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.

Im a brazen imperialist. Heres why.

Everywhere i went in the marines peoples seemed to be very happy to see us.

In Sierra Leone, a country that once had a great numeracy and literacy rates, and now has the worst mortality rate in the world, the few old people you saw kinda had the "thank god you guys are back to take over again!" attitude.

My grandad used to live in Rhodesia, he had some staff, they all got along well, they were all happy. Now look at Zimbabwe.

Sure, they did some stuff im not proud of, a few bad apples and all that. But i think they did many great things, as did the Romans for us dirty tribesmen back in the day!

Empire is awesome. Dont throw that bloody spear at me.. chocks away.. pip pip bosh the hun and then back in time for crumpets with the king. Tally ho!

Yeh but in a lot of cases the reason many former british colonies are in ruin now is because britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over.

whatwhat wrote:Yeh but in a lot of cases the reason many former British colonies are in ruin now is because Britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over.

Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Belize, Jamaica, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine....

Seriously, you should see the amount of useless shyte which was built in hong kong in the lead up 1997 simply to use up the money.

Australia/canada etc were pretty much independant when they left the british empire.

And do you actually believe india was as wealthy when the british left it as it was when the british found it?

+ south africa was one of the richest countries on earth during british rule.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Yeh but in a lot of cases the reason many former British colonies are in ruin now is because Britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over.

Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Belize, Jamaica, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine....

Er, I'd strike a few there.
Egypt is a hole that relies on billions in US aid (second only to Israel but don't tell the terrorists)
Jamaica is extremely poor
South Africa-serious crime and unemployment issues. But in comparison to its neighboring countries its striking.

new Zealand's fine as long as they keep the killer sheep problem under wraps...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Belize, Jamaica, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand seem to be doing just fine....

Egypt has a lot of internal problems with government succession, and terrorist violence; primarily as a result of active US support for what is essentially a tyrannical regime. Their economy isn't too bad though.

Roughly half the people living in South Africa live below the poverty line.

Jamaica has improved a great deal since the founding of CARICOM, but still has a long way to go; with ~20% of its population below the poverty line, and 10-15% unemployment.

Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.

Whatwhat wrote:Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.

Two words: 'Client Kingdom'.

Don't buy the 'rape and pillage' stuff TOO heavily - it's too simplistic a view.

I DO however see a pattern: The British leave - the country goes to gak (in many cases). That says more about them than it does about us, the Yanks seem to be getting on just fine. (tongue ever-so-slightly in cheek)

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.

Albatross wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.

I DO however see a pattern: The British leave - the country goes to gak (in many cases). That says more about them than it does about us,

It does if you ignore my point that the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth. India and south africa are the two standout examples.

The problem comes mainly from the way we pulled out, and a lack of concern about tribal borders. But yes, lets get back to chest beating about the stupid Argies.

modquisition on.
Watch the attacks on other countries. Direct attacks on Argentina and Argentinians are not permitted on this site, just as attacks on the UK are generally verbotten.

Liechtenstein remains fair game however.

whatwhat wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.

I DO however see a pattern: The British leave - the country goes to gak (in many cases). That says more about them than it does about us,

It does if you ignore my point that the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth. India and south africa are the two standout examples.

Far too simplistic view. When speaking of how we have 'pillaged their wealth', in the case of Africa, there was no 'wealth to pillage'. What you have to remember is that before the place was conquered, the Africans were at the technological level of cavemen. They hadn't even invented the wheel yet. A cow hide shield was the most spanking new innovation. The British Empire opened the mines and the like to be exploited in the first place. They created the roads, the railways, the cities. If you go to Zimbabwe now, you'll notice a road hasn't been built since we left.

In the case of Africa, the reason it goes to hell is because Africans are incapable of governing themselves. Why? Because they all get tied up in intertribal feuds, and end up oppressing each other. And before anyone jumps up and down playing the racist card, it doesn't make it any less true. Look at what the Shona did the Ndebele as a perfect example. There are many more all across Africa. The place has something along the lines of 280 different languages and cultures, and every tribe still has a 300 year old feud with another. They simply had to put them only hold whilst the British were there. The second the British left, the place dissolved into tribalism again, and an extension thereof. Now the 'leaders' of these countries siphon off all the money, provide for them and their own, and let the rest of the country go to pot. They have no interest in scientific progress or democracy, all they want to do is be left to continue raping their own personal fiefdoms. That's where all the money goes. All the talk of the British having stolen everything not nailed down is nothing more than a load of bullgak.

