British Imperialism....

[Malachi151]

Here is a good article on the matter:

http://www.ied.info/books/ed/british.html

Too much to try and quote, but read it if you are interested in the subject.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I think the lesson of the British Empire (all European Empires?) is that no matter how honest and noble intentions may seem, they always fall prey to the most basic of human passions.

Control...................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jon_in_london]

btw, inspite of the opium wars, China was never actually colonised.

I'd like to challenge this too:

In The Discovery of India , Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru wrote, “If you trace British influence and control in each region of India, and then compare that with poverty in the region, they correlate. The longer the British have been in a region, the poorer it is.”

And how well do you think peasants did in the feudal principlaties before the British? I'd like to see the figures, but Ill guess a peasant in Jhansi wanst exactly rollicking in gold.

Japan, because it had no valuable natural resources, was the only country not culturally, racially, and religiously tied to Europe that escaped domination during this period. Until Taiwan and South Korea (and now China and Southeast Asia) were industrialized, all under the same protectionist barrier to contain fast expanding socialism, Japan was the only non-white society to industrialize and join the club of wealthy nations.81

Ummm..... Nyasaland?

 

[Hypocolius]

Ummm..... Nyasaland?

Explain please?

 

[BillyTK]

Interesting article. This is mroe out of interest of thread bumping, but there's a couple of points that Jon_in_london makes that I'd like to address:

And how well do you think peasants did in the feudal principlaties before the British? I'd like to see the figures, but Ill guess a peasant in Jhansi wanst exactly rollicking in gold.

A general observation; there's been recent attempts to revise the history of the British Empire (that guy who did the tv series, name escapes me) based on the proposition that the British Empire did good things so it really wasn't that bad. I'm not attributing this attitude to jon_in_london, but noting the parallels between that attitude and the sentiments expressed in the above quote. The article quotes from E. K. Hunt and H. J. Sherman's "Economics":

India was relatively advanced economically. Its methods of production and its industrial and commercial organization could definitely be compared with those prevailing in Western Europe.

I'll admit I've as yet found no information on what this meant for peasants in the feudal principalities, but surely their circumstances would have had to have been pretty severe for them to have benefitted from British colonialisation?

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Ummm..... Nyasaland?

The name given to the British Central African Protectorate in 1907. What is its relation to the context of countries "not culturally, racially, and religiously tied to Europe that escaped domination" and being "non-white society to industrialize and join the club of wealthy nations", please?

 

[Jon_in_london]

The name given to the British Central African Protectorate in 1907. What is its relation to the context of countries "not culturally, racially, and religiously tied to Europe that escaped domination" and being "non-white society to industrialize and join the club of wealthy nations", please?

Acck!!! thats what happens when you post when you are drunk.

/bashes head against wall.

 

[BillyTK]

Acck!!! thats what happens when you post when you are drunk.

/bashes head against wall.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why people post when drunk. Surely drinking is more important?

 

[Giz]

I'll admit I've as yet found no information on what this meant for peasants in the feudal principalities, but surely their circumstances would have had to have been pretty severe for them to have benefitted from British colonialisation?

Except from the abolition of Suttee, Thuggee (though the extent of the Thugs has been recently questioned), the introduction rule of law and democracy where previously there had been only warring despotic states whose absolute rulers arbitrarily executed , robbed and tortured their abject subjects.

Being a peasent in feudal India WAS pretty severe. Imagine being a peasent in a feudal England (where even the Magna Carta hadn't been heard of). The Rajahs - somehow -made the East India Company look good!

 

[Tony]

British Imperialism is good, with-out it, chances are I (and most americans here) would have never existed. Thank you Britain.

 

[BillyTK]

Except from the abolition of Suttee, Thuggee (though the extent of the Thugs has been recently questioned), the introduction rule of law and democracy where previously there had been only warring despotic states whose absolute rulers arbitrarily executed , robbed and tortured their abject subjects.

Thanks Giz. Suttee is certainly a dispicable practice, but in india it was a specifically Hindu practice, wasn't it? So apart from that, something else (thuggee) which may or may not have been as extensive as first thought, and another thing (democracy) which they didn't actually get until after the British left, how did the ordinary peasant benefit from British colonialism, except for rule of law (even thought they were under military occupation)?

Being a peasent in feudal India WAS pretty severe. Imagine being a peasent in a feudal England (where even the Magna Carta hadn't been heard of). The Rajahs - somehow -made the East India Company look good!

