Propaganda
-
SickBoyo — 17 years ago(May 28, 2008 08:45 AM)
The British were the most humane and least brutal, and in the end, they gave most of their empire back to the native peoples simply because they were asked"
British treatment of Ireland is a perfect example of this
you stay classy san diego -
ocoileain1890 — 17 years ago(May 28, 2008 08:55 AM)
"The British were the most humane and least brutal, and in the end, they gave most of their empire back to the native peoples simply because they were asked"
I just found that statement to be so gauche and unqualified to the point of being perverse, blatantly illustrating the complete lack of socio-historic knowledge the average English/British person possesses in relation to the history of Ireland.
I could easily say "Britain never contributed anything positive to the world" but that would be a lie. I'd expect you as a Briton to react with the same about of indignation not narrow-mindedness or bitterness (Which I personally don't feel for the record re. England.) concerning my comment. Relatives of mine had to die for the freedom we enjoy in the Republic today, trust me it would have been great if we didn't have to wage a brutal war of independence and suffer the ensuing trauma of civil war resulting from partition in order to achieve a modicum of freedom. -
ikinmoore — 17 years ago(May 28, 2008 09:15 AM)
Ocoileain1890 you sound really bitter. Don't you think a lot of people suffered in the hands of Germans during the Second world war. 20 million russians died plus millions of Indians, Australias, ect ect ectyet you bleat about the British. The Irish are not perfect as I have said before there are good and bad in all.
The best films are made in an intelligent format. -
ocoileain1890 — 17 years ago(May 29, 2008 06:00 AM)
"The British were the most humane and least brutal, and in the end, they gave most of their empire back to the native peoples simply because they were asked"
I'm not bitter my friend and I think you misunderstand me, I just found that statement to be deeply offensive given how utterly ridiculous it is, void of any rational qualification. Benign and benevolent empire I think not, no matter what ostentatious ideological finery you dress it up in Imperialism is at its very essence all about exploitation and domination. Millions died because of it in Ireland. Simple as. And the only just war is a war of Liberation. I'm not trying to imply that Ireland was the only country to suffer in history and that it's populated by angel's. -
ikinmoore — 17 years ago(May 29, 2008 06:56 AM)
I find it deeply offensive that you paint this narrowminded bigotry of the British. It's History.move on. I have no doubt Ireland has suffered over many years through "Imperialism" to name such a word, by the British. But don't keep harping on about the British as if they have been the only ones in History to exploit or dominate aother nationality.
I am only thankful that the problems in Ireland are now stable for the time- being and that the Irish are now living in peace with one aother.
The best films are made in an intelligent format. -
naseby — 12 years ago(August 31, 2013 08:57 AM)
True ocoileain1890, sentiment where it's due. Though I would say, we gave more than a lot back, letting Irish as well as other minorities of former colonies emigrate here even now as well as when they were needed in construction of say, the railways as so many Irishmen were and later, say, Irish nurses as well as those of ethnic orientation. Especially the Black and Tans in Ireland were despicable of course and I as an Englishman am not proud of that when we know equally of a proud and noble people the Irish and indeed many other races (we 'conquered') are. One thing, we/our countrymen all seem to be guilty of it. I actually have sympathy for the IRA of old, just fighting for their country, not as much as a terrorist they have been today - equally the Loyalists' are as bad. But it is true, however horrible in the past, we have given back (not that that makes up for anything). Take the 9 billion in Euro bailouts and the immigration status given to Irish people since. Though it shouldn't be forgotten, that so many Irish served in our forces as well as from other countries. Quite hypocritically though, a lot of them served us 'during' our empire. Although 'we' British weren't invaded by the Nazis, we didn't seek reparations from them and, it isn't fair the current generations of British people pay for what our forefathers did. However, the underlying thing is, that the original writer may have lost the plot but comparison with the Japanese, German and indeed (although contemporarily displaced) Roman Empire were definitely, far, far, worse.
-
nikjunk — 17 years ago(May 29, 2008 02:33 AM)
Hey guys,
Read my original post, not just a few lines. First, I'm not British. Second, I begin by saying that I belive that the British were wrong to build and empire. What they did was not good. I am not comparing the actions of the British to an absolute moral standard, but TO OTHER EMPIRES. The Ottomans, an empire contemporary with the British, would massacre people by the tens of thousands to make a point. Their behavior in Bulgaria so shocked the British public that it cost Disraeli the election to Gladstone (D was an Ottoman supporter). Ghandi's non-violent tactics would not have worked against most the the empires in history. It depended on the rulers having a conscience.
