Nobody's saying Britain was any worse. And I've criticized this nation's colonial policies often enough on GAF, and have caught flak from it from Dutch folks in exactly the same way because they also feel dodging responsibility is the right thing to do.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes
- Thread starter Kabouter
- Start date
- Status
Nobody's saying Britain was any worse. And I've criticized this nation's colonial policies often enough on GAF, and have caught flak from it from Dutch folks in exactly the same way because they also feel dodging responsibility is the right thing to do.
Yes, but it was one of the first times in history that concentration camps were used
they do, but what does that have to do with paying back for slavery? all you're going to do is end up creating more hate.
They say that you can't really have a proper historical debate on events until they are 100 to 150 years in the past. This is true for colonialism as well; it is simply too early to properly gauge the impact it has had. Much of it still focuses on the negatives, as many countries still struggle with the new way of life introduced by colonialism.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
You cannot be fucking serious.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Dodging responsibility? If we have to start paying compensation to other countries then you can bet the average British man and woman would have to pay it through tax and if we went down that route the entire nation would become bankrupt.
I was born long after the Empire ended so I'm not carrying the sins of long dead men on my shoulders. Would you feel it just and righteous if young Germans were to be held responsible for the events of world war 1 and 2?
way to be a page behind buddy.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
I suspect that Tamerlane killed more Hindus than the British did.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
Well i apologise if you were joking, my sarcasm meter is just not present at the moment.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Well not only that, but quite a large proportion of the UK population is now made up of colonial immigrants from India, Pakistan, East Africa and the West Indies. Would I, as an Indian, be eligible for compensation? Would I be exempt from the tax, would be for white British people only? It's a completely ridiculous idea, and given that many of the ex-colonies and commonwealth countries are in better economic shape than their immediate peers, who is to say that the Empire was all bad. I don't see India being where it is today without the Empire and a lot of Indians (a very large number, usually BJP voters, no less) think that way as well.
yep. I'm proud as fuck.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Germany was held responsible for world war 1, they only finished paying reparations a few ago.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
Is this a reference to Hotel Rwanda where some gentleman used that explanation for the war between the Hutus and the Tutsis? That was a lot of bullshit (but a neat explanation to blame the colonizers for the atrocities instead of the thugs wielding the machetes). The Hutus and the Tutsis were divided into different tribes long before the Belgians got there. The Belgians simply made it official when they administrated the place.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
And the UK recently(-ish) finished paying back the USA and we weren't the "bad guys" in those conflicts.
PJV3
Member
There are certain things we should do as a nation to make amends for past behaviour. The Elgin marbles and compensation for living victims of brutality etc, fine. Slavery and economic exploitation will have to be addressed by the families that benefited. And we will want all the tin and gold that the Romans nicked paying for.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Not a reference to Hotel Rwanda, but yes, a reference to the Rwandan genocide which was fuelled by Belgian divide and rule tactics which pitted the larger, but historically weaker tribe against the more powerful smaller one. Simply making it official was a terrible idea and was a major factor in the uprising and resultant genocide. "Hutu Power" was a direct result of Belgian rule in Rwanda.
Wait, let me just call up Mario Monti, I'll see if he has a few hundred billion Euros spare...
PJV3
Member
Yeah and the fucking Normans(the French will do) probably owe us a packet.
storafötter
Member
It is obvious that colonization was exploitation as its fullest on the colonized country, but I think we are fooling ourselves if we don't see some "positive" influences. This isn't trying to white knight colonist, but it is very one sided to think that there were not multiple sides and consequences. There is no denying the atrocities committed and the negative influence.
However there are some progressive influences If we look at education, and building of infrastructure.
British colonialism did actually make efforts on keeping local languages, opposed to French enforcing the French language. Of course the reason for doing was not in honour of the inhabitants, but still is different than what other empires did.
In my experience I prefer reading literature from less biased historians who see things from multiple perspectives where they try to tell the story other than picking sides. Of course there are some crazy historians who try to say that the natives were lazy and had every opportunity to improve the situation they were in.
However there are some progressive influences If we look at education, and building of infrastructure.
British colonialism did actually make efforts on keeping local languages, opposed to French enforcing the French language. Of course the reason for doing was not in honour of the inhabitants, but still is different than what other empires did.
In my experience I prefer reading literature from less biased historians who see things from multiple perspectives where they try to tell the story other than picking sides. Of course there are some crazy historians who try to say that the natives were lazy and had every opportunity to improve the situation they were in.
storafötter;37066894 said:
Ah yes, because those savages were dumb as fuck before Britain came in and taught them how to be civilized amirite? You know that rubber that the Belgians made the Congolese replace their entire economy with was so beneficial to their infrastructure in the long run. Saying there were positives for the people being colonized is like saying slavery was a good thing for black people in certain ways.