Did they make the Indian Mutiny look good as well? Or the 1876-1908 famines?

 

[Jon_in_london]

Thanks Giz. Suttee is certainly a dispicable practice, but in india it was a specifically Hindu practice, wasn't it?

Hindism being far and away the majority religion..... anyway, whats a few char-grilled widows one way or the other?

So apart from that, something else (thuggee) which may or may not have been as extensive as first thought.

Pfff... thugee. Those evil white men destroying the indigenous cultural of the oppressed noble savages!

...and another thing (democracy) which they didn't actually get until after the British left

Better late than never.

how did the ordinary peasant benefit from British colonialism, except for rule of law (even thought they were under military occupation)?

Better to live under the rule of law under an occupying power than to be summarraliy executed whithout so much as a by your leave.

The aqueduct, sanitation, medication etc..etc....
brought peace?

Most of India remained loyal to the British during the mutiny.

Oh, and btw, while British troops could be flogged to within an inch of their lives for a triffling misdemeanour, Sepoys were never flogged, which may be why so many of them remained loyal.

PS: Abolished slavery.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm

 

[Giz]

Thanks Giz. Suttee is certainly a dispicable practice, but in india it was a specifically Hindu practice, wasn't it? So apart from that, something else (thuggee) which may or may not have been as extensive as first thought, and another thing (democracy) which they didn't actually get until after the British left, how did the ordinary peasant benefit from British colonialism, except for rule of law (even thought they were under military occupation)?

Did they make the Indian Mutiny look good as well? Or the 1876-1908 famines?

All too true. The vast VAST non-hindu areas of India didn't practice Suttee.

I'm not sure what you mean by military occupation. Stop and think a moment. Who lost their "self-determination", their "freedom"? - only the local tyrants who were no longer able to wage war and grind the peasantry beneath their heel quite so much. The peasants were kept in line by armed force under the Rajahs. Pre-Clive the Indian sub continent governing bodies didn't have some mandate from the masses.

When the Brits came along the peasants just swapped being subject to arbitrary torture and imprisonment and execution by the local despots as opposed to being subject to (admittedly not enlightened by todays standards but vastly better than the local traditions of the time) British law.

The Indian mutineers came under the control of the Maharajahs. Had they been succesful the odds are that India would have devoled again into many smaller states, run by depots for despots by the despots. Petty wars, continuation of customs like Suttee, no democraty, rule by fiat not law, etc. Now subsequent to that a modern democratic Indian democratic movement did arise (headed by the likes of Ghandi) but they weren't around at the time of the mutiny. Which was itself triggered by religious rather than nationalistic sentiment.

And, since you mention it, famines never happened under the benevolent rule of the Maharajahs. Ever.

(I just realised - I should have attempted to awnser this in the manner of Monty Pythons Life of Brian "What did the Romans ever do for us?")

 

[Jon_in_london]

(I just realised - I should have attempted to awnser this in the manner of Monty Pythons Life of Brian "What did the Romans ever do for us?")

What have the Romans ever done for us!

I did make a subtle refernce to that in my response, oh by the way.

 

[Giz]

I did make a subtle refernce to that in my response, oh by the way.

Ah but I was still typing (slowly) while you'd posted, and so missed it! I'll have to get some tips from Malachi!

 

[Mr Sagan]

I don't see how Bush can be an "Imperialist" if he doesn't seek to acquire lands.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I don't see how Bush can be an "Imperialist" if he doesn't seek to acquire lands.

Obviously a cross post from the "totally irrelevant to the thread topic" thread.

 

[Ed]

The Brits gave India a uniform language as opposed to the mutually indecipherable 400 that they had. India (and other colonies) owe a tremendous debt for that.

 

[Mike B.]

Would it be fair to say former British colonies tend to be more democratic on average than others?

i.e. Canada, US, Australia, New Zealand, India

(Yes I know bad ones like Zimbabwe as well...)

 

[JAR]

Here Malachi151 goes again. He posts some study or something and doesn't tell us what theory of his this study is supposed to support, so we don't know for sure what he is getting at, but we suspect he is trying to say that people would be better off under communism, but we don't know that he means to say that for sure.

 

[JAR]

Malachi151, I really don't see what this link has to do with communism. I suspect it's there to support your insane view that "all the English do when they go somewhere is steal everything."

By the way, there is tons of evidence to support that the English have done a lot more than "steal everything."

In my opinion Malachi151, you are right up there with those crackpot Jew-haters.