Falklands, Pt2?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ketara**

whatwhat wrote:

oh so you acknowledge there was financial loss when the British Empire pulled out now?

As for your earlier post, you've missed my point three times now. Your ignorant belief that africa simply reverted back to "tribalism" once the empire left with no acknowledgment that european enforced borders had anything to do with the state africa is in today can go on as long as you want it to. I'm not making my point again or arguing with you any further.

I fully acknowledge that there would have been financial loss when the British pulled out. Why? Because the Empire brought trade to the region, and concentrated on production. Without the British, these things fell apart. However then surely the argument should be for the British to have stayed?

What I do not acknowledge is this absurd idea that Britain somehow 'ran away' with all the countries resources leaving them poor as a result. The resources were and still are there to be exploited, its just that as a result of a reversion to what I believe is advanced tribalism, and corrupt governments prevents them from doing so. These two things are not the fault of the British, they're the result of Africans seeming inability to govern themselves fairly and effectively.

Kilkrazy wrote:Not wanting to be an apologist for the British Empire, however it should be recognised that some of our moves into Africa followed prior waves of colonisation by other powers.

I don't buy that the Empire needs to 'apologised for'. It was a historical event that occurred a long time back. Any apology made would be as meaningless as one for slavery. The people from that era are no longer alive, and judging them by modern morals is pointless. What they did what completely acceptable at the time internationally, and whilst we may judge it wrong, we weren't alive then. It's as meaningless as me demanding an apology from the Queen now over Richard the Thirds butchering of Jews in York.

whatwhat wrote:

Patriotism, where someone who has achieved little themselves to take pride in they fulfill that gap by taking pride in the actions of others, their countrymen, who in most cases achieved said action with no prior thoughts that it was to the benefit of their country. It is actively encouraged by governments worldwide through media, sport etc. in order to keep a sense of unity in it's own people. Patriotism is the greatest form of propaganda.

So patriotism can only be held by someone of little achievement? I'm pretty sure Winston Churchill would disagree with you there, along with many other great historical figures. I would say that calling patriotism propaganda is far too simplistic. I can be a patriot in the sense that I am proud of the cultural roots that I originate from without any help from the government whatsoever. I don't need to be brainwashed into that. Conversely, would I lay down my life to protect Gordon Brown, for the good of the nation? In a word, no.

**sebster**

mattyrm wrote:My point is, so many people piss me off these days.

The people that seem to get offended by absolutely everything, the people that ram political correctness down everyones throats when its fair to say that 90% of the people in the world are sick to the back teeth of hearing it. The people that get offended on behalf of everybody else, even though everybody else isnt actually offended.

I do not see why, in 2010, i should feel bad because maybe there is a slim chance that one of my great great great grandparents did something that we now view as being expansionist or aggressive. Not just because the moral zietgeist has changed, or any other deep and meaningful reason. But because of the extremely obvious fact that its been to long to hold anyone living accountable.

For example, when i was serving in Northern Ireland, i would meet some militant "anti Brit" thug on the streets of Crossmaglen, who would bleat and whine and hurl missles/abuse at me for things that occured years ago. I find this ironic as my Grandfather was from Ireland, and i suppose its entirely possible that said thug might have an English ancestor! For this reason ive always found the whole idea of apologising for things that happened hundereds of years ago to be entirely absurd.

Basically i dont think that people who have never ever suffered theft, rape, looting or been slaves, should expect an apology from someone who has never ever stole, raped, looted or owned a slave! And going on about it all the time like these hand wringing mincers do constantly just seems to keep everyone at each others throats and stop us all from.. you know.. getting over it?

You dont see me whinging at the Italians or the Spanish of the Scandinavians because they might have done something bad to an ancestor of mine. I really think that people just need to get a life and move on.

Your mistake is taking this on a personal level. Recognising that there were some really screwed up notions of race surrounding the colonisation of Africa, and that those reasons along with basic economic motivations, left the former colonies in very weak positions to develop their own governments is nothing you personally have to be ashamed about, because you didn't do it.

