the door on your way out
True, but one of the benefits is the European values the colonials are now judged by.There is no need to downplay anything as the atrocities far outweigh fringe benefits. It'd be foolish to debate otherwise.
It helped the descendants of slaves develop. Most American blacks that go 'back' to Africa return disappointed. It's not a secret Western countries are more developped and Western people tend to be more developped as a result, including the black ones since quite a while now. In the lottery of birthplace that life on earth is, blacks in most Western countries are winners just as much. Slavery was not an European invention to begin with, some blacks would have been unlocky beeing sold to Europeans, others would have been lucky. Certainly unlucky were the many sold to the Arabs. Aboliltion was an European invention.I won't be surprised if you were one of those who claim slavery helped Black people develop and they are downplaying the benefits of slavery.
What are these vaunted European values?True, but one of the benefits is the European values the colonials are now judged by.
It helped the descendants of slaves develop. Most American blacks that go 'back' to Africa return disappointed. It's not a secret Western countries are more developped and Western people tend to be more developped as a result, including the black ones since quite a while now. In the lottery of birthplace that life on earth is, blacks in most Western countries are winners just as much. Slavery was not an European invention to begin with, some blacks would have been unlocky beeing sold to Europeans, others would have been lucky. Certainly unlucky were the many sold to the Arabs. Aboliltion was an European invention.
The benefits of slavery aren't that obvious, to the individual plantation owners and on the short term they were, but to the economy of a colonizing state is a different question. Lots of hungry people looking for a job might have been a lot cheaper and could be sacked when there was less work. Slaves weren't consumers either and if I'm not mistaken a case against slavery was made on strictly economic grounds back then.
Great post.
The trains point is particularly interesting. Every country today has a railway system, and they usually weren't built by Brits. So why would India have uniquely needed the British Empire to get some trains running? It's a baffling argument.
The Indian Rail was not built to the benefit of the Indians. It was to get Indian raw materials to the coast to be shipped to the UK. It was not built at British cost either. The Indians paid for it and was built around 6 times more the cost of building it . So the Indians paid 6 times more to the British to built a railway in their own country. Of course they had no say in the matter and neither had a say in the cost of it.
Anyone who thinks the benefits even come close to the damage and destruction they caused has no idea to live in subjugation to a foreign power in their own country.
I thought you told me you were out? (Didn’t answer my post though)No. You need to justify you're ridiculous leap in logic. If you're incapable of approaching the conversation without such a juvenile attitude, then don't bother responding again.
To be fair, it's somewhat embarrassing hearing "Britainia rule the waves" and "Great Britain". Definitely no longer the dominant power. We've just been tailing the US since 1945.
Still one of the best countries to settle, mind.