ArishMell · 70-79, M
Like the other European* empires it grew initially out of trade and discovering these "new" lands had produce valuable to the Imperial country - tragically including slavery.
They they became more straightforwardly territorial.
All these powers' collective technical developments and complicated political and economic systems, gave them an overweening sense of being "civilised", "advanced" and having the only "real" religion in the world, so they treated the conquered natives (and yes, that is a genuine term not an insult - look at its root word!) with anything from oppression to a sort of patronising benevolence.
They could also be highly racist, but the level of that varied considerably, with perhaps the worst and longest in lingering effects being the South African apartheid attitudes and laws used by the descendants of that nation's Boer colonialists from Holland. Besides, being racist was and still is by no means limited to white European colonialists and their descendents. Two wrongs do not make a right, though.
Britain was perhaps the first to start divesting herself of her empire, voluntarily or by war (as what became the USA) or other insurrection (as with India).
She was also the first European imperial power to outlaw the slavery and the slave trade, though at considerable cost in compensating the former slave-owners.
After World War Two the urge to let these countries run themselves but if they wished, autonomous but still nominally British within the "club" called the "Commonwealth of Nations", strengthened within the UK.
That was one of various reasons that Winston Churchill was deposed as Prime Minister in a huge defeat for the Conservative Party in the first post-War General Election. This result baffled the rest of the world given his leadership of the War-time, coalition government in which Churchill (Cons, strongly right-wing) and Clement Attlee (Labour so left-wing) were close political allies "for the duration".
Churchill, still titled plain "Mister" then, was also very strongly imperialist and greatly saddened by the Sun setting on the Empire after all. (Britons had previously boasted of it being the Empire on which the Sun never sets.)
Attlee visited India and was so shocked by what he learnt that he was no more an imperialist even if he ever was.
It is important to know the Empire and its future were not the only reasons for Winston Churchill's defeat. Domestic matters were likely to have been far more important than Imperial ones, to an electorate worn down by the War and its ensuing Austerity period. They wanted a new start and brighter future in daily work and life; and despite his undeniable Wartime leadership, back in peace-time Churchill's pre-War ideology was increasingly out-dated and irrelevent, even inimical, to many people's wants and needs.
The idea of an Empire did not go overnight. Many people seemed to have still called the Commonwealth the Empire (wrongly). Even in the 1960s a medical charity kept its "British Empire Leprosy Relief Association" name, but though it still exists it has long since omitted the E-word. "Empire" lingers in certain honours given for meritorious service in many walks of life, but in their names only.
=====
*Geographically "European" - a continent of many, very different (and sometimes fractious) countries, languages and cultures.
They they became more straightforwardly territorial.
All these powers' collective technical developments and complicated political and economic systems, gave them an overweening sense of being "civilised", "advanced" and having the only "real" religion in the world, so they treated the conquered natives (and yes, that is a genuine term not an insult - look at its root word!) with anything from oppression to a sort of patronising benevolence.
They could also be highly racist, but the level of that varied considerably, with perhaps the worst and longest in lingering effects being the South African apartheid attitudes and laws used by the descendants of that nation's Boer colonialists from Holland. Besides, being racist was and still is by no means limited to white European colonialists and their descendents. Two wrongs do not make a right, though.
Britain was perhaps the first to start divesting herself of her empire, voluntarily or by war (as what became the USA) or other insurrection (as with India).
She was also the first European imperial power to outlaw the slavery and the slave trade, though at considerable cost in compensating the former slave-owners.
After World War Two the urge to let these countries run themselves but if they wished, autonomous but still nominally British within the "club" called the "Commonwealth of Nations", strengthened within the UK.
That was one of various reasons that Winston Churchill was deposed as Prime Minister in a huge defeat for the Conservative Party in the first post-War General Election. This result baffled the rest of the world given his leadership of the War-time, coalition government in which Churchill (Cons, strongly right-wing) and Clement Attlee (Labour so left-wing) were close political allies "for the duration".
Churchill, still titled plain "Mister" then, was also very strongly imperialist and greatly saddened by the Sun setting on the Empire after all. (Britons had previously boasted of it being the Empire on which the Sun never sets.)
Attlee visited India and was so shocked by what he learnt that he was no more an imperialist even if he ever was.
It is important to know the Empire and its future were not the only reasons for Winston Churchill's defeat. Domestic matters were likely to have been far more important than Imperial ones, to an electorate worn down by the War and its ensuing Austerity period. They wanted a new start and brighter future in daily work and life; and despite his undeniable Wartime leadership, back in peace-time Churchill's pre-War ideology was increasingly out-dated and irrelevent, even inimical, to many people's wants and needs.
The idea of an Empire did not go overnight. Many people seemed to have still called the Commonwealth the Empire (wrongly). Even in the 1960s a medical charity kept its "British Empire Leprosy Relief Association" name, but though it still exists it has long since omitted the E-word. "Empire" lingers in certain honours given for meritorious service in many walks of life, but in their names only.
=====
*Geographically "European" - a continent of many, very different (and sometimes fractious) countries, languages and cultures.
