British Empire Society

As they say my friend; arrogance diminishes wisdom.

If the massacre of the unarmed with rifles is bravery (infamous Amritsar 1919) then yes, full credit to the empire for its 'achievements'.

Yes, because the right to live in peace is so overrated right?

Let me guess, you don't believe in democracy either?

A lot of rubbish. Of course you can come up with some unpleasant act - it's not very difficult. Every government in history has done something of this type, it's nothing to be remotely ashamed of. Nor does it in any way lessen the ideological justifications for imperialism.

Hardly 'peace' when most of these developing countries are either constantly on the brink of civil war or war with their neighbours. That's what Nationalism does - and to be frank, I think it's as unacceptable as racism.

Not many people really do when it comes down to it.

Oh please. Bring on the 'ideological justifications'. Go on. The right to freedom renders them all baseless.

The current state of affairs is preferable to 'another brutal empire' as put by another gentleman. That was the statement I was replying to. I also believe nationalism is preferable to being a subject in an empire, since the very nature of empire is to leave governance in the hands of another nation.

Self governance is a right

you can't deny the fact that ppl don't like being told what to do and it led to the fall of the British empire.

Nationalist nonsense. The only thing capable of being 'free' is an individual human being - and that is measured in terms of how liberal a government is. Nations, despite the amount of personified emotional nonsense is attached to them by 'patriots' cannot be free.

Ideological justifications - why do we think it's right to impose our laws on 'our own' citizens, yet not on others outwith this small group of islands? To me, that is hypocrisy.

I don't think that's fundamentally true. An incorporating empire need be nothing of the sort - the French largely had that. There's no reason we could not bring about imperial federalism.

Indeed, for many British possessions, the interference from London was negligable. For many years, the American colonies had zero - and when they had a tiny measure of it, they started shooting at us.

Meaningless when tied up with Nationalism. It's no more 'self-' than Nationalist government: am I self-governed because I share my parliament with a white Cornishman instead of a chap from the Punjab?

I think Nationalism fundamentally tells people what their culture and identity ought to be.

Anything else is irrelevant, as it's a matter of how liberal a state is, not where its borders lie.

Imperialist nonsense. Nations are as free as those that inhabit them. Imperial law violates the freedom of one to be governed by laws decided by one's own society. Nationalism derives from cultural differences, not from race as you would believe.

Whatever different degrees of freedom imperial law might allow for, if the people in that country do not wish to be governed by these laws, the country is not free.

Most people will concede that we need some form of government in society, and they will further agree that the government reflect their values, and not those of some faraway imperial power.

Unless of course you argue that freedom to preserve cultural values have no place in this world and believe we should all conform to one culture?

Because those 'others' value different things - different balances of free markets and government intervention, different cultural values. Because, you have no right. Consider it this way: why should the USA not impose its laws on the UK?

You are self governed because you have a choice of who represents you.

And I think you'd choose the white Cornishman because he reflects your ideals more closely than the other.

And if you do not, I can assure you that the majority of the world's population would choose someone who represents their values the closest, and these values are tied up in the society, the nation. Imperialism does not allow for that.

Nationalism doesn't tell you to do anything. It is "the belief that groups of people are bound together by territorial, cultural and (sometimes) ethnic links". And this is true in almost all the countries in the world. Just because it may not apply to the fragmented UK society does not mean it applies in every other country. Nationalism is not a crime.

In that case, how about the UK be annexed by another liberal country? It will remain liberal, and according to you, there should be no opposition.

I am aware of the difference between nationalism and racism; I find them equally contemptable.

Laws only have effect for people who do not wish to be governed by them. Otherwise they'd obey voluntarily. So that point is complete nonsense.

I reject moral relativism. We are all human beings, we all have the same needs. This tends to be the argument used by people who support 'values' like stoning women for adultery or ignoring due process of the law.

Anyway, I don't have a government which reflects my values now the Labour Party is in power. Can I secede from Britain?

Nope, merely that it has no place in government. The government should not endorse cultures - that's an affront to the freedom of people to choose their own.

I wouldn't be terribly offended if it did. I assess governments on the reasonability of their laws - not the accent or skin colour of the person proposing them.

No I don't. Not in the least.

Imperialism does not allow for people to wallow in their own small-mindedness? Good!

I think it's one of the worst crimes in human history. Nationalism endorses an orthodox culture. UK society is no more fragmented than any other - however, in a liberal society, we allow INDIVIDUALS to CHOOSE their culture, not have it imposed by a government. Endorsement is as good as that, and indeed usually leads to that.

However it is Britain that has carried the torch of liberty for centuries in this world.

the empire brought several great benifits to the world(mentioned above)
yes it did commit some 'bad' acts.but this aslo can be applyed to any country/society.if one is to remove the ultiliterian glasses and stop looking at things in numbers.the empire did bring concepts inventions which have added to the overall greatness of mankind

but if we stick with purely numbers what ever 51% want is what is good .if 51% want to kill the other 49% then that would be ok.ethics is much more then this .and althougth statistics can help in deciding what is good and the correct they cannot tell us the everything .and i admit infering motives is difficult but it is a vital part of what ethics is
i wasent talking about process in the last 20 years .,What i was talking about
is that britain more or less singlehandly introduced industralisation to the
world.
Also i never said that the empire would have in its operation pleased everybody no society everdoes.but again because people do not recongnise the benifits of something does not mean that those benifits do not exsist.education is an example most children and perhaps their parents do not recognise the benifits of it yet he benifits are their.
also i did not claim the empire invented everything

but if we stick with purely numbers what ever 51% want is what is good .if 51% want to kill the other 49% then that would be ok.ethics is much more then this .and althougth statistics can help in deciding what is good and the correct they cannot tell us the everything .and i admit infering motives is difficult but it is a vital part of what ethics is
i wasent talking about process in the last 20 years .,What i was talking about
is that britain more or less singlehandly introduced industralisation to the
world.
Also i never said that the empire would have in its operation pleased everybody no society everdoes.but again because people do not recongnise the benifits of something does not mean that those benifits do not exsist.education is an example most children and perhaps their parents do not recognise the benifits of it yet he benifits are their.
also i did not claim the empire invented everything

Ok, well sticking to the topic: empire. It is equally wrong to pick on one small good and amplify it until all the ills are forgotten. The fact is, the empire caused a lot of suffering to millions of people, and in no way do the 'glorious benefits' outweigh the negative. The ratio of -ve to +ve is hideously large.

The Nazis made genocide look dapper that's for sure.

We gave you railways, that outweighs all the bad things!

All laid directly from the cotton fields to the nearest large port...

not sure if its been mentioned but your map of the british empire is wrong.

Modern Indonesia and Papau new Guinea i'm pretty sure were known as the Dutch East Indies (and so Dutch). Also the "british guiana" is too big, you have included french guinea (sp?).

Also we had a bit more of east africa than is pictured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BritishEmpire1921.png

Good thread tho.

Ok, well sticking to the topic: empire. It is equally wrong to pick on one small good and amplify it until all the ills are forgotten. The fact is, the empire caused a lot of suffering to millions of people, and in no way do the 'glorious benefits' outweigh the negative. The ratio of -ve to +ve is hideously large.