But it's still true.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: I think the whole empire thing dragged people up rather than forced them down. Just like the Romans did for us back in the day. Thats why i think it was good. Also, as a soldier, you have to admire the effort! Its got nothing to do with "Patriotism".

The motivations and policies behind Roman expansion and European colonisation were completely different.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:You a Texan, should know your glorious history!

Indeed I do. As I said, what about Mexico? Thats never been a present or former colony of the US.

The process by which Texas was formed out of a previously Mexican province and later incorporated into the USA is very similar to the British annexation of much of South Africa.

**Orlanth**

Argentina is trying some sabre rattling now because they see a weak link. Gordon Brown is a spineless jellyfish.
However with an election coming up he cannot afford to be as spineless as usual and must present an illusion of backbone.

**mattyrm**

Orlanth, i am happy to point out that for once i agree with everything you have said. :-)

**Miguelsan**

Orlanth wrote:Argentina is trying some sabre rattling now because they see a weak link. Gordon Brown is a spineless jellyfish.
However with an election coming up he cannot afford to be as spineless as usual and must present an illusion of backbone.

And Miss Kichner is trying to distract the Argentinians while she and her husband raid the (central) bank again to pay for the enormous deficit Argentina has to face. BTW IIRC 2010 is election year in Argentina.

M.

**Albatross**

I would just like to point out Including Brazil in a list of British Colonies was incorrect - I must have gotten mixed up with the anti-slavery blockades. Crossed wires. Also, the Dutch had some invlovement there - I thought it might have been a similar situation to the East India Company...

Oh, well. My point still stands - the middle east is still swimming in oil, so the British couldn't have taken it with them when they left. Whether or not that part of the world is a total gak hole, is neither here nor there.

EDIT: Whoopsie! Swear-filter not working.

**Orlanth**

Albatross wrote:

I wonder how many third-world hell-holes would welcome us back with open arms? - I watched a documentary in which a Jamaican radio station was deluged with callers saying they wanted to rejoin The Empire. True (and weird) story.

Not well known story.

There was a buzz in the Foreign office because Sierra Leone asked exactly that, IIRC about 2000. Yes they actually asked to rejoin the 'Empire'. Blair said no, mostly because the current dogma is Empire = evil as a prerequisite to the dogma that old British = evil, multicultural British = good. As New Labour harneses much of its strength from this principle the idea that some might not find our old past to be so bad is anathema to the current government.

**dogma**

Why would you accept stewardship of a nation in the midst of a civil war? What resources would Sierra Leone provide in order to justify that cost.

**Kilkrazy**

We (the British) sent troops down there to help the UN sort them out. The UN troops on hand were Nigerian, another ex-British Empire country.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:You a Texan, should know your glorious history!

Indeed I do. As I said, what about Mexico? Thats never been a present or former colony of the US.

The process by which Texas was formed out of a previously Mexican province and later incorporated into the USA is very similar to the British annexation of much of South Africa.

Thats joyously wrong.

1. Santa Anna seized power. At least three provinces/territories whatever they were called rebelled. One of them was Tejas. Tejas just happened to be the one to successfully rebel. Rebellions continue to this day with successful and unsuccessful revolutions and rebellions.

2. The indepenedent nation of Texas continued to have border disputes with Santa Anna's military dictatorship covering not only its independence, but the amount of territory Texas actually comprised.

3. Texas decided to join the US by treaty (and can still legally secede).

4. The military dictatorship controlling mexico ocontinue to dispute the souterhn border.

5. The military dictatorship controlling Mexico made the cardinal error of taking an army into that disputed region-sovereign US land.
The cardinal error was invading the country of a nation that had never lost a war. Shenanigans ensue, ending with Mexico City now belonging to the US army, care of Lee, Grant, Longstreet, Picket and some other guys who would play only minor roles in US history later.

**mattyrm**

Yeah KK i went to Sierra Leone as a fresh faced young lad when i had just passed out of basic.