22Michelle · 70-79, T
The history of the world is a history of Empires. Our views of those Empires are based on how distant they are from us, our own prejudices, our own nationality, ethnicity, religion and so forth. Some Empires were very stricktly about one ethnicity, religion, cult, etc. Others were multi cultural. However, arguing about what was a "good" or "bad" Empire is a cul de sac. Empires came and went. They mostly changed, often drastically, throughout their reign. Can you argue that a specific Empire achieved some good things, yes. Can you argue that some Empires did bad, evil things, yes. Will the view of some Empires change over time, as they already have, again yes.
View 3 more replies »
22Michelle · 70-79, T
@ArishMell Empires remain Empires even when they call themselves something else. Rusdia did start the process of allowing the likes of Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states the freedom to decide their own future, but under Putin that process has stopped and he wants those states back within the Empire.
China has, see Tibet, expanded their Empire and doesn't allow any of its subject peoples, the Uighurs, the freedom to devide their future.
Has Brazil allowed the native peoples of Amazonia the choice not to be part of Brazil, the borders of which were agreed between Portugal and Spain in 1494!
China has, see Tibet, expanded their Empire and doesn't allow any of its subject peoples, the Uighurs, the freedom to devide their future.
Has Brazil allowed the native peoples of Amazonia the choice not to be part of Brazil, the borders of which were agreed between Portugal and Spain in 1494!
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@22Michelle I suppose despotic states become run by people who resent losing their country's former possessions.
I don't think the Uighurs were demanding separation from China, simply to be allowed to live by their traditions. Unlike the Tibetans who lost to a complete territorial conquest.
Even where the original imperial power not longer runs the place, that matter of imperial borders has often been a problem since.
I don't think the Uighurs were demanding separation from China, simply to be allowed to live by their traditions. Unlike the Tibetans who lost to a complete territorial conquest.
Even where the original imperial power not longer runs the place, that matter of imperial borders has often been a problem since.
22Michelle · 70-79, T
@ArishMell Look at Africa, lines drawn on maos with no regard to the ethnicity, religion, etc., of the peoples. Since those countries gained independence how many have voluntarily broken up and / or changed their borders with neighbouring states to reflect the reality of the inhabitants.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Sure! The sun never sets on the British Empire! It's why China had to recover from a Century of Humiliation and many others also fought wars of independence - I'm not talking about the US at all here!- because of British imperialism.
Not understanding the current currents of anti imperialism is almost impossible, if you read the Guardian or the Independent, British newspapers.
Not understanding the current currents of anti imperialism is almost impossible, if you read the Guardian or the Independent, British newspapers.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Roundandroundwego What of the other European empires, mainly smaller than Britain's but still imperialist: French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Belgium?
I don't understand your second paragraph because Britain has not had an empire for a very long time now. It still has the Commonwealth but that is more a friendly-society than a political entity.
I don't understand your second paragraph because Britain has not had an empire for a very long time now. It still has the Commonwealth but that is more a friendly-society than a political entity.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@ArishMell imperialism never ended. It's neoliberal politics and it's hegemonic throughout the West, freeing corporations to colonize the global South and the rest. That's why there's an anti imperialist majority in the Sahel battling the West.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Roundandroundwego Always only the West? What about China, which is certainly not liberal (I don't know what "neoliberal" means), but is ruthless and determined to dominate as much of the rest of the world as it can?
rinkydinkydoink · M
When Prince Andrew attended school in Ontario as a lad (16 or 17 I believe), he was known as Randy Andy even then...
SomeMichGuy · M
@rinkydinkydoink Koo Stark
rinkydinkydoink · M
@SomeMichGuy
An unforgettable name... like these names from a bit earlier in Brit history
Christine _________ and Mandy Rice- __________
An unforgettable name... like these names from a bit earlier in Brit history
Christine _________ and Mandy Rice- __________
SomeMichGuy · M
@rinkydinkydoink WOW! I didn't know about The Profumo Affair, but it was certainly quite a lurid story!
exexec · 70-79, C
I am far from knowledgeable about it, but I have a fair understanding because of research into my family history.
FloorGenAdm · 51-55, M
My buddy in school had that decal on his skateboard. 🇬🇧
YoMomma ·
I know a few things.. like how they invaded and starved the Irish raided their food and sold them into slavery like they did to other places and people in the world 😤
22Michelle · 70-79, T
@YoMomma So you don't actually know very much.
YoMomma ·
@22Michelle i’ve seen a few books about it 😬 especially regarding Ireland
Hopelandia · M
does you what?
Minniemixer123 · 36-40, M
@Hopelandia Thanks I will fix it.
Minniemixer123 · 36-40, M
@Minniemixer123 Now you can answer if you want.
Achelois · F
Never trust google lol 😂
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
The Indian part of it was known as The Raj.
DDonde · 31-35, M
British companies/charters establish colonies -> things go awry -> Crown takes over
Something like that. Also Cecil Rhodes.
Something like that. Also Cecil Rhodes.
SomeMichGuy · M
Sure. Why?
And are you trying to figure out if people have real knowledge or bizarre misrepresentations of reality?
And are you trying to figure out if people have real knowledge or bizarre misrepresentations of reality?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
RachelLia2003 · 22-25, F
