History Soc.
Clicky here to join.
Is there a TSR History society? If there isnt, then dibs on making it right now!
If you enjoy history, then feel free to join.
I really hope there isnt already one, otherwise im gonna look like a fool
(edited 13 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Reply 1
Well going by the fact that posts on the history section of tsr are rare, I'd say there isn't one. There just aren't the votes in making a history soc.
Reply 2
ill join if there isn't already one..i haven't found it if there is!
Sweet. I can't be bothered manually compiling a list of everyone who's gonna ask. Posting it is pointless, and by the time I achieve it more people will have joined, meaning constant editing.
Anyway, everyone here who’s expressed interest you can now apply to join the society properly; its up and running now.
Hope it grows pretty big, there seems to be loads of roaming historians on this forum. I can be your Shepard!
I’ll post some questions to spark off some good discussions when a few more join.
Anyway, everyone here who’s expressed interest you can now apply to join the society properly; its up and running now.
Hope it grows pretty big, there seems to be loads of roaming historians on this forum. I can be your Shepard!
I’ll post some questions to spark off some good discussions when a few more join.
Chgeers WokSz, dont forget to formally apply to join it though.
What do people think about the British Empire? Was it morally a good thing? Was it financially beneficial for the British Economy? Do you think the results of our imperial past are positive or negative? Was the empire a moral quest to spread civilization? Was it the inevitable extension of capitalism? Or was it simply an accident, the outcome of territorial disputes all spread across the world, through which we amassed territory?
What do people think about the British Empire? Was it morally a good thing? Was it financially beneficial for the British Economy? Do you think the results of our imperial past are positive or negative? Was the empire a moral quest to spread civilization? Was it the inevitable extension of capitalism? Or was it simply an accident, the outcome of territorial disputes all spread across the world, through which we amassed territory?
Reply 12
Consie
Chgeers WokSz, dont forget to formally apply to join it though.
What do people think about the British Empire? Was it morally a good thing? Was it financially beneficial for the British Economy? Do you think the results of our imperial past are positive or negative? Was the empire a moral quest to spread civilization? Was it the inevitable extension of capitalism? Or was it simply an accident, the outcome of territorial disputes all spread across the world, through which we amassed territory?
What do people think about the British Empire? Was it morally a good thing? Was it financially beneficial for the British Economy? Do you think the results of our imperial past are positive or negative? Was the empire a moral quest to spread civilization? Was it the inevitable extension of capitalism? Or was it simply an accident, the outcome of territorial disputes all spread across the world, through which we amassed territory?
It's easy to retrospectively legitimise the Empire through an ethnocentric outlook that revels in us bringing 'civilisation' to foreign 'barbarous' people. One thing's for sure though, it certainly sped up globalisation. As for it being the ultimate expression of capitalism, although it's a convincing argument of Lenin's in a way, I think a want to expand your country's influence is perfectly natural, and will continue to take place as long as there is a disparity between two rivals' technologial prowess. Salient examples of this would be the Maxim gun, which helped the British annex vast areas of Africa, or the atom bomb, which Truman hoped would give America a diplomatic edge over the USSR.
Great idea to have a history society by the way - you beat me to it.
I don’t think the idea of us bringing civilisation to barbaric people is limited to retrospective analysis. It was a notable factor in expansion of the empire when it was happening. The idea of 'ethical imperialism' was quite prevalent, especially with people like Chamberlain. Although I always liked to believe our empire was part of a grand plan to export ‘Britishness’, upon reading, it does seem to me the colonies and dominions, perhaps apart from India, started out merely as outposts from the early colonial age, or havens for the surplus populous of Britain, without any intention of expansion. South Africa for example was simply a stop off point, a service station, on the way to India. It was purely Co-incidence that Rhodes found diamonds there and turned it into a money making machine.
We certainly did accelerate the rest of the world’s industrial development, exporting our industrial evolution upon them. Something the rest of the world should be thankful for in my opinion. Another key moral bonus of the Empire was its insistence on the abolition of slavery. Not only did we make it illegal, we encouraged other countries, such as Portugal and Spain to do so as well, and compensated them for the trouble.