Devolution
Member
storafötter;37066894 said:
Live among those people and ask how they feel about the raping of their people, the exploitation of their resources, the forced labor, denigration and outlawing of their culture and cultural practices. I'm sure some shit about "modernising" their lifestyle will be the salve. Could you be more patronizing and ignorant of these people and their culture?
This is utterly amazing to me. When England finally left India they split the country in two and facilitated the hatred that Hindus and Muslims in the region still feel. Perhaps if the country was kept together the people could have worked out their differences.
Imagine a single, peaceful country in that region all these decades later. It would be an obvious regional power, even a super power in time. Now you have Pakistan, a failure of a country by most measures, and India, a country whose horizon is overshadowed and outperformed by China.
It didn't have to turn out the way it did.
Yeah I don't think that would have happened.
PJV3
Member
I'm not excusing the age of the British empire, but exploitation, forced labour and rape was a common occurence for the lower classes anyway. Same shit different flag.
You really think that what's happened in that region to be inevitable? That the British Empire meddling wouldn't have affected anything?
Okay then!
storafötter
Member
Maybe my wording was a bit offensive, but it is common at least in the field of history to look at economical growth and increase in life expectancies despite how it happened. There were occurrences of some being able to partake in trade and do certain business, even if it is was restricted and did not happen everywhere. Also some areas like the golden coast which wasn't so safe and peaceful people were always in the risk of being abducted, tortured, raped and killed due to certain war tribes. No I am not trying to say it is correct to interfere with another nation on the basis of that.
There are some inhabitants who were quoted to appreciate the "luxury" of checking their mail without being stabbed while doing so. In this circumstance some appreciated the social order in the society where you wouldn't get killed or abducted at any time. Yes it could be part of a privileged group who wanted protection.
However this stability came for a price of course.
I am not unaware of the suffering of people under colonization. It was gruesome, but I think it is important to see the different consequence of things in history.
I think it is very hypocritical of us today to be allowed to speak positive of the global economy and market while pretending that similar things from the colonial period is not still happening. Just because we pay them the bare minimum for the cheap textile products and food it is not slavery! We like to condemn the past and yet we support this oppressive mass consumer society. What I learn from my studies in history is the similarities to today are just under another false pretense that people aren't still living as slaves. Most people like to pretend to be all morally ambitious, but don't have a second though about where their clothes or products come from. So again I am not oblivious to how much damage colonization did to the people and still is doing today as we are still keeping their people and resources in control.
My point was that some got the benefit of joining administration, getting an education, becoming sellers. It all depends of course on which country we are talking about as the Empires were a lot more brutal on the African continent than elsewhere due to the belief that they thought they were inferior. Like the British administration showed more respect for the Indian people due to their known heritage and history, while they showed disrespect towards Africans since they thought they were a people without history or progress.
So in the end saying that some of the population from Colonies manage to benefit from it is wrong? even if it came at a high cost. Again I am not trying to say colonization was better than no colonization, but the fact is that it happened and things changed in several ways.
crimzonflame
Member
Way to spit on the lives of all those people that died and sacrificed themselves fighting for independence. Same people probably bleach their skin too.
storafötter;37071822 said:
Globalization is a sham and I definitely don't look at it with the rose coloured glasses that many try to do, and I don't look at colonialization as some sort of positive experience for the nations that had to live under that. There are no positives for colonialization. None. Well, except for the colonizers of course. But to even try and allege that there were positives for carving up a continent into a bunch of territories for countries to rule over is being extremely disingenuous.
If your point was about the negatives of globalization, I really don't know why you had to somehow make it seem as though colonialization was a good thing in certain respects for those that were colonized.
theignoramus
Member
the Germans just finished paying WW1 reparations a few years ago. there is no "statute of limitations" on criminal behaviour. Ask a nazi.
It's funny because Britain, France, and the other colonizers are still making heaps of money off of their now independent colonies. Dat debt.
Unlike China, India has not historically been united. I'd say it's pretty likely that if the British Empire hadn't colonized it there would be more than two states today (or at least you'd have the same Muslim/Hindu divide since that goes back way before Britain ever showed up).
storafötter
Member
I get what you are saying and agree with it if we look at it on absolute terms colonization was bad. They could have brought benefits to the people without depriving them of their lively hood, culture, identity and resources. No amount of "positive" consequence can justify the things they did. Still I cannot deny that certain consequences were not just negative.
I wanted to say that education and certain social stability in some circumstances was beneficial (even if all the other negativity that came with it is greater).
