Hear Hear! The Brits frakked up a lot of people for over 200 years.
-
Sheriff_Of_Nottingham — 16 years ago(September 26, 2009 05:32 AM)
If there was no British Empire, there would be no U.S., Canada, Oz, or New Zealand. The nations that the British Empire built are the most peaceful, prosperous, democratic, technologically advanced, and stable places on the planet. Millions of people from around the globe have made substantially better lives for themselves as a result. The British Empire "brought light to the darker corners of the earth." Like anything that comes from man, it was FAR from perfect, but on balance the good outweighed the bad. What would the world look like if there was no British Empire? Most likely, alot more like the third world.
-
Johnny-Cakes — 12 years ago(August 26, 2013 03:25 PM)
Dearest sheriff of Nottingham, lol so hard I poop a little in my pants. The Brits didnt build America. In fact, I believe that most of the expansion of America happened after a bloody war fough to emancipate it from the Britsbut my history is iffy. The funny thing about this entire thread is how wrong most people are. It's Internet comedy operating at its highest levels. Willful ignorance in a world of information. Glorious really. Humanity at its finest. Pip pip, Cheerios, and all that rot.
-
Arthur_Nelson — 16 years ago(October 12, 2009 12:29 PM)
I would agree that the British Empire was greatly preferable to that of any other colonial power. And to caricature all imperialists as evil racists is patent nonsense. The whole point was that India and the other colonies COULD attain the same level of development as Britain. The liberal Victorians believed that they had rediscovered the Medieval world in many of their colonies, and were motivated by a desire to raise their subject peoples out of darkness, to bring them to the same level of civilisation enjoyed in the mother country. A fascist power like Nazi Germany would not believe that dark-skinned peoples could better themselves, and they certainly wouldn't have tried to 'improve' them rather than merely exploit - or indeed, exterminate - them. While the earlier, 18th century empire existed alongside native peoples on a 'live and let live basis', it was undoubtedly more ruthless, cruel and exploitative: by the 19th century, the Empire was beginning to transform in character, many of its movers and shakers motivated by genuinely good intentions over the desire for profit, even if its subjects did not always agree - Arabs forced to swear on the Koran to abolish slavery, for example, or Hindus angry that the custom of forced self-immolation by high-caste females upon the deaths of their husbands was to be outlawed.
Today the Empire may popularly be perceived as the worst form of capitalist exploitation, but many people living in 19th century Britain would have seen themselves as undertaking an almost altruistic civilising mission, determined to stamp out the evil creed of slavery (no nation ever devoted more money and resources to eradicating this practise across the globe) and to spread the fruits of the industrial revolution across the world, as well as exporting liberal British political values. It is interesting today to note that an African government is measured by the yardstick of a colonial administration, rather than by the standards of a Cetshwayo or a Ranavalona I, for instance (although it is also interesting to note that the death of nearly half the population of Madagascar - largely by torture - under the latter is regarded by many Africans today as being a unique cultural quirk, rather than as the grisly work of a 'female Caligula', as she was denounced by Western scholars of the time. Ah well - it's always better to have a home-grown autocrat than the 'enlightened' rule of a foreign power, eh?). Britain wanted its colonies to share in its developments, even as they were directly benefiting British power. If the Russians had gotten hold of India, would they have been thus inclined? What about the Japanese? Or even the Belgians, whose king, Leopold II, had ruthlessly exploited his 'private' colony in the Congo?
In the end, of course, the Empire went into meltdown after exhausting itself utterly in two world wars - and, ironically, by educating men such as Gandhi in liberal western values, at English universities (though it's debatable how much of an impact Gandhi actually had on an empire already entirely drained by the titanic effort of taking on Hitler in the Second World War). Would Hitler have allowed 'racial inferiors' equal access to education? Would a Nazi administration have increased the percentage of Indian children attending schools? I, for one, believe that the British Empire was not such a bad thing as is often made out - and, realistically speaking, it was certainly a more appealing prospect than the many alternatives on offer, perhaps even some of the alternatives on offer today in a world wracked by war, civil war and poverty.
Cecil Rhodes is often regarded as the worst type of imperialist, but his Last Will and Testament (1902) is instructive in that it expresses the desire for, in the British Empire, the 'foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.' Hypothetically, if the Pax Britannia still existed today, would the world be one of greater peace and stability? Government, if the ICS is anything to go by, might well be less corrupt and more cost-effective. If the Empire had continued to evolve, according greater rights to its subject peoples with the passage of time and providing them with greater opportunities within the colonial administration, I believe that the answer could well have been yes. -
Knecht_Rupprecht — 16 years ago(November 13, 2009 05:19 AM)
To be a smart ass, acording to Alfred Rosenberg the (Northern) Indians were members of the arian race and there existed a Indian Legion in the Waffen SS under the command of Subhash Chandra Bose so I guess with a German vitory India would have become independet (or more likely a close satelite to the Reich).
