British Empire Society

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100

TRB

Gilliwoo

Once more, the Spanish Armada had fairly little to do with the British Empire...

oh good god, i second John D

Reply 101

JonD

Gilliwoo

The charge of the light brigade...that had only an oblique connection to Empire :confused:

do we actually still know hwat we are talking about here?

The light brigade were forces of the British Empire and they were powerful cultural symbols from there onwards. What's the issue here?

Reply 102

TRB

^ that was what I was going for, dare anyone show national pride

Reply 103

SpideyMonkey

All these things which you claim have nothing to do with the Empire were about putting johnny foreigner in his place, which is exactly what the Empire did too.

Reply 104

Gilliwoo

Well it's not pessimism; I just think that Empire-love must co-exist with historical accuracy :wink:

If it's about Empire, then it would be nice to actually discuss the Empire; if it's solely about nationalism, well, that'd be significantly more boring. Now back to the breast-beating if you will.

Reply 105

TRB

^
The main man churchill can put it better than I can

Reply 106

Gilliwoo

The Rugger Bugger

^
The main man churchill can put it better than I can

[image of churchill V-sign]
'Victory', indeed. A by-word for British Imperialism.

Reply 107

JonD

Gilliwoo

'Victory', indeed. A by-word for British Imperialism.

Look closer. That's "**** off", not "victory". :smile:

Reply 108

SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian

It's worth noting that the Roman empire raped a lot of the lands that it conquered - I mean look at what happened to England after it pulled out. Nigh on 1000 years of technological and social retardation - the only small bit of civilisation was imposed by the French! Sounds a lot like East Asia, in fact.

Yet what they're remembered for is not these actions, but rather their dramatic, positive affect on the world, as well as their intellectual and organisational skill. Their amazing inventions, their philosophy, their science, their ... baths. They changed the definition of an armed force from a rag-tag mob (something the rest of Europe reverted back to for a number of centuries) to an organised, disciplined fighting force. Their impact upon European - and thus the anglophere, the iberiosphere (if that's a word) and, of course, Quebec - language was immense, as well as their ability to hold together such a huge empire, especially in the days before the telegram and far inferior sea-faring vessels.

So, in 1000 years, for what will the British empire be remembered? It's a fun question.

Reply 109

Gilliwoo

JonD

Look closer. That's "**** off", not "victory". :smile:

Looks like bunny ears to me...

Reply 110

L i b

creak

Jesus. This thread really is depressing :frown:

Only because you're an enemy of all that is good in the world: cricket, the Queen, the Daily Telegraph, Christianity and kedgeree.

Reply 111

Clubber Lang

When I first read the title I was hoping for a typo and that is was a Brittas Empire society - I was bitterly disappointed.

Reply 112

Tory Dan

creak

Jesus. This thread really is depressing :frown:

Heretic! Deport him to Australia with the other convicts!

Reply 113

Sticky

cookiejest

I hereby request a British Empire Appreciation Society

Our Dominions

Well first of, your map of the Dominions is wrong. Only Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa are Dominions. So the rest is wrong.

British Guiana is not what's on your map. You've also encompassed Suriname (Dutch Guiana) and Guyane (Frence Guiana). Your map also doesn't show the British Empire at its largest. There was far more territory in Africa that was British occupied such as Tanzania and Namibia and also in the Middle East. Iraq being one that you'd think people would be more aware of, considering events of the past few years! Although it was simply a mandate after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire.
Get a proper map.

There's this self-flaggelating attitude among Britons about their colonial past. You don't see anything like this in other European countries or the US(despite what Americans might say, America also has a colonial past in the Pacific and South East Asia and also Liberia, although Liberia was created with "good intentions"). Sure, we should not celebrate the British Empire as a fantastic creation for the whole of humanity. The British did pretty much EXPLOIT millions of people and their countries' wealth (however this is not to be confused with slavery, which is another issue!). However, we mustn't forget that:
1) The British were the first colonial power to have a total, permanent ban of slavery in their territories. They were also very effective at spreading human rights and democracy. Despite so many Britons sucking on American ****s and wanting a president and a presidential system, the Westminster model is admired in most former British territories and has also been adopted.
2) Let's not forget that in a lot of the countries that were occupied, the inhabitants were not all lovely people. Many countries had no regard for human rights, executed people randomly, performed slavery (the European superpowers did not create slavery, they exploited a system that was already there)...
3) The British invested heavily in the colonised countries. Many former colonies still have infrastructure that dates back to the colonial era. Certain former countries even want to be recolonised (places like Tuvalu).