When Britain hit India, again, India was split into different fiefdoms, with the various Sultans and Rajahs, and whatnot. However, to be perfectly honest, India hasn't done too badly for itself. It's managed to reach nuclear status, which goes to show that there are the building blocks of a better societal structure there. I wouldn't be able to comment about the British Empire there, because I simply don't know enough about it, but if you've a similar level of research on India as you clearly did Africa, then I have a feeling things aren't as clear cut as you've put them.

Ketara wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Whatwhat wrote:Sorry to say it for all you patriotic fokes, but rape is a fairly good metaphor for what the British Empire did.

I DO however see a pattern: The British leave - the country goes to gak (in many cases). That says more about them than it does about us,

It does if you ignore my point that the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth. India and south africa are the two standout examples.

Far too simplistic view. When speaking of how we have 'pillaged their wealth', in the case of Africa, there was no 'wealth to pillage'. What you have to remember is that before the place was conquered, the Africans were at the technological level of cavemen. They hadn't even invented the wheel yet. A cow hide shield was the most spanking new innovation. The British Empire opened the mines and the like to be exploited in the first place. They created the roads, the railways, the cities. If you go to Zimbabwe now, you'll notice a road hasn't been built since we left.

Well if you read back my point was that the British Emprie took the wealth out of many countries when they left. I didn't claim it was there in the first place. And in any case just because the British Empire "opened the mines" does not mean they can lay claim to them and ship all the wealth it gains back to Britain.

Also for the record when europe first began to colonise africa the technological gap between the two continents was nowehrre near as substantial as you are making it out to be. Both still used iron age technology.

In the case of Africa, the reason it goes to hell is because Africans are incapable of governing themselves. Why? Because they all get tied up in intertribal feuds, and end up oppressing each other. And before anyone jumps up and down playing the racist card, it doesn't make it any less true. Look at what the Shona did the Ndebele as a perfect example. There are many more all across Africa. The place has something along the lines of 280 different languages and cultures, and every tribe still has a 300 year old feud with another. They simply had to put them only hold whilst the British were there. The second the British left, the place dissolved into tribalism again, and an extension thereof. Now the 'leaders' of these countries siphon off all the money, provide for them and their own, and let the rest of the country go to pot. They have no interest in scientific progress or democracy, all they want to do is be left to continue raping their own personal fiefdoms. That's where all the money goes. All the talk of the British having stolen everything not nailed down is nothing more than a load of bullgak.

There's a lot of ignorance in that. Before the european empires conquered africa it was a borderless continent ran by tribes. We basically gave them borders, national flags, governments etc. The fueding in africa before then was no different to the fueding of european states, just on a smaller tribe to tribe scale. The act of Europeans bunching them together would be like literally dividing europe up today with no respect to it's current borders, imagine the mess that would cause.

When Britain hit India, again, India was split into different fiefdoms, with the various Sultans and Rajahs, and whatnot. However, to be perfectly honest, India hasn't done too badly for itself. It's managed to reach nuclear status, which goes to show that there are the building blocks of a better societal structure there. I wouldn't be able to comment about the British Empire there, because I simply don't know enough about it, but if you've a similar level of research on India as you clearly did Africa, then I have a feeling things aren't as clear cut as you've put them.

You forget the fifty years between when India left the british empire and now which endured about three ehtiopia scale famines. The state of India today is nothing like what it was when Britain left it. If anything the only good thing the british did leave behind was the english langauge, which has allowed India to develop better in the past two decades.

And of course we haven't even mentioned that for two hundred years five percent of the british economy came from the slave trade.

Ketara wrote:but if you've a similar level of research on India as you clearly did Africa, then I have a feeling things aren't as clear cut as you've put them.

and if you had researched your points to a similar level of your belief in them, then that statement wouldn't seem so ironic.

squilverine wrote:The irony of that whole event was that the ship in question, The General Belgrano, used to belong to the USA (it was formerly the USS Pheonix) and was called the luckiest ship in the fleet as it was the only ship to escape Pearl Harbour completely unscathed. It is also the only war ship to have ever been sunk by a British submarine

It's the only warship sunk by a nuclear powered submarine. It isn't the only warship sunk by a British submarine.

I saw the news on the third page of the Sun today, certainly made me chuckle. They even did a force comparison, comparing the task force to that of the ENTIRE Argentinian armed forces. Well, here's to another war to look forward to, I'm sure my British friends will be feeding me the updates as they come along.

I missed it. I was reading the Daily Mail, where some gay guy proved that anti discrimination laws are bad (or something).

Ann Widdicombe be praised.

It's here...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2858607/Brown-Well-defend-the-Falklands.html

whatwhat wrote:
the reason many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth.