It wasnt very nice. It was the first time i ever saw a body with a burnt tyre round its neck. Its common during feuds, a nice local custom known as "necklacing"

There was also lots of people with limbs missing.

Needless to say, i think that might be another reason i dont think that the whole empire thing was so bad. We certainly kept a lid on gak like that!

**Kilkrazy**

You are looking at the formation of Texas from Mexican lands. Here it is from a longer historical perspective.

pre-1500 AD native Americans move into the area of Central America.

1520
Spanish conquistadors overthrow the native states and set up a colony which is ruled by Spain until

1821
The colonists overthrow Spanish control, setting up Mexico.

1800 onwards, settlers from the USA move into the area which is to become Texas.

1835-6
Texan settlers secede and win independence from Mexico.

1845
Texas annexed to the USA.

1848 Mexican-American War.

South Africa
Native Africans move into the area and eventually various empires are created.

1652 onwards, the Boers colonise the area, overthrowing the native states where necessary and possible.

1835
Angered by British colonists arriving in the Cape Area, many Boers up sticks and move across into the Eastern Cape area, setting up the new republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

British settlers follow them and are eventually used as an excuse by the British government to annex the regions, leading to the Boer Wars.

In both cases there is a pattern of the original inhabitants being ousted or cowed by European settlers, who are ousted by a later wave of European settlement.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:You a Texan, should know your glorious history!

Indeed I do. As I said, what about Mexico? Thats never been a present or former colony of the US.

The process by which Texas was formed out of a previously Mexican province and later incorporated into the USA is very similar to the British annexation of much of South Africa.

Thats joyously wrong.

1. Santa Anna seized power. At least three provinces/territories whatever they were called rebelled. One of them was Tejas. Tejas just happened to be the one to successfully rebel. Rebellions continue to this day with successful and unsuccessful revolutions and rebellions.

2. The indepenedent nation of Texas continued to have border disputes with Santa Anna's military dictatorship covering not only its independence, but the amount of territory Texas actually comprised.

3. Texas decided to join the US by treaty (and can still legally secede).

4. The military dictatorship controlling mexico ocontinue to dispute the souterhn border.

5. The military dictatorship controlling Mexico made the cardinal error of taking an army into that disputed region-sovereign US land.
The cardinal error was invading the country of a nation that had never lost a war. Shenanigans ensue, ending with Mexico City now belonging to the US army, care of Lee, Grant, Longstreet, Picket and some other guys who would play only minor roles in US history later.

To paraphrase, Mexico let people settle in their land, the squatters then decided to take the land because they were dirty land thieves. Then, what do you expect from Americans? Find land, take land from others, talk about how awesome you are. My god we are just awful awful people. With land.

**MeanGreenStompa**

...Dinna dinna, dinna dinna AHTMAN!!!

**Wolfstan**

Historical question for our Colonial Cousins... how did you buggers manage to get away with grabbing Hawaii? Isn't that sort of carry on totally against the principles that the US was founded on. Or am I missing something?

**Kilkrazy**

Don't slam the USA for grabbing Hawaii.

All western powers were grabbing whatever they could during the second half of the 19th century.

Even the Japanese got in on it as soon as they could.

**JEB_Stuart**

@KK: Your timeline of Texas history is horribly simplistic and misleading. The Texas settlers weren't squatters, nor were they there illegally. Rather they were invited and encouraged by the MEXICAN government to settle Tejas because it was so sparsely populated. Stephen Austin led the settlers there in the hope of building a new life in Mexico. Problems, and not just in Texas, occurred when Santa Ana abolished the Constitution of 1824 and began his dictatorship. This eventually led to a revolt by the Texans, and other regions, in response to their sudden loss of freedom and rights. The Texans were originally fighting to restore the Mexican Constitution of 1824, but as it became apparent that this wasn't going to happen, they began to fight for independence. After they became their own independent country, many countries, including the UK, recognized Texas and even set up embassies there. I think that should provide a more clear perspective on Texas and its fight for independence. Trying to compare it to South Africa is just plain wrong.