Afterall I don't think that imperialism wasn't as bad as it is always depicted. Of course Europeans killed a lot of innocents and exploited the natives. But in most cases the situation for the average african wasn't that different from bevore. Bevore European colonization he was exploited by his local tribal king or sultan an now by european. Not much of a difference. And not to forget europeans introduced modern medicine and built up the african infrastructure and hospitals, so afterall left africa richer than they came. -
anotherbrilliantmind — 14 years ago(June 13, 2011 12:53 AM)
I just love the argument that Africans (or Black people for that matter) ended up being "better off" because of British Imperialism, the slave trade, and the exploitation of the continent's people and resources. I'm sure anyone with a slight grasp of history will tell you the continent wasn't "left richer" - those who profited from the discovery and sale of Africa's resources weren't African nations. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the "average African" wasn't used to being taken from their homeland, forced to endure a horrifying voyage across the sea, beaten, raped, maimed, or killed.
But to address the original issue this post has raised: Obviously, people from various backgrounds will have differing opinions of history. One should recognize, however, that history is extremely subjective and just because a "fact" is widely believed or even backed by "evidence" doesn't mean that it is true or right.
By the way, for the post bragging about Britain's offspring being such peaceful nations and prosperous nations You've got the prosperous right, pretty much. But you might want to reference Australian and American history when you talk about "peace." -
turin0016 — 14 years ago(September 14, 2011 02:54 AM)
It was an empire. As in, one country deciding that because they could bring to bear more of and more powerful weapons than the people who'd historically lived on a piece of land, they therefore had a right to take ownership of that land from the indigneous people.
There's no way to paint that mindset or action in a positive light.
Yes, there are "less bad" empires, relatively speaking. That's hardly an excuse, though. It absolutely is jingoistic claptrap to claim "oh the Brits weren't so bad, and we enlightened a lot of countries through our presence."
They also didn't just give back land when asked. They gave up pieces of their empire bit by pride-swallowing bit as it became economically unreasonable/unprofitable to maintain a hold on a place (they removed all the resource wealth, or the natives kept on making them pay a price in blood to hold said land, etc) or in later years as it became less and less politically expedient (the negative PR war waged by Gandhi, etc) to maintain any sort of control over a land not theirs.
Most people that aren't rank apologists will even admit that Ireland has been a longstanding example of just how non-benevolent the British empire was (does not excuse many [most] of the acts taken by such as the IRA, but still). It's just a very "visible" example.
It was an empire. Not cool. Selfish, blind, greedy, inhumane action.
Does this mean that the average British soldier of the varying times was a brute with no conscience? Of course not, and a lot of films that deal with subject matter touching on the British empire make their point with broadsword strokes where a scalpel's touch would be more appropriate (if less effective - let's face it, the average moviegoer is an idiot). You can't, however, hide behind the soldiers in defending the wars. The US gov't has been trying that slimy tactic for years on end and it's still disingenuous at best, sociopathic at worst.
Anyway. This was a forgettable movie. Heath Ledger wasn't bad, and Djimon Honsou was strong as always, but in general it was hamfisted and took far too long to tell its story at too irregular a pace. -
ns_garcia — 14 years ago(October 30, 2011 09:07 AM)
You all are judging people from the past by our moral and modern tastes. We have learned from their historical behavior. We have a distaste for war, exploitation and violence because we have their past steps to guide us. Britain changed over time, the world changed as well.
The great wars of the 20th century were about which empires would control the world, and as sad as the choice were, we would not do much better if we were on their shoes at that time. -
!!!deleted!!! (6241938) — 13 years ago(September 18, 2012 01:19 PM)
Does the film say that the reason they launched the expedition was not to conquer anything or to stop the uprising, but simply to rescue Gordon, the British general who was trapped in Khartoum?
Why should it say? It's not about history, it's not about events, it's about characters.
And I don't see anything particularly bad about the British in this movie. Your oversensitive. -
Hancock_the_Superb — 12 years ago(May 26, 2013 07:02 AM)
I think the movie's too garbled to have a really effective message.
On the one hand, it definitely has a modern PC sensibility: war is bad, imperialism is wrong, etc. The changes to the narrative definitely point up this impression: Harry admits he's a coward from the word go. The film takes during the doomed Nile Expedition rather than Kitchener's Omdurman expedition, presumably to cement the anti-war message. Worst of all, Harry achieves very little, barely managing to rescue his friends and even that only with Abu's help.
On the other, it's very retrograde in showing Sudanese as either mindless, murderous fanatics (the Mahdists) or servile supplicants (Abu, who's given no real reason for helping Harry at all). Arguably more than the '39 version, as evinced by one odd change: Harry's Sudanese contact is no longer a charming, educated Arab doctor. Here he's a brutal, double-dealing slave trader. Politically correct?
The result is a very confused movie that tries to appeal to both fans of old fashioned adventures and modern viewers, and fails dismally at both approaches.