Yeah because there are no diamonds in Sierra Leone, no oil in the Middle East or Nigeria - plus Brazil, India, North America, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all completely destitute. Oh, wait - none of that is actually true. My mistake.

whatwhat wrote:
Well if you read back my point was that the British Emprie took the wealth out of many countries when they left. I didn't claim it was there in the first place. And in any case just because the British Empire "opened the mines" does not mean they can lay claim to them and ship all the wealth it gains back to Britain.

Errr...what?And if we hadn't been there to open the mines, then they would have stayed closed, and the Africans wouldn't have got the use of them either . So how is that related to the current poverty in Africa? And its kind of impossible to take a diamond mine with you when you go. They're still there you know. If you're seriously telling me that the current poverty in Africa is a result of the British making use of natural resources when it was still their territory, you've clearly never looked at the finances of most African governments.

Also for the record when europe first began to colonise africa the technological gap between the two continents was nowehrre near as substantial as you are making it out to be. Both still used iron age technology.

It was actually. We had guns, ships, trains, roads, commerce, systems of government, philosophy, smelting, etc. They had cow-hide shields, and lived in mud and straw huts. They had yet to invent the wheel. This is a fact.

There's a lot of ignorance in that. Before the european empires conquered africa it was a borderless continent ran by tribes. We basically gave them borders, national flags, governments etc. The fueding in africa before then was no different to the fueding of european states, just on a smaller tribe to tribe scale. The act of Europeans bunching them together would be like literally dividing europe up today with no respect to it's current borders, imagine the mess that would cause.

I would say there is considerable difference between a nation waging war, and tribesmen stealing each others cattle. The differences are as follows:-

-'war' in the traditional sense, is a clash between two unified powers. It implies one system of government meeting another. If there aren't governments to declare 'war' on each other, then its just unformalised scrapping
-Scale. What's the difference between a skirmish and a battle? A battle and a war? A feud is usually something conducted between members of a small faction. A war is something a large group of people have to participate in.

I would suggest Von Clausewitz's Vom Krieg for more discussion on the nature of war.

My point here is that feuding in Africa is different to 'feuding' in Europe at the time, because 'feuding' is incorrect terminology to apply to nations of such size, technological advancement, and power. And to be honest, looked out into the streets recently? Lot of Poles walking about. Whilst some stupid people might be nasty to them, there's no move to oppress them.

You forget the fifty years between when India left the british empire and now which endured about three ehtiopia scale famines. The state of India today is nothing like what it was when Britain left it. If anything the only good thing the british did leave behind was the english langauge, which has allowed India to develop better in the past two decades.

Errr.... So where did the harvest go? I'm pretty sure we didn't steal all the fertile soil. If it was productive under us, why did it suddenly become unproductive? The ground, resources, and workforce are still there. That's like blaming the Romans for the Saxon invasion.

And of course we haven't even mentioned that for two hundred years five percent of the british economy came from the slave trade.

Of which we were the first to outlaw. And how does selling someone grandpa equal economic failure two hundred years later? The slave trade was abolished long before we left Africa. Africa still did well under the British in the succeeding period. Riddle me this.

How does the British selling slaves a long time before independence equal economic failure and a reversion to tribalism in a much later period?

Answer: It really doesn't. I don't even understand why you raised the issue.

and if you had researched your points to a similar level of your belief in them, then that statement wouldn't seem so ironic.

On war, I'm actually a degree level student studying the topic right now. I lived in Africa for five years, and are far more familiar with local genocide and tribalism, corrupt government, and the societal structure then most people. Unlike many, I have actually lived it, rather than getting it out of a textbook. So I think my research is perfectly adequate. Which results in reverse irony here.

Here's a question:


If a similar thing like this happened to the USA, would they stand for it? Like, an island a couple of miles away from their coastland claimed by another country with a garrison of military weaponry?


And I'm talking like if, say, *Russia* had a whole bunch of weapons stationed a few miles away from the US.......

How is that a comparison? The Brits don't have anything like that on the Falklands, and they had hardly anything there prior to the Falklands War.

Doombot001 wrote:Here's a question:


If a similar thing like this happened to the USA, would they stand for it? Like, an island a couple of miles away from their coastland claimed by another country with a garrison of military weaponry?


And I'm talking like if, say, *Russia* had a whole bunch of weapons stationed a few miles away from the US.......

France doesn't seem to be making any attempt to invade England, and they're even closer together than the US and Cuba. Which is also a different situation, given that we're discussing English territory on the one hand, and Cuban territory under Soviet influence on the other.

That said, sovereign territory often changed hands before the current political era. Its all a question of relative value, and threat.

mattyrm wrote:

Everywhere i went in the marines peoples seemed to be very happy to see us.

