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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Incorect, soil fertility is not a requsite of arable farming. Indias so called "green revolution" was only possible with inovation in irigation and ferterlization which made farming on once infertile land possible.

dogma wrote: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.

which is what I was getting at in the first place. ketara brought up farming, as i told you.

Yep, you're right. My mistake.

Well we ain't got no Muerto Negro no more
troops in Afghanistan
Daring Class destroyers not yet in service

now would be a good time :(

Since when was proximity 9/10's of international law
and as pointed out by MGStompa the islands are already occupied by people who have been there for generations, with no desire to be Argentines.

Whatever else their wishes should be respected




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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?

oo the temptations are almost irrisistable, but i won't mention Iraq and Afghanistan
Like, if there was an effective military garrison on the Falklands first time round there would have been no invasion.
And like look at it this way. If a country invaded a protectorate of the USA that was "close" to a country on the other side of the world, you would say fair cop guv and roll over?
like that is gonna happen.

Again, there are people on the islands. They don't wish to be Argentine subjects.

Albatross wrote:

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.

Dude Brazil's on another continent and the British never got near it.
I wouldn't bring up the Middle East (looks at the horror show of the broken up Ottoman Empire).
And you brought sheep to New Zealand. Nowe they are mutating. Even the zombie overlords are nervous at what is happening in New Zealand.

Frazzled wrote:
Dude Brazil's on another continent and the British never got near it.

Other than British Guiana, which has a border with Brazil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Guiana

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?

I refute your claim Britain somehow magically 'took a lot of the wealth' out of the countries, and that their terrible economic situation is all the fault of the British. The manpower, soil, and mines are all still there.The British cannot cart off a diamond mine. Even after the British left, Rhodesia was still a productive nation under Ian Smith. It was commonly referred to as the 'breadbasket of Africa'. Yet now that Robert Mugabes lot have taken over, the place has fallen into poverty and decline. Believe it or not, I've heard many Zimbabweans bemoaning the leaving of the British because, to put it in their words, 'at least people had something to eat and a roof over their heads then'.

The wealth is still there to be tapped, because resources cannot be magically transferred from one country to another. A tin mine cannot be flown from one nation to another. It is the result of gross mismanagement, a reversion to tribalism, and corruption that the place has collapsed.

Plain ignorance. If you would do more research, perhaps into Waltyer Rodney's studies, you would find that the only major advantage europe had was their naval capability. Africa did have commerce, philosophy, smelting and systems of government, though different to our own. + neither had trains or guns for another few centuries. Just because they wore loin cloths, it doesn't make them stupid.

I'm sorry? Who said they were stupid? I'm just saying that from a technological standpoint, they were completely primitive. If the only advantage we'd had over them was naval capability, we'd never have conquered the place. We had guns. They did not. We could build cities, roads, factories, etc. They could not. We had modern military tactics and artillery. They did not. From a societal and technological viewpoint, they were primitive compared to the Europeans.

You seem to believe that the problems in africa come down to it being inherent to thei inabiliaty to get along, mony hording governments etc. My point was that the european empires caused most of this through the carving of borders with no respect to the tribal territories/language etc. Imagine if an army came two your town put a border through it and paired you up with several other places with entirely different langauges then put someone they bleieved should be in charge (i.e. no someone the people believe should be in charge) in rule.

Inability to get along (so the reversion to tribalism), and money hoarding governments(so oppressive corrupt regimes) sums it up about right. Riddle me this:

How do the European borders established over the course of 150 years result in economic failure? Answer: only if without the Europeans there to maintain the border, the people are incapable of getting along. AKA, a reversion to tribalism. If the African tribes insist on reverting back to their pre-colonial settings, then this is no fault of the British. It's the fault of the people there. Thank you for making my point.

My point about slavery was a point to the wrongdoings of the British Empire.

Which are......completely irrelevant for discussing the reasons for the economic failures and shortcomings of the African nations.....

I suggest you "live it" more then.

*applauds*

Well done sir! Quite the wittiest of statements. I positively sat here with my brain boggling at your masterful timing, and comedic use of quote marks!
/sarcasm off

Let's clear things up here rather than bantering back and forth by stating exactly what we're saying here, and then providing a bit more detail.

I am responding to your assertion that 'many former british colonies are in ruin now is because britain pulled out a lot of the wealth before the territory was handed over'.

I believe that the resources were, and still are there to be tapped, because one cannot remove a gold mine, or fertile soil(or at least, without a lot of effort one would think). I postulate here, that the reason for the economic decline of the African nations is due to the corruption of their governments, and the seeming reversion to tribalism after the British left. Their economic failings, are not the responsibility of the British Empire.