Can you imagine what the Nazis would have done to these peaceful demonstrations? Most imperial powers would have just kept killing people until everyone else went home. The examination to enter the British civil service during the Empire contained numerous essay questions intended to reaveal the examanee's attitudes towards power and justice. They deliberately attempted to exclude people who would abuse their power. Name another empire that did that.*(see below for irrelivant political comment)
I'm just trying to argue for a little balance here. As one of the posters said, just because the empire did some bad things, it doesn't mean that all of the Brits who went out to the empire had bad intentions. The average Victorian held themselves to a much stricter morality and valued adherance to a standard outside of their own desires than does the modern man. In short, they wanted to be honorable and good people. On a few points, obviously, they were blind, and being human, they had many failings.
If you want anti-British statements, you can get them from from me, but let's be accurate. The British govenment has lead the way in the breakdown of the laws of war, the development of the idea of total war, and the general refinement of atrocities and is particularly adept at blame-shifting (Churchill, like Lincoln in the US, being the master of this skill).
I refer specifically to the concentration camp, developed by them during the Boer war, the violation of the freedom of the seas by their close blocade of Germany during WWI, with the stated intention of starving the German population into submission (this was the single largest step towards total war, in which the civilian population is seen as a legitimate target). They continued the blockade for 4 months after Germany had surrendered. It resulted in the deaths of about 750,000 German civilians, and malnutrution for many more. The German submarine campaign was a poor-man's version of the same thing, done in response to British provocation.
They further blazed the trail by their area bombing of cities in Germany with the stated intention of "dehousing" the German population. German area bombing began as a mistake and continued as a response. However, the British government has only been able to do this through the promulgation of strong propoganda because this kind of behavior doesn't sit well with the average Englishman. They, like the Americans, need to be convinced that they have been reluctantly forced into action. When their government wants to aggrandize itself through various wars and violence overseas, they have to con the public.
So I'm not just sweetness and light about the British empire. And, BTW to the poster that said I should cite something if I want to be taken seriously, how about my citation of Gladstone? His comment on the Mahdist uprising that is the setting of the Four Feathers (this version anyway) was "they are a people rightly fighting for the freedom." His reluctance to fight there cost him his position. As did his support, on more than one occasion, of Irish home rule.
Have the Irish people forgotten Gladstone? He was a great (Victorian!) man.
Ps. Just 2 days ago I was telling my wife about the abuses perpetrated by many English landlords and rulers in Ireland. I was not defending them, let me tell you.
*The Liberal party was particularly good in this regard. It's ironic that their few remaining adherents have fled to the Torries (I mean classical 19th century liberals who believed in liberty and the dignity of the indivudual above all else), who had been their great opponents. The same thing has happened in America, where the modern followers of Thomas Jefferson's ideals find themselves an abused minority in the Republican party (again, their old opponants), courted at every election by the corporate country club and promptly sold out after they deliver their votes. -
nikjunk — 17 years ago(May 30, 2008 02:16 AM)
I have reconsidered and think I need to say that it is legitamate to portray evils that were perpetrated in the past. There is a place for movies about the English in Ireland, or other places in the Empire, that document brutal incidents or policies. As empires go, the Brits weren't too bad, but this doesn't mean that you cannot compare them to a moral standard and find some of their actions wanting.
My problem with the film was not that it portrayed English people doing bad things, but that the director wanted to communicate that the English were a violent people with a violet society (which is why he put a Rugby game in the first scene). This is not legitimate. Victorian society was far less violent than the average through history. There was certainly a lot of human refuse that went out to the colonies and exploited people. To document this is okay, but to paint the whole society with the same brush is unfair. Most British people would have been as horrified by this brutality as we are.
Ps. I agree that the only just war is a war of liberation (or defence). -
komey9 — 17 years ago(January 03, 2009 12:35 AM)
The British Empire is probably the worst empire to ever exist. Look at what they did to the Benin nation in 1897. Look at how the pillaged most of Africa, then Balkinized it, only to reform it in incongruent parts, all but assuring ethnic strife. Let's not forget the Opium wars in China. Let's not forget how they exploited the Indians and the Arabs. And let's not forget Neo-Colonialism which is a creature of the British Empire.
And why do people keep bringing up other cruel empires? Are we to take it that because the Nazis were bad then it is okay to be less bad? If a lion bit off your legs, would it then be okay that wolf only took your hand? All empires are inherently wrong, because they are a based on the exploitation of others. However, based on duration and systematic control the British empire did it the best. To them it was a game and the world was their "grand chessboard." The only other empire i see coming close is the USA.
Let the truth be known though the Heavens may fall -
truthlord — 17 years ago(January 25, 2009 02:40 PM)
I am afraid Komey9, that everything in life is relative, whether its whether my present wife is worse than my first wife or whether it was worse living under the Nazis or the Spanish for example. Yes there was a difference.
You ask -if a lion bit off your legs would it be OK that a wolf bit off your hand?
Yes it would! I would greatly prefer -if asked -to lose a hand than both my legs
At the moment in this terrible world there are millions of people (I exclude the Iraqis -Britain should not have got involved in that war) all over the world who live in terror of murder rape starvation and every kind of atrocity.