People tend to be polite to large numbers of heavily armed men trained to kill though don't they eh ?

Ketara wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Well if you read back my point was that the British Emprie took the wealth out of many countries when they left. I didn't claim it was there in the first place. And in any case just because the British Empire "opened the mines" does not mean they can lay claim to them and ship all the wealth it gains back to Britain.

Errr...what?And if we hadn't been there to open the mines, then they would have stayed closed, and the Africans wouldn't have got the use of them either . So how is that related to the current poverty in Africa? And its kind of impossible to take a diamond mine with you when you go. They're still there you know. If you're seriously telling me that the current poverty in Africa is a result of the British making use of natural resources when it was still their territory, you've clearly never looked at the finances of most African governments.

Seriously, read back my point. It was in response to someone claiming that some countries went to ruin after the british empire left. My point was that the british empire took a lot of the wealth out of the former country before it handed over the teritory. For example, look at the amount of spending in Hong Kong in the lead up to 97. Or how south africa was one of the wealthiest countries on earth before the it became a republic. I never claimed "that the current poverty in Africa is a result of the British making use of natural resources", it was taking the profit from said resources out of the country that caused much of the former british empire to go to ruin. Is it really a sruprise that a functional state goes to ruin when much of the wealth is pulled out of the country in a small time period?

Also for the record when europe first began to colonise africa the technological gap between the two continents was nowehrre near as substantial as you are making it out to be. Both still used iron age technology.

It was actually. We had guns, ships, trains, roads, commerce, systems of government, philosophy, smelting, etc. They had cow-hide shields, and lived in mud and straw huts. They had yet to invent the wheel. This is a fact.

whatwhat wrote:
What are you talking about? India has never had an abundance of fertile soil. It is only because of intensive farming methods founded in the last few decades they were able to pull themselves out of famine.

India has plenty of arable land, roughly 50% of the country. The technological and structural problems you're referencing have relatively little to do with the quality of the soil, but the efficiency of using it.

Arable land does not equal fertile soil, and yes it is in the effeciency of using it. Ketara brought farming up.

Is the Sun the one with the topless girls?


Also, a lot of people here appear quite ignorant about what British Colonial rule in Africa was really like. You have to understand that rule over the African colonies was very different to rule over Australia or Canada. The simple fact is that locals were excluded from governance of their own countries, and a middle class was prevented from developing through trading policies that favoured white moneyed interests with power in London over the local populations, or explicitly racist policies (less an issue with the British than other European powers, but a significant issue none the less).

The tensions that developed were frequently redirected by the ruling European powers towards other ethnic groups. For the most part the tribal violence we see today simply didn't exist before colonisation.

The sheer size of India, coupled with Indians being given greater credit in the racial theories of the age, allowed them greater access into positions of authority. As a result India handled its post-colonial status far better (the British also withdrew far more slowly, and much credit should also be placed with some exceptional Indian figures such as Nehra).

Colonialism is not the sum total of everything that's wrong with Africa today but it is a major part, and it seems people in this thread have little idea what colonialism was really like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Im a brazen imperialist. Heres why.

Everywhere i went in the marines peoples seemed to be very happy to see us.

You think there's much of a parallel between a peacekeeping operation and colonial rule?

My grandad used to live in Rhodesia, he had some staff, they all got along well, they were all happy. Now look at Zimbabwe.

Ian Smith.

@Sebster: Your point is very true in most regards. One thing that people are failing to realize, or point out, is that a massive player in the ongoing crisis in Africa is its massive population burst. Western nations were more capable of handling the burst after WWII because of stronger governments, and a more developed infrastructure. Africa was not, and may still not be, equipped to deal with such a thing, that is still ongoing. Until they can curb their rising population numbers, I fear things will only get worse...

sebster wrote:Is the Sun the one with the topless girls?

One of many.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Sebster: Your point is very true in most regards. One thing that people are failing to realize, or point out, is that a massive player in the ongoing crisis in Africa is its massive population burst.

Their failing to point it out because it's got little to do with either sebsters point or indeed with the issue of the problems Africa has inherited from colonialism.

whatwhat wrote:Arable land does not equal fertile soil, and yes it is in the effeciency of using it. Ketara brought farming up.

Arable land is land which contains fertile soil, among other things. If land is to be considered arable, its soil must be fertile, or have been fertile recently.

Though it is difficult to determine exactly how much of India's land was arable under the Raj, it must also be said that several of the famines had as much to do with spoilage, and pricing due to centralized ownership, as it did with raw yield. Which also happens to support your indictment of the British Empire.