Maybe I don't make sense to you, but to me it did not mean that Colonization was great thing but that some of the local people manage to get some advantages from it (not just the British empire). Of course if we look further into the future many of these educated elites ended up turning their countries into a civil war with plenty of genocide. It is difficult for me to refer to what literature I am talking about since it was written by a historian from Norway, but his presentation of colonial rule was interesting to read as he presented it in an objective way by showing different sides while condemning the past.
PJV3
Member
The Islamic Mughal empire versus the Hindu Maratha empire, Britain took advantage of their fighting.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Well Britain did facilitate the spread of industrialisation across the world. It is very likely that global trade and the spread of scientific thought wouldn't be what it is now without the Empire.
theignoramus
Member
storafötter;37066894 said:
the Japanese did this in some areas of their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. But nobody tries to play down Imperial Japan's record of barbarism by citing the improvement they brought to the infrastructure and education system in some of the places they occupied. (Taiwan, for instance)
storafötter;37072359 said:
You do know Africa and India weren't continents filled with dumbfuck savages before the British and others came right? There were literally no benefits. What social stability are you talking about? Because if you didn't know Africa had hundreds of different ethnic groups before the colonizers came and combined them into around 56 different nations, causing a lot of social instability. (See Eritrea, Rwanda, Nigeria, pretty much most African countries) Sure they learned English/French and how to be 'proper' law abiding Christians, but I really don't think you could say those were positives in any way.
Like I said if you're saying there were positives for colonialization, you may as well say slavery was a positive thing for slaves in certain respects as well. There's no difference.
It wasn't a rich country if you factored in gross inequalities. The wealth only benefited a privileged minority.
The natives (blacks) had no rights at all. In fact they were treated as sub humans and often abused and beaten by their masters. It's was a common belief that the natives were uncivilized. I've heard first hand accounts of farm workers being beaten with a sjambok (southern african heavy leather whip). They were restricted to living in poor high density neighbourhoods, they couldn't own property in suburbs and couldn't own farms on fertile lands. They also received poorer sub stand education and access to higher education like University was strictly prohibited. And only certain types of jobs, usually menial labour intensive jobs - like domestic workers and labourers, were open to African applicants.
Life wasn't rosy at all. That's why Zimbabweans went to war.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
India as a country didn't exist until until the british raj unified it into the colossal entity we know today. Kashmiri's, manipuri's, Marathi's, gujarati, punjabi, uttar pradesh, delhi region, Haryana...to name a FEW. Do you think these are mere words and not nation states, languages and ethnicities?
The country has a thriving caste system and you have the fucking nerve to say it's the british whom are the reason these two religions hate eachother.
storafötter
Member
I meant the temporary "peace" among tribes due to the strict regulations and control. Like there were decrease in public ritual sacrifices, abduction, rape among the natives. This was of course only possible due to the iron fist rule from the administration (in Africa, west coast). It was temporary and only lasted as long as the British kept their administration there. So the consequence of that was "peaceful" among rivaling tribes and less people got caught in the middle of it.
But as you said they also created new conflicts and it escalated when they left as they had no desire to fix the mess they created.
Thats a good point. I was not in my intention to downplay the brutality, but say that there happened some improvements. If these improvements made everyones lives better it didn't but for some it did improve when trying to establish industries or run a government.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Yes I'm spitting on the graves of my grandparents and I do bleach my own skin from time to time.
Warm Machine
Member
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace - shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there's one. But otherwise, we're solid.
Warm Machine
Member
First off, Subjegation of an indigenous population is never a good thing. It isn't. It can be a horrible, brutal, ugly thing to do. However, I'm not aware of the extent of crimes against or to any single people. I know it must have happened with the records destroyed or not.
England colonized places by doing what the Romans more or less did in that Life of Brian quote. They brought in railways, roads, water, trade, law, healthcare, construction, development, and wealth into all parts of the world they were able to, making themselves, and others rich in the process, while benefitting the population and society as a whole. Without this entry these things would have either never happened or would have been developed far later. These are not minor changes to a place, they are major, far reaching developments.
England, having handed many places back over to local governments after the investment in constructing and infrastucture to be handled by them has had varying levels of success.
England colonized places by doing what the Romans more or less did in that Life of Brian quote. They brought in railways, roads, water, trade, law, healthcare, construction, development, and wealth into all parts of the world they were able to, making themselves, and others rich in the process, while benefitting the population and society as a whole. Without this entry these things would have either never happened or would have been developed far later. These are not minor changes to a place, they are major, far reaching developments.
England, having handed many places back over to local governments after the investment in constructing and infrastucture to be handled by them has had varying levels of success.
Ya, you clearly do not know what the fuck you're talking about.
Wikipedia is only a few clicks away. I mean what is there to say here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising
"Wealth" is not an apt term for the indigenous when most of it is shipped out of the country for the western empires to feed off of. This is still happening on a large scale in Africa, it's just an economic occupation.
- Status