I wonder how many older people look back as if in a dream to those days when life was peaceful and quietly happy ,when there was always some tall thin Englishman working from a tiny hut with a big union jack over it who kept life safe and secure.
Yes the British may have been snobs and racists but they lived in a class ridden world amongst themselves so they suffered equally in the same way.
Those days are over.Yet are things really better -or worse?
(And dont play the game of blaming the British for the present problems.
In Africa ,the main occupation until the colonialists came was tribal fighting and taking slaves -to be sold later.Colonialism stopped the fighting-butit has now broken out everywhere in Africa- with the encouragement of western companies of course-but couldnt Africans try to resist western corruption? Its all very sad -
komey9 — 17 years ago(January 25, 2009 04:19 PM)
You obviously missed my point. I was simply pointing out that cruelty is cruelty. And trying to justify one's cruelty by noting that it is less cruel than a previous master is nonsense. Instead of saying the British were not that bad because the Nazis were worse, we should be thinking in terms of empires are bad because they are fundamentally based on the exploitations of others. Slavery is slavery, exploitation is exploitation. And my point with the Lion and Wolf is that in either situation you have lost a piece of yourself, that you can never get back.
In Africa, the political situation is as a direct result of the way the British left the nations. Basically, the British created artificial nations by putting opposing tribes in the same nation, tribes who, pre-colonialism, belong to separate nations.
Let the truth be known though the Heavens may fall -
komey9 — 13 years ago(September 18, 2012 01:02 PM)
You're taking things out of context. First post was a comment to contradicting the above poster's assertion that somehow the British empire was humane. I pointed out evidence showing that they were one of the worst empires ever. This, however, doesn't detract from my subsequent belief that imperialism is bad. Just because I think one empire is worst than others doesn't mean I think that some empires are good.
Let the truth be known though the Heavens may fall -
truthlord — 17 years ago(January 25, 2009 02:04 PM)
The person opening this site has written well about the British Empire.
Several comments have come from -as expected -Ireland.
All that has ever been written or said about the Irish situation can be summed up in just two sentences.
1)There is no way that in its entire history, Ireland could ever have been an independent nation
2) If it hadnt been taken under the wing of the English /British it would have been taken over by the Spanish-or possibly the French whose Empires were a hundred times more cruel, vicious and exloitive than the British and whose nations were vicious dictatorships until 1790 (France) and 1970 -(Spain)
Incidentally Ireland is not really independent now.The boom in the Celtic Tiger years was entirely the result of one person-Mrs Thatcher-who single handedly fought the European Union-like a real tiger- to let EU nations set their own level of company taxes,thus allowing Ireland to set its own taxes at virtually nil-its economy being subsidused by EU grants from French German and British taxpayers!
Blair and Brown have kept to Mrs Thatchers policy.But things may change in the future. -
bear022013-588-696101 — 14 years ago(March 24, 2012 02:40 PM)
Thatcher my Irish arse.The Bilderberg Group runs the World and most of them are american bankers,wait until 40 million Mexicans finish ruining the states..then after a bloody race war w will see you Brits get back to your boyfriends nowas the Saudis say.
-
ocoileain1890 — 17 years ago(May 30, 2008 10:23 AM)
" anti-British bigotry of some"
I sincerely hope I'm not being lumped in with the "some". I took objection to one posters lamentably myopic and bloody ludicrous comment that Britain simply "gave back" sovereignty of Colonised nations simply "when asked". The recent history of a neighbouring Island called Ireland blatantly illustrates the fallacy of such a statement. My great-grandfathers medals earned for battling the proto-SS "Black and Tans" attest to it also. Read my previous posts.
The banning of Sutti in India was a positive achievement, I'm not "Anti-English". Maybe I'd fare better articulating myself in Irish as there seems to be a distinct lack of comprehension? -
nikjunk — 17 years ago(May 31, 2008 02:14 AM)
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here. I'm the original poster, and I've posted twice more to clarify my statements. I have to stand by my "bloody ludicrous" comment, if it is read as I originally posted it.
I said that they gave back most of their empire "when asked." I didn't say that they gave every piece up when asked and I didn't say that they gave it up when asked the first time. I'm saying that if the Brits had been like every other empire, they would have fought bloody wars to supress independence movements.
I wasn't thinking of Ireland. In fact, I would argue that Ireland was a special case, and not a true exemplar of Victorian colonialism since Ireland was the piece of empire that England had before it began to build one elsewhere. Their patterns of behavior in Ireland had been set centuries before and you had an entrenched interest group absentee landlords to hold on to old ways and fight change. It's a blot in English history.
I'm glad that Ireland has come up, though. It is important to remember and also leads back into Gladstone, who was elected PM at least 4 times as an anti-colonialist who supported Irish home rule. The enduring popularity of his message with the British peoples, in particular his sympathy for oppressed peoples, should be remembered to the credit of the Victorians.
Ps. Why does everyone think that my original post said that the British empire was sweetness and light?