Saying that 'many of them went to gak was because the british emprie raped them of their wealth' is inaccurate. The British exploited the wealth of these places whilst they were in charge, but the wealth still remains to be exploited now that we have left. The inability of those there to do so is nothing to do with us.

If you disagree with this analysis, please cite examples and sources rather than just making gross generalisations.

Arent we a bit off topic here? I think the clear overwhelming point it that some people (usually right of centre people like myself) think that Empire's did more good than bad, and some people (usually left of centre like whatwhat there, the ying to my yang) think it was overwhelmingly negative.

I dont think there is any "right" answer, it seems like people can make pretty convincing arguments for both sides.

On topic, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the Argies will do anything. But as i said 3 pages back, to me, the be all and end all is that the people that actually live there, want to be British. End of.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Dude Brazil's on another continent and the British never got near it.

Other than British Guiana, which has a border with Brazil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Guiana

Its still not a former colony, er at all, of the UK.

Oh but i have to concur with Ketara, well said as always. Makes perfect logical sense, and trying to force elections and western democratic systems on entirely tribal areas has never and will never work. But hand wringing self loathing white people dont want logic. They want to blame themselves.

mattyrm wrote:Oh but i have to concur with Ketara, well said as always. Makes perfect logical sense, and trying to force elections and western democratic systems on entirely tribal areas has never and will never work. But hand wringing self loathing white people dont want logic. They want to blame themselves.

Not me baby. Save the drama for your mama whiny emo boys.

Ah, missed your point Frazz, you said 'got near it' and I was showing we were very near it for quite a while. Just over the garden fence really.


Onto something else.

Feth 'white man's shame'. It irritates the 7 shades of gak out of me.

ALL people are capable of cruelty and conquest. I do wonder what the world would have looked like if Shaka's Zulu nation had had a transcontinental empire. As it was, they committed genocides that eradicated other tribes quite without European interference.

The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).

The territories we conquered cannot be said to have 'flourished' but we didn't exactly plunge the world into darkness either.


And, in a 'What have the Romans ever done for us' style.
Railways
Education
Medical Care
Scientific Advancement
Judicial Principals
Democracy
English language
Industrialisation
Housing

I watched a documentary only a few weeks back where a reporter had been smuggled into Zimbabwe, he asked the elders of the village sheltering him what could be done to sort out the problems there. The group of elderly greybeards all nodded and said they wanted the British to come and save them from Mugabe, they wanted Rhodesia back in the Empire, because it was a fair system for them.

Frazzled wrote:
Its still not a former colony, er at all, of the UK.

Ah, never mind, you were talking about Brazil.

Classic clip.

because it was a fair system for them.

I wouldn't go that far. It was better than Mugabe, but apartheid under Smith was a still a horrid system. But as I said before, I guess the sentiment there these days is 'at least we had something to eat, and a roof over our heads'.

trying to force elections and western democratic systems on entirely tribal areas has never and will never work

*coughafghanistancough*

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).

I don't see how its shameful to admit that the collapse of British Empire caused a lot of transitional problems for the rest of the world. Whenever a governing authority is removed, chaos results from the power vacuum, and financial loss.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I watched a documentary only a few weeks back where a reporter had been smuggled into Zimbabwe, he asked the elders of the village sheltering him what could be done to sort out the problems there. The group of elderly greybeards all nodded and said they wanted the British to come and save them from Mugabe, they wanted Rhodesia back in the Empire, because it was a fair system for them.

Of course they would like that, life under the British was better than life under Mugabe. That doesn't change the fact that British rule was the only force keeping the cultural forces of colonization, which the British largely created, in check.

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond is a rather jolly investigation of what factors may have helped Europeans conquer most of the world.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266598296&sr=8-2

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).

I don't see how its shameful to admit that the collapse of British Empire caused a lot of transitional problems for the rest of the world. Whenever a governing authority is removed, chaos results from the power vacuum, and financial loss.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I watched a documentary only a few weeks back where a reporter had been smuggled into Zimbabwe, he asked the elders of the village sheltering him what could be done to sort out the problems there. The group of elderly greybeards all nodded and said they wanted the British to come and save them from Mugabe, they wanted Rhodesia back in the Empire, because it was a fair system for them.

Of course they would like that, life under the British was better than life under Mugabe. That doesn't change the fact that British rule was the only force keeping the cultural forces of colonization, which the British largely created, in check.

