Colonialism: ah, ye olde glorie!

[Britannia Pacificatrix]

11 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

You know what's piffle? When someone living in a country that is still coasting off the massive wealth plundered through centuries of slavery and conquest writes smug little encomiums about all the wonderful things the colonizers brought to the countries they conquered and enslaved. Like somehow a 16th century native of foreign shores was fortunate to have the British show up to plant a flag, enslave his sons, rape his daughters, and burn down his village to build a sugar plantation.

Sorry, I am not going to invest my time in a smug colonial apologist like Ferguson, if this is the core of his argument -- even if he manageas the miraculous feat of being both "more concise" and "far more in-depth."

Oh, but we come to the ace in the hole of every slavery apologist -- "The people we conquered and enslaved also practiced slavery!" True. But it also manages to ignore the unprecedented brutality of the sugar plantations that the British set up, bringing their depressingly single-minded efficiency for exploitation to the industry of human misery as well. The brutal efficiency of those plantations, of course, was the foundation of the wealth that endowed universities so that centuries later, smug twits like Ferguson could write about how fortunate the natives were that the British civilized them while conquering and enslaving them.

It takes a special kind of arrogance to sneer at the postcolonial failures of countries that the British left. "After we spent a couple of centuries exploiting them, extracting their natural wealth, and destroying their will to resist, who could have predicted that the corrupt, kleptocratic governments left behind would just lead to more poverty and misery for these people that we conquered and enslaved? I hope the instability that follows in our wake doesn't interfere with the operations of the companies we left there to continue skimming wealth out of that country." It's amazing you can unironically opine about postcolonial governments "wrecking their own country" when the mess was left behind by the British.

What unbelievable arrogance to not just continue to carry on this "White Man's Burden" approach to history, but to seek it out after one should know better. What smug bullshittery to sit back from your comfortable, overprivileged perch built from the blood and stolen wealth of native peoples and declare, after reading a couple of books from other similarly overprivileged shitheel apologists, that you judge the British conquest and exploitation of half the world to have been a net positive for the peoples that were slaughtered and enslaved. The only thing you've made a case for is that the British were maybe not as vile and despicable colonizing enslavers as other empires could have been. So bully for you. Enjoy a cuppa and the warm rosy glow of a conscience untroubled by inconvenient and easily ignored facts.

Still piffle.

It's funny how you make these false assumptions without even knowing a thing about him, and without knowing any of his work. Ferguson's book received all-round positive reviews, even from rags like the Guardian. The book is well-balanced, showing both the good and the bad, he also provides citations and proof of everything he says. Oh well, you can stay in the dark as much as you like. 

Nobody here is a slavery apologist... deary me! What I said was factually true. ALL "peoples" and cultures and nations have practiced slavery, so your claim that Britain "spread it" is false, since slavery was already there. And the brutality of the Portuguese, Belgians, Arab states, Americans and so on were more brutal in their treatment of slaves. The Arabs most of all.

Britain left every colony with the tools to succeed, the likes of India, Hong Kong, America, Canada, Ireland, S.Africa all prove it. And it's also a fact that all the woes upon Africa today have been suffered pre-British colonialism. Slavery, war, genocide (check out the Zulu's for that), drought, famine etc. have always existed. To pin all this on Britain is rubbish.

More piffle.

[Britannia Pacificatrix]

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

Certainly not to the extent that I consider Britain, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands to be evils on the world. I actually find their overly inclusive policy for African Frenchmen quite good in a world where colonialism was mixed with atrocities. I think they did very well as far as morality goes in North America as well.

The Antilles seriously tarnishes their record though.

I agree with your points on French inclusiveness, but don't forget how inclusive Britain was with Indians, Chinese, Africans and native Americans (particularly during and after the War of 1812). And while Britain did more bad than France, it also did more good. Simply due to Britain "doing" more empire... if you know what I mean by that. heh

[The King in Black]

I have many thoughts on this subject, but first : who was so desperate to create an alt account just for this argument, and why are you so afraid to use your real account ? I have seen many pathetic things happening here, but this just might be the worst.

[The King in Black]

Also, let's get something clear : The British didn't build railroads for the native's sake. That's utter bullshit. They educated the natives because they needed to communicate with their labor, needed clerks to manage their work for them. Nothing they ever did to the colonies was for the natives. 
I can't believe people still think colonialism and imperialism were anything but bad. Shit, nations were looted and destroyed to fill Europe's coffers. That's it.