**Kilkrazy**

I know they were invited. However, it was still the case that one set of European 'invaders' supplanted another set of European 'invaders' who had previously supplanted the original natives.

This argument is not about the details of Texan or Orange Free State constitutional history, it is about the effects of imperialism on the indigenes.

**ShumaGorath**

3. Texas decided to join the US by treaty (and can still legally secede).

**Albatross**

Orlanth wrote:Blair said no, mostly because the current dogma is Empire = evil as a prerequisite to the dogma that old British = evil, multicultural British = good.

But what could be more multicultural than owning and administering foreign colonies?

Dogma wrote:What resources would Sierra Leone provide in order to justify that cost?

Diamonds, Cocoa, Coffee, Palm Oil, livestock and 'minerals'. Apparently. Oh, and people.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I think I'm going to get shouted at here, but isn't Colonial Imperialism part of Evolution, with the strong triumphing over the weak?

Perhaps such behaviour is simply part of the natural order of things, and it's just modern day liberalism that has challenged it?

**mattyrm**

True enough, the strong will always rule the weak. Im sure if Scotland or Ireland or Wales had the strength that England had back in the day they would have been invading their neighbours with equal gusto. Humans like to fight, and barring some particularly heroic effort, generally speaking the side with the most men and sharpest weapons tend to win.

**whatwhat**

It's not about apologising for it. It's about how some people have of it as if the british empire was some remarkable achievement of our country which we should be proud of. That's the issue. The excuse of 'It was what they did at the time' doesn't warrant anyone holding it up as a great achievement.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

And yet the Empire did lead to a great many advancements in terms of social, medical and scientific. Is it necessarily acceptable to have taken the route we did? I dunno. Six of one, half a dozen of the other if you ask me.

**whatwhat**

This nation wouldn't be where it was today if we hadn't abused the rest of the world, that's your point? Doesn't make me very proud.

**Huffy**

Frazzled wrote:Actually its theirs. There's at least a few thousand miles between the UK and Argentina. But I won't say anything if you won't (unless of course Obama invokes the Monroe Doctrine, which well he should actually and the US Navy re-enacts the Dutch naval flotilla up the Thames thing).

Brilliant Idea. . . . , the Monroe Doctrine/Roosevelt Corollary is so underused
and for as for US Navy sailing up the Thames

I don't Argentina is going to do anything about it, just saber-rattling

**Ketara**

whatwhat wrote:This nation wouldn't be where it was today if we hadn't abused the rest of the world, that's your point? Doesn't make me very proud.

I would once again direct attention to the classic 'What have the Romans ever done for us' sketch. It did some bad stuff, and it did some good stuff. The bad stuff does not cancel out the good it did, the same way the good does not cancel out the bad. Simply put, morals are subject to change over protracted periods of time, so what comprises good and bad is also subject to change. Not only that, as morals are subjective to begin with, attempting to judge stuff long past is at best, completely pointless.

**Huffy**

Wolfstan wrote:Historical question for our Colonial Cousins... how did you buggers manage to get away with grabbing Hawaii? Isn't that sort of carry on totally against the principles that the US was founded on. Or am I missing something?

nah the settlers(Dole Company) of Hawaii took over the island, and asked the US to govern the island
also Jeb has it right on about texas, the texans were asked to settle there.

**whatwhat**

Ketara wrote:
whatwhat wrote:This nation wouldn't be where it was today if we hadn't abused the rest of the world, that's your point? Doesn't make me very proud.

I would once again direct attention to the classic 'What have the Romans ever done for us' sketch. It did some bad stuff, and it did some good stuff. The bad stuff does not cancel out the good it did, the same way the good does not cancel out the bad. Simply put, morals are subject to change over protracted periods of time, so what comprises good and bad is also subject to change. Not only that, as morals are subjective to begin with, attempting to judge stuff long past is at best, completely pointless.

It does when certain peoples in the world are living a lower quality of life thanks to the british empire, while we enjoy a higher one because of it.