I can agree with everything you're saying there dogma.

However, just because a more powerful authority stops a group of people fighting for two hundred years, is it the fault of that authority when the two sides immediately start squabbling again the second it turns it's back?

No, but there's a difference between admitting to fault by necessity, or negligence, and considering yourself in someway bound to atone for that fault.

The colonies are no longer British territory, and therefore the British are not financially, militarily, or otherwise liable for their actions when it was their territory.

Ketara wrote:

dogma wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).

I don't see how its shameful to admit that the collapse of British Empire caused a lot of transitional problems for the rest of the world. Whenever a governing authority is removed, chaos results from the power vacuum, and financial loss.

I can agree with everything you're saying there dogma.

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.

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. 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...

True, but it has to be remembered that population growth is a function of poverty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Oh but i have to concur with Ketara, well said as always. Makes perfect logical sense, and trying to force elections and western democratic systems on entirely tribal areas has never and will never work. But hand wringing self loathing white people dont want logic. They want to blame themselves.

Yes, because savages can only function with brutal rulers to command them.

It could never possibly be a function of former foreign government excluding the local population from government and business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:ALL people are capable of cruelty and conquest. I do wonder what the world would have looked like if Shaka's Zulu nation had had a transcontinental empire. As it was, they committed genocides that eradicated other tribes quite without European interference.

The British Empire was created by an advanced and (then) dynamic nation. It was built, it was not 'an evil'. More powerful people conquered less powerful people. As empires go, it was frankly a paradise in comparison to those that had gone before it and some of it's lesser European peers (read up on the Belgian Congo for example of hell on earth).

The territories we conquered cannot be said to have 'flourished' but we didn't exactly plunge the world into darkness either.

I don't get this defence at all. Yes, other governments have also conquered, and yes many were much, much worse than the European colonies. And yes, Britain was better than most of the other European nations, and a hell of a lot better than Belgium. But how is any of that an argument against the idea that colonisation was a nasty, nasty business, which still affects Africa today?

Just... read about what actually went on. Just think for a minute about the racist thoughts that were prevalent at the time, and what those ideas meant for integrating a local black population into government, and how capable they'll be to take over government when the foreign power doesn't want to be there anymore. It really isn't that hard to understand.

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.

mattyrm wrote:Arent we a bit off topic here? I think the clear overwhelming point it that some people (usually right of centre people like myself) think that Empire's did more good than bad, and some people (usually left of centre like whatwhat there, the ying to my yang) think it was overwhelmingly negative.

Yeah, sure. It's a left an right thing.

I think it's more to do with people who cling on to patriotism in order to gain pride tend to ignore/deny and chiefly diminish the wrongdoings of the British Empire when using it as a bragging point in arguments with foreigners.

Whatwhat, it must be a left/right thing, because i have never ever considered myself patriotic.

Define the word? What does it mean to you?

Im not patriotic. I dont think the idea makes any sense. I like certain individuals from every country on earth, but i dislike much more people than i like. I dont even understand how people feel "proud" when someone who happens to have been born somewhere near your house does something impressive.. i mean, whats that got to do with you?

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".

Basically Britain is just like every other country. It has far too many people in it that are like you, and i cant possibly see how i have anything in common with them, or have any reason at all to like them.

Im pretty proud of Middlesbrough though, i get on with a higher percentage of the population around here. The rest of the UK, i really dont care too much for.

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.

For instance, we got involved in Egypt because we were fighting the French, who supplanted the Ottomans.

We got involved in South Africa in pursuit of the Dutch Afrikaaners.

A lot of our other African possessions were grabbed during the "Scramble For Africa" in the late 19th century. If we hadn't grabbed them another European power would have.

We picked up Tanganyika because it was a German colony before the First World War.

If the Empire did any good, it may have been in the sense of being "less worse" than what was already happening. True, none of it was done without concern for British self interest.

mattyrm wrote:Whatwhat, it must be a left/right thing, because i have never ever considered myself patriotic.

Oh iI see, in that case it must be a left right thing then.

Define the word? What does it mean to you?

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.

I'm just shocked for once there's a post in the OT not about Bush or evil America. Hurray!

One wouldn't like to embarrass the Americans by mentioning Mexico, Hawaii, The Philippines and so on.

Man, I missed wars that were purely about territory, resources, and nutty governments. All this police action crap gets under your skin.

Kilkrazy wrote:One wouldn't like to embarrass the Americans by mentioning Mexico, Hawaii, The Philippines and so on.

What about Mexico?

You a Texan, should know your glorious history!

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.