"Do you know what lies at the bottom of the mainstream? Mediocrity!" -
Johnny-Cakes — 12 years ago(August 26, 2013 03:11 PM)
Lol. I stopped reading when you tried to justify empires and imperial rule. If I rape you, even if I do it politely, you've still been raped. If I murder you with the best of intentions, you've still been murdered. I don't remember this movie in the least, because it is forgettable, not because, as some believe, the director had an agenda, mostly bc a director has to have an agenda, or else they produce garbage which lacks any impact. (Its obviously impacted you fools enough to have come here to complain about it) That being said, empires have always fallen bc man inevitably will refuse to submit to anyone else's rule, and for you to try to justify the lawfulness of ruling human beings by saying the British were the nicest empire is absurd, criminally short-sited, and simply ignorant. It's amazing how the concept of free will is implicitly a liberal one when viewed by ignorant, hateful conservatives, as if their Jesus, their god, had been conveniently forgotten by them in the times when he is most needed.
-
naseby — 12 years ago(September 17, 2013 07:42 AM)
The ins-and outs of it seem to be, that yes, Britain's empire WAS wrong, but it's okay for their so-called subjects to go around killing 'each other'! My personal point in this matter is that of course it was wrong, and that some of these subjects seem to rightly, oppose the empire, but when their countrymen join up the British army in droves, it's forgotten.
-
Mosho_Smith — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 06:00 PM)
For some reason I'm still a little surprised at the anti-British sentiments being regurgitated over this film. The British were the only ones responsible from screwing over Africa? Right, of course, in this particular rewriting of history, the Dutch were never there, nor were the Portuguese, the French, the Belgians only the British. Sure.
As for Ireland, there are many who still believe, even now, that it would be impossible to accept anyone as being Irish if they are not Catholic, even though they have lived their all their lives and can trace their family as having lived there for over a hundred and more years. This certainly does not excuse the brutality of the black and tans or Bloody Sunday or other atrocities committed by the British in Ireland, but please let's not pretend that this brutality was entirely one-sided.
What I did find intriguing about this film was the sense of idealism that the young men had at the start was ground out of them by a very different culture and a very unforgiving environment. I suppose that it was part of the very linear military mindset to never take into account cultural and environmental factors into account, though that thinking may be very different today, depending on which army you're talking about.
It's true that there are some issues in the film that are not dealt with in the book, and vice versa. It's not surprising when you consider that this film was made a hundred years after the book was written. Audiences have changed - in the CNN age, are we really expected to be satiated by a simple story of derring-do? This film is an adaption that is based on the book; yet a different take on an old story. And tastes change; it wouldn't surprise me if ten, twenty years from now, the very same people who mock this film will hail it as a forgotten gem and a masterpiece. The truth is somewhere inbetween. -
TheSpiritOfTheTimes — 11 years ago(October 26, 2014 01:27 PM)
A reminder for all reasonable people; there is absolutely no link between how internally free a society is and how it treats others under its boot.
Britain was arguably the freest society in the 19th century, but the atrocities it committed just in India, for example, would make the Nazis cringe.
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. -
seekingallthetime — 9 years ago(June 25, 2016 04:25 AM)
the Brits did it mostly with a pen."
I wonder what type of history you are student of.
In India, when Muslims and Hindus combined, rebelled against the total occupation of British, they were brutally slaughtered, this even was called "ghadar 1857" and there are many books on it. The heads of the 2 sons of the last Mughal emperor of India (shah Zafar) were cut and presented to him in a tray, and the emperor was life prisoned in Rangoon. Thousands of Indian were killed in 1 day. They attack other Indian States like Maysoor with heavy artillery of those days, killed thousands and thousands in battlefields and hundreds were killed by firing squads, the emperors of those stated were killed e.g., Fateh Ali Tippo od Maysoor, whose head was cut down and exhibited.
The British left simply because they were asked? in dreamsland only. When Indians Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc) were failed in armed rebellion, they started political movements, and their luck, Europe especially Britian had been destroyed by the World War II, and Gandhi had started the famous Civil Disobedience Movement, British were forced to leave simply because they became weak and were afraid of a violent armed struggle, the whole india was against them and a number of movements against British were rising.
The British were gentle? oh come on, the better way to say this is that the British killed less as compared to spanish who killed thousands innocent native people of America, as did other European nations did. I agree with it.
Compare the Brits to the Mongols.. what an idiotic comparison, you compare near past events with 1.5 thousand year old barbarism?. Compare them with French which did less massacre than done by the British.
Brits did it mostly with a pen. what? they trade pens? they occupied with cleverly planned attacks, they came India for trade and disguise their army as traders, then silently attacked from the back, keep admiring pen.
I can give you hundreds more example of how British conquered India, but hope you will learn something, every conqueror's hand is blooded with thousands of innocent people. -
dorseybelle — 9 years ago(September 23, 2016 03:58 PM)
I'm sorry, but I didn't want to get into the politics and all. Can you explain to me what happened at the end? Did Ethne go back to Harry or not? If so, what happened to Rickie Fitts?
Thanks!!!!
She did it! She did it! The lady with the grape!