[James Arryn]

52 minutes ago, The King In Black said:

Also, let's get something clear : The British didn't build railroads for the native's sake. That's utter bullshit. They educated the natives because they needed to communicate with their labor, needed clerks to manage their work for them. Nothing they ever did to the colonies was for the natives. 
I can't believe people still think colonialism and imperialism were anything but bad. Shit, nations were looted and destroyed to fill Europe's coffers. That's it.

Not exactly. What you need to understand is that there wasn't a monolithic British mentality. People like Gladstone, Livingston and Prince Albert believed in a truly altruistic (though to verying degrees still condescending) spreading of 'civilization', ie modern medicine, technology, etc. and we're expressly opposed to doing so for British political or financial gain. To some of these types it went hand in hand with spreading their religion, but not as conditional to getting the advantages. There was an ongoing struggle within British government/society about exploitative colonialism (Disraei, Rhodes, etc.) vs. a non-exploitative desire to use British power and wealth to help fight disease, poverty etc. around the world. 

 

Albert's death and finally Gladston's sealed the deal and the exploitative movement won out in the end, and that's what we think of when we picture the British Empire, but it wasn't as simple or black and white as you're suggesting.

[The Killer Snark]

Fat Mac - 65 million died in Communist China at last count alone, and 20 million in Russia alone not counting the European genocides and expanisionism perpetrated by Stalin. The British grossly mismanaged things in India, but a fair percentage of those 29 million deaths were not orchestrated by a deliberate ploy to wipe out the natives so much as administrative incompetence.

[VarysTheSpider]

Yeah but the hammer and sickle maybe once represented something good until it didn't, plus some Latin, so never mind all the deaths. Focus on how fast it spins.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I would love to see a "defence" of colonial Australia's genocide of the Aboriginal people.

(The Maori avoided a similar fate because (1) they shot back, and (2) had agriculture. The British at the time thought that if you didn't have agriculture, you weren't really people - so they cheerfully massacred the Aborigines, who didn't). 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Oh, and since we're having a discussion about the Duke of Wellington - if the man had had his way, no-one on this thread would be able to vote. He was a rabid opponent of the 1832 Reform Act, to the point that the Iron Duke thing refers to the iron shutters on his windows, which he needed to avoid the displeasure of the mob,

[SeanF]

He never considered himself Irish though, his quote on the matter was "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse".

Interesting, thank you for the correction.

Nonetheless, being born in Ireland would give him some knowledge of the grievances the Irish, and more specifically the Catholic majority, had to endure. Considering his rather close-minded attitude towards outsiders, I would think that this would heighten his sympathy for the Catholic cause.

I doubt if Wellington had any especial sympathy for Irish Catholics. But, he realised that denying them the right to be MP's or serve as army officers was untenable.

[ElizabethB.]

5 hours ago, The King In Black said:

I can't believe people still think colonialism and imperialism were anything but bad. Shit, nations were looted and destroyed to fill Europe's coffers.

Agreed, yet 'Europe's coffers' is a wrongly wide brush, it is absurd to call it that. There is and was no unified Europe with common interests, unfortunately, maybe. 

You do know what the ussr did to Eastern Europe, with Russia continuing that legacy?

[SeanF]

Do you also consider the French empire and her colonial possessions an evil on the world?

Certainly not to the extent that I consider Britain, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands to be evils on the world. I actually find their overly inclusive policy for African Frenchmen quite good in a world where colonialism was mixed with atrocities. I think they did very well as far as morality goes in North America as well.

The Antilles seriously tarnishes their record though.

For good or ill, colonialism created the modern world. The nations of North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand, modern Russia, wouldn't have come into being without imperial expansion.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

27 minutes ago, ElizabethB. said:

Agreed, yet 'Europe's coffers' is a wrongly wide brush, it is absurd to call it that. There is and was no unified Europe with common interests, unfortunately, maybe. 

You do know what the ussr did to Eastern Europe, with Russia continuing that legacy?

Yes. Describing Colonialism like that is just as wrong as describing the Transatlantic Slave trade as Africans "selling their own people" into slavery, when what they really were doing was selling captured enemies that also happened to be from the same continent.  

A very significant portion of the resources that were amassed by the various European colonial powers were just used to fight and compete against other Europeans. World War 1 probably being the greatest example, but this went all the way back to when the very first colonies were founded. 

[SeanF]

@Sullen, you were serious, right? I am sorry but I am a little confused but the discussion afterwards.