EDIT: When I said ‘is limited to retrospective analysis’, I meant to say it IS NOT. I'm such a dumbass!!! I've got a bad habit of typing exactly what I don’t want to say, and saying the complete opposite of what I believe sometimes, which can end up being offensive :|
We certainly did accelerate the rest of the world’s industrial development, exporting our industrial evolution upon them. Something the rest of the world should be thankful for in my opinion. Another key moral bonus of the Empire was its insistence on the abolition of slavery. Not only did we make it illegal, we encouraged other countries, such as Portugal and Spain to do so as well, and compensated them for the trouble.
EDIT: When I said ‘is limited to retrospective analysis’, I meant to say it IS NOT. I'm such a dumbass!!! I've got a bad habit of typing exactly what I don’t want to say, and saying the complete opposite of what I believe sometimes, which can end up being offensive :|
Not so many ladies around here, eh? Well, perhaps it's because of the fact that history has always been really men-centred (at least before 19th century) in writing and making. Anyway, here's one to join the soc.
I'm beginning my studies (history&politics) in Glasgow this month, can't wait. I've always been a bit of a history freak. My friends find it terribly boring subject to discuss so mostly I just settle for reading my books.
British history isn't my strength but I'm sure I'll learn a lot in the course of time.
I'm beginning my studies (history&politics) in Glasgow this month, can't wait. I've always been a bit of a history freak. My friends find it terribly boring subject to discuss so mostly I just settle for reading my books.
British history isn't my strength but I'm sure I'll learn a lot in the course of time.
Originally posted by Salla
Not so many ladies around here, eh? Well, perhaps it's because of the fact that history has always been really men-centred (at least before 19th century) in writing and making. Anyway, here's one to join the soc.
Not so many ladies around here, eh? Well, perhaps it's because of the fact that history has always been really men-centred (at least before 19th century) in writing and making. Anyway, here's one to join the soc.
If its a representation of what my lecture halls are going to be like then I'm not complaining! Not that I'm suggesting in any way that a room filled with (hopefully) good looking guys could ever distract my attention from my love of history
But may be good to look at occassionally Reply 17
Consie
We certainly did accelerate the rest of the world’s industrial development, exporting our industrial evolution upon them. Something the rest of the world should be thankful for in my opinion. Another key moral bonus of the Empire was its insistence on the abolition of slavery. Not only did we make it illegal, we encouraged other countries, such as Portugal and Spain to do so as well, and compensated them for the trouble.
We weren't so willing when it came to withdrawal from Empire though....
Sure the British Empire contributed a lot to those it governed, but let's not forget that it wasn't all nice and happy. Britain DID invent the concentration camp during the Boer War. Then look at the borders of all the African states, ever notice how straight they are? It's because a load of European diplomats just got a ruler and drew some lines on a map and said 'there we are, that should work' - like hell it did.
On the issue of the development of industry, don't forget that the British Empire gutted a lot of the infrastructure they built in these countries for profit when they withdrew.
As Ossie has pointed out, Britain imported its fair share - ever seen the Elgin Marbles? Think Greece is ever getting those back? Like hell they are.
I'm proud of our pillaging; gives my ego a massage and makes me feel superior 
. Anyway, you think the marbles would be better off in Greece? The Parthenon has already been blown up once by the fools. Having them over here has increased our understanding of Greek civilisation more than having them over there.
As for withdrawing from the empire, I think you're wrong. Most of the British people and political individuals between 1830-1870, when the dominions were first colonised etc, believed that the unifying of places like Upper and Lower Canada and the provinces in Australians were just the necessary steps to an amicable separation. It’s what we were expecting, and wanted to happen. After all, we'd benefit from the relationship but not have to govern/defend the places.
On concentration camps, it was admittedly out of order, but people often think it was the same as Hitler’s places. It wasn’t; conditions were terrible and a lot of people died, but there wasn’t the type of killing that went on in Hitler’s extermination camps. I will say though, it’s probably the most effective way of dealing with a guerrilla enemy to date, even if it is immoral. But let’s face it; bombing a country into submission is probably just as immoral, and less effective.
I know it wasn’t all nice and happy, nothing ever is, and drawbacks generally get more attention than benefits, just think about Tony Blair’s legacy. It’s probably going to be negative due to Iraq rather than some of the great reforms he made.