As for a society, why can't you just have a Commonwealth of Nations/British Commonwealth society? I'm sure within that society you could discuss the benefits of the British society and the effects of British culture. But you would have to accept that maybe members from former British colonies will not agree with you that is was all so peachy.

Reply 114

Sticky

Gilliwoo

But on the other hand, in the process a great part of the native populations of the Americas was killed directly or indirectly, and the same thing happened in other parts of the world such as Australia and Oceania;

Yes but Britons don't have to feel as bad as the Americans, Canadians and Australians... funnily enough, as much as some of them like to differentiate themselves from their colonial past, they can't forget the fact that it's their ancestors that were responsible for the murder of millions of indigineous people. That's the strange thing about common conceptions: anything bad cause by the British Empire is usually seen as the fault of Britain (or even reduced to England, as I'm sure if Scotland became independent, the SNP would somehow explain that the British Empire was about the English, not the Scots, which actually in effect, is quite the opposite).
Some of these nasty events are much more American/Canadian/Australian history than British history but some delusioned people from the "Dominions" believe that loosening ties with Britain, is a way of breaking away from their colonial past, when in effect, it shows how involved their countries were involved in the nasty aspects of colonialism and imperialism.

I'm in.

ViVi87

RE: "You even get backward minded people who argue Britain should re-colonise countries."

Well you have people who don't know what they're talking about, who can't place countries on maps, who couldn't even name more than 3 former British colonies so of course, when such people make such comments, it's a lot of irrelevant crap.

But as for re-colonising: a few very small countries do look back fondly at their colonial past. Some Pacific countries and certain Caribbean countries (many are too busy with offshore finance, tourism to need Britain) probably wouldn't hate the idea of being a British territory again. You seem to have an emotional tie to India but not far, parts of Sri Lanka miss the days of the British Empire when that part of the world was buzzing with activity around the tea plantations.

Britain left a lot of countries without the structure necessary to run as proper democratic countries. Sure we have the Commonwealth but it is so weak politically that, other than threaten to remove membership of an excessively undemocratic country, it has no power. As opposed to most European colonial powers, Britain fought virtually no colonial wars. Britain's attitude was always to leave quickly as soon as unrest appeared, in order to have healthly economic and political ties with the newly independent countries. This wasn't all to do with Britain's good nature as opposed to other European countries though! Britain's exodus of people went mostly to the Dominions. Very few emigrants went to the actual colonies except places like Kenya or South Africa. So there was no real need to hold onto the colonies although losing India without a war (although by exiting quickly, they did nothing to prevent the atrocious civil war) was quite surprising when there was a War for Indochina and for Indonesia nearby....
Although countries like India found their feet reasonably quick, there are many countries in Africa that suffer from bad government. The British have provided advisors to countries like Sierra Leone to assist politicians there. That form of "re-colonisation" is actually quite positive.

I'm in.

Me too. Where is the Soc?

Reply 119

seb1188

I'm sure anyone from Britain will have strong feelings about the history of the British Empire. And like me, I'm sure you have the impression of "America the leader of the civilised world? Ha! If it came to it, they'd probably all look to us, not them!".

But we mustn't forget that to other countries, this attitude of ours can be percieved as arrogance. Let's not let it go over our heads, now.

As for those of you who are making a mockery of the empire, just think that if it wasn't for the BE, most of the developed world would perhaps not be so developed. If you want a clear image of that, think of the hemisphere divide. North developed, south developing, right? But Australia and New Zealand, once part of the British Empire, are nicely developed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a historian.