This actually shows the point I was trying to make. There are a lot of opinions on Napoleon and Waterloo depending on where you come from. He is either an hero or an villain. I do think you have to admire what he personally achieved. He was a poor nobleman from Corsica, who came to France, was a genius on military technics, became the emperor of France on his 35 years old, ... He worked very long hours, ... Personally I have the same feelings (or maybe less favorable than the French revolution). I admire the progressive stance of the French revolutions, the ideals for what this revolution stands, ... At the other side you have that it was a very bloody time. (And they conquered my home country, stole a lot of art, ... but then we were invaded so many times )

So my feelings towards Napoleon and the French revolution are two-sided. But I must say, as a lawyer, I stared a very long time to an orginal Code Napoléon when I visited the Wellington Museum in Waterloo (I am Belgian and the Code Napoléon is still our code for civil law - it is changed a lot from its original but it is still the cornerstone of our entire private law. So I think the ten minutes of staring were completely warranted)

I was being extreme for comic value, but yes, I really do feel that way.

He was a hard-working, progressive man while still steering clear of extremism (which led to the fall of Robespierre, Marat, Danton, and the rest). I honestly believe he was a man of the people, and that his people (which he defined not by ethnicity but rather by the territory they lived on) loved him right back.

As for his aggressiveness, I honestly believe that every single one of his campaigns was defensive, with the exception of his takeover of Spain. Europe under Napoleon would have really been better if you ask me. More inclusive, more open-minded, more fair, and yet would have a great amount of self-determination as was the case with Poland... generally better. I seriously think he was in the right when he said that history was a lie everybody agreed on, and that it would end up fucking him over after his defeat at the hands of Wellington.

I don't know, I think he was honestly screwed over by history, and the British seriously harmed the progress of Europe when they plotted his downfall.

The problem with Napoleon is that he didn't know when to stop. Had he been content with France, the Austrian Netherlands, the Rhineland, and Lombardy, the rest of Europe could have lived with that.

[The King in Black]

11 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Not exactly. What you need to understand is that there wasn't a monolithic British mentality. People like Gladstone, Livingston and Prince Albert believed in a truly altruistic (though to verying degrees still condescending) spreading of 'civilization', ie modern medicine, technology, etc. and we're expressly opposed to doing so for British political or financial gain. To some of these types it went hand in hand with spreading their religion, but not as conditional to getting the advantages. There was an ongoing struggle within British government/society about exploitative colonialism (Disraei, Rhodes, etc.) vs. a non-exploitative desire to use British power and wealth to help fight disease, poverty etc. around the world. 

 

Albert's death and finally Gladston's sealed the deal and the exploitative movement won out in the end, and that's what we think of when we picture the British Empire, but it wasn't as simple or black and white as you're suggesting.

I'll admit that I was wrong there. Indeed, not all of colonial era interactions were just greedy colonists subjugating the colonies. To think so is a mistake. Nonetheless, when looking back at it, which was the primary point being discussed here, it would do well for former Imperial powers to admit that these endeavors were a mistake and mostly did more harm than good. Colonialism isn't something to be looked back upon nostalgically with rose-tinted glasses.

7 hours ago, ElizabethB. said:

Agreed, yet 'Europe's coffers' is a wrongly wide brush, it is absurd to call it that. There is and was no unified Europe with common interests, unfortunately, maybe. 

You do know what the ussr did to Eastern Europe, with Russia continuing that legacy?

I'll concede. That was a bit of generalization, unfair at that.

[illrede]

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

I was being extreme for comic value, but yes, I really do feel that way.

He was a hard-working, progressive man while still steering clear of extremism (which led to the fall of Robespierre, Marat, Danton, and the rest). I honestly believe he was a man of the people, and that his people (which he defined not by ethnicity but rather by the territory they lived on) loved him right back.

As for his aggressiveness, I honestly believe that every single one of his campaigns was defensive, with the exception of his takeover of Spain. Europe under Napoleon would have really been better if you ask me. More inclusive, more open-minded, more fair, and yet would have a great amount of self-determination as was the case with Poland... generally better. I seriously think he was in the right when he said that history was a lie everybody agreed on, and that it would end up fucking him over after his defeat at the hands of Wellington.

I don't know, I think he was honestly screwed over by history, and the British seriously harmed the progress of Europe when they plotted his downfall.

 

The problem with Napoleon is that he didn't know when to stop. Had he been content with France, the Austrian Netherlands, the Rhineland, and Lombardy, the rest of Europe could have lived with that.

Metternich expended political capital at the moment of victory to try to keep him around in charge of an expanded France. That says a lot.

But for that mad ambition, he would have had a lifetime to do things with.