As for Africa, to be completely honest, I think they were better off when we were there anyway. Anything beyond tribal levels and they can’t seem to sustain themselves. Look at everywhere from Somalia to Sudan, to Sierra Leone to Liberia. Can you blame it all on our Imperial footprints or on the 'behind the scenes working of the CIA'? I don’t think so.
Perhaps we should have left them as the tribes we found them in, but if we never tried to set up the governments they can’t seem to get the hang of running now, they would have been exploited by other nations anyway. The French, Germans, Portuguese and Spanish were all after the same thing, we just got the blame from the consequences because we beat them all to it. Don’t blame the British for the chaos; blame the European mentality at the time. They never thought colonialism was wrong, exporting their cultural superiority onto the savages, just as America doesn’t think its wrong exporting their governmental superiority i.e. ‘democracy’, to apparently savage nations now.
. Anyway, you think the marbles would be better off in Greece? The Parthenon has already been blown up once by the fools. Having them over here has increased our understanding of Greek civilisation more than having them over there.As for withdrawing from the empire, I think you're wrong. Most of the British people and political individuals between 1830-1870, when the dominions were first colonised etc, believed that the unifying of places like Upper and Lower Canada and the provinces in Australians were just the necessary steps to an amicable separation. It’s what we were expecting, and wanted to happen. After all, we'd benefit from the relationship but not have to govern/defend the places.
On concentration camps, it was admittedly out of order, but people often think it was the same as Hitler’s places. It wasn’t; conditions were terrible and a lot of people died, but there wasn’t the type of killing that went on in Hitler’s extermination camps. I will say though, it’s probably the most effective way of dealing with a guerrilla enemy to date, even if it is immoral. But let’s face it; bombing a country into submission is probably just as immoral, and less effective.
I know it wasn’t all nice and happy, nothing ever is, and drawbacks generally get more attention than benefits, just think about Tony Blair’s legacy. It’s probably going to be negative due to Iraq rather than some of the great reforms he made.
As for Africa, to be completely honest, I think they were better off when we were there anyway. Anything beyond tribal levels and they can’t seem to sustain themselves. Look at everywhere from Somalia to Sudan, to Sierra Leone to Liberia. Can you blame it all on our Imperial footprints or on the 'behind the scenes working of the CIA'? I don’t think so.
Perhaps we should have left them as the tribes we found them in, but if we never tried to set up the governments they can’t seem to get the hang of running now, they would have been exploited by other nations anyway. The French, Germans, Portuguese and Spanish were all after the same thing, we just got the blame from the consequences because we beat them all to it. Don’t blame the British for the chaos; blame the European mentality at the time. They never thought colonialism was wrong, exporting their cultural superiority onto the savages, just as America doesn’t think its wrong exporting their governmental superiority i.e. ‘democracy’, to apparently savage nations now.
On concentration camps, it was admittedly out of order, but people often think it was the same as Hitler’s places. It wasn’t; conditions were terrible and a lot of people died, but there wasn’t the type of killing that went on in Hitler’s extermination camps.
I think you are severely mistaken, read the following:
According to a British journalist, WT Stead, the concentration camps were nothing more than a cruel torture machine. He writes: "Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered."
What is the difference between a purposeful murder by starvation and a purposeful murder by gassing during the holocaust? Arguably gassing is more humane.
Looking at the evidence on this website (http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm), you above claim is extremely distorted and most definately wrong.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Literature at University of York
- Are my options good? YR9
- Should I apply to exeter or warwick or birmingham
- Can I get into Oxford medicine?
- Hatfield College Allocation 2024
- can i join law society even though im doing history?
- My journey to A-Levels
- A levels to study Law or Journalism
- Which a level teaches this and exambaord
- uni of reading lgbt/alt/indie culture
- What is Sociology A-Level like?
- making a competitive app to uni
- Anyone do any of these a levels lmk
- Moon gets her study up and not her funny up!! (real) (no clickbait)
- A levels
- Sixth forms in london
- Lonely in Durham Uni
- Societies/exerter
- Societies/exerter uni
- Anything - RHUL 2024 Offers (Law)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 months ago
Likelihood of getting into my desired Unis for history of artLast reply 2 months ago
Seeking Resources and Recommendations for History Enrichment