 

EDIT: I disagree about the Progress of Europe, though. By the time the British started spending money like water it was just Damage Control for an existential threat due to failure of their single real foreign policy concern. And The Concert did well enough in the time that they had (Austira-proper ending things with Universal Manhood Sufferage!?), comparing the start of it with the end you can't even blame how things turned out on them; it was democratic mutual anihilation all around, at least there was democratic decision not to stop the Kaiser's policies. They made a good enough world. The world they made had its own notions, though.

 

EDIT2: re: the Metternich thing, for people that don't know the era, conceptually it's pretty much if at the end of the dramatic movie, the utterly defeated outsider protagonist is offered a spontaneous firm private handshake by the antagonist insider mastermind; it was a retroactive acceptance by the greatest conservative statesman of his age.

And he threw it away. Those whom the gods would destroy...

[SeanF]

I was being extreme for comic value, but yes, I really do feel that way.

He was a hard-working, progressive man while still steering clear of extremism (which led to the fall of Robespierre, Marat, Danton, and the rest). I honestly believe he was a man of the people, and that his people (which he defined not by ethnicity but rather by the territory they lived on) loved him right back.

As for his aggressiveness, I honestly believe that every single one of his campaigns was defensive, with the exception of his takeover of Spain. Europe under Napoleon would have really been better if you ask me. More inclusive, more open-minded, more fair, and yet would have a great amount of self-determination as was the case with Poland... generally better. I seriously think he was in the right when he said that history was a lie everybody agreed on, and that it would end up fucking him over after his defeat at the hands of Wellington.

I don't know, I think he was honestly screwed over by history, and the British seriously harmed the progress of Europe when they plotted his downfall.

The problem with Napoleon is that he didn't know when to stop. Had he been content with France, the Austrian Netherlands, the Rhineland, and Lombardy, the rest of Europe could have lived with that.

Metternich expended political capital at the moment of victory to try to keep him around in charge of an expanded France. That says a lot.

But for that mad ambition, he would have had a lifetime to do things with.

EDIT: I disagree about the Progress of Europe, though. By the time the British started spending money like water it was just Damage Control for an existential threat due to failure of their single real foreign policy concern. And The Concert did well enough in the time that they had (Austira-proper ending things with Universal Manhood Sufferage!?), comparing the start of it with the end you can't even blame how things turned out on them; it was democratic mutual anihilation all around, at least there was democratic decision not to stop the Kaiser's policies. They made a good enough world. The world they made had its own notions, though.

EDIT2: re: the Metternich thing, for people that don't know the era, conceptually it's pretty much if at the end of the dramatic movie, the utterly defeated outsider protagonist is offered a spontaneous firm private handshake by the antagonist insider mastermind; it was a retroactive acceptance by the greatest conservative statesman of his age.

And he threw it away. Those whom the gods would destroy...

Yes. In 1813, he could have kept Belgium and the Rhineland, and his step-son would have had half of Italy. Metternich wanted France to be powerful, but not dominant, and had no great commitment to the Bourbons,

[Fat Mac]

19 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

Fat Mac - 65 million died in Communist China at last count alone, and 20 million in Russia alone not counting the European genocides and expanisionism perpetrated by Stalin. The British grossly mismanaged things in India, but a fair percentage of those 29 million deaths were not orchestrated by a deliberate ploy to wipe out the natives so much as administrative incompetence.

Couldn't the same kind of be said for Mao's China? Most of those 60 million died of famine from failed agricultural policies, iirc.

My only issue was you saying British imperialism and colonialism was just a "drop in the ocean" compared to Communism. Comparing the British Empire to all communist nations is a bit unfair. Colonialism (as a whole) vs. communism would be a more apt comparison, or the British Empire vs. a specific communist country like the Soviet Union. 

Both were terrible. It's possible the Empire had more benefits worldwide, but then again you can argue for Communism's part in industrializing many of the nations it spread to, which is a benefit. 

[Andorion]

On 13/02/2016 at 1:07 PM, The Killer Snark said:

Fat Mac - 65 million died in Communist China at last count alone, and 20 million in Russia alone not counting the European genocides and expanisionism perpetrated by Stalin. The British grossly mismanaged things in India, but a fair percentage of those 29 million deaths were not orchestrated by a deliberate ploy to wipe out the natives so much as administrative incompetence.

I would dispute this. Look up the famines of the 1870s. The new Viceroy Lytton ordered a drastic cut back in relief measures that killed millions. 

[sologdin]

yes, late victorian holocausts.  british export policy was similar to mao's export policy, both in intent and effect, inclusive of quantum.  this is not rocket science, kids.  we see a similar result in soviet export policy during the ukrainian famine.