P
Prestwick
Guest
Behold! The whole thread on the Aboriginal apology piqued my interest and sparks a debate on the whole issue of Empire. Was it wholly bad or was it wholly good? Can it be credited for the impetus for modern globalisation, the advent of a global communications network and more or is it merely a byword for creating the conditions for which the evils of corruption, tribal xenophobia and totalitarianism could prey on newly created independent nations?
It is a highly complex and very fascinating subject but it is also one open to many many misconceptions. We tend to think that the British Empire was for its life ruled directly by random suited men behind desks in London, usually sporting big moustaches and sideburns and weilding big red pens to which they'd make vast decisions before retiring for Afternoon tea. In actuality, the sheer distances involved and the time lag between a message travelling between London and wherever in the world meant that allot of the defining decisions of Empire were taken by individuals or private institutions independently of HM Government.
India, a classic example, was explored and gradually assimilated by the East India Company, a private enterprise which could be seen today as a pre-cursor to today's supernational corporations. The likes of today's super-corps like Microsoft, Glaxosmithkline, etc are not anything new, in fact they pale in terms of sheer power to the likes of the East India Company or La Compagnie française des Indes orientales for example.
Another issue is what exactly do we mean by the British? In actuality, we should be more blunt in saying that allot of the important figures British Colonialism were born across the British Isles. For example, Arthur Welllesly, later to become the Duke of Wellington and uber-pwn'erer of Napoleon, was a rather ruthless administrator in India and was born and raised in Ireland, old English in fact (that is, Irish of Norman descent). Another example is Thomas Glover, an incredibly talented Scottish businessman who essentially created modern Japan, founded what is now Mitsubishi as well as the Kirin Brewery. To understand the Empire, it is essential to acknowledge that responsility for the successes and failures of Empire must be shared by all of the Home Nations and not just England.
Another thing to take into account is that you cannot view these cases in isolation. Britain did not simply walk into India and take control overnight. It was a 400 year struggle between Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and even Denmark which made the great game seem like a simple disagreement in a pub. Each nation had their puppet ruler, each wanted their share of India and each had their own private armies and navies on account that the official armed forces of state were active elsewhere back in Europe. This gradually meant that the authority of the indiginous Muhgal empire was eroded gradually until, when Britain eventually 'won', it had virtually taken over the administration of India anyway. Subdugation was inevitable, not by design but as a consequence of intense commercial competition between nations.
New Zealand is a similar case. It was inevitable that it was going to be aquired by one European power or another. It was well known that France had grand designs on the islands and if France decided against annexation, it would have probably have been signed off to either a newly unifed Germany or even Belgium in a treaty with absolutely no participation of the Maori locals signed in somewheria in Bravaria. While The Treaty of Waitangi wasn't ratified by Parliament here as well as being unjust and hastily rushed in both drafting and presentation to the Maori people, in comparison with total and utter cultural annihilation and (in the case of German or Belgian occupation) possible genocide, that was the best deal on the table at the time. Should the British apologise for Waitangi? That really should be for the New Zealanders to answer and I can only merely rehash history and cannot give that answer.
Empire however, will always be defined by the actions of one man: Rhodes. He was an incredibly complex man, he was born actually just up the road from me in Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire. He was a white supremasist and at the same time a valued supporter and financier of the Irish nationalist cause. An ardent supporter of Anglo-Saxon worldwide supremacy and yet at the same time almost violently opposed to any interferrence from government. Rhodes and Southern Africa were far more influential in colonial thinking than Robert Clive and the East India Company. The latter were merely violent carpet baggers and gangsters, intent on extorting the Muhgals of every last Rupee until there was nothing left.
Rhodes and the BSAC however based everything on a sound financial platform. Improved communication links linking Britain and Southern Africa enabled a level of corporate governance never seen before. However, it also enabled Rhodes to lobby and pressure government into allowing him free reign in his affairs. This doesn't take away from the lasting damage which Rhodes' actions have left on Africa which we are still seeing the effects of today.
This boring spiel which you're all probably going to skip anyway isn't meant to declare that the Empire was great or the Empire sucked, more intended as briefing notes for people to debate the legacy of Empire when put in context.
P.S. no outlandish and incredibly offensive comments please. If you know what you are going to type will be controversial and offensive, then don't post at all please. You will get a warning and the post will be yanked. I know this thread will stir heavy emotions but it is far more enjoyble to discuss this with a level head.
It is a highly complex and very fascinating subject but it is also one open to many many misconceptions. We tend to think that the British Empire was for its life ruled directly by random suited men behind desks in London, usually sporting big moustaches and sideburns and weilding big red pens to which they'd make vast decisions before retiring for Afternoon tea. In actuality, the sheer distances involved and the time lag between a message travelling between London and wherever in the world meant that allot of the defining decisions of Empire were taken by individuals or private institutions independently of HM Government.
India, a classic example, was explored and gradually assimilated by the East India Company, a private enterprise which could be seen today as a pre-cursor to today's supernational corporations. The likes of today's super-corps like Microsoft, Glaxosmithkline, etc are not anything new, in fact they pale in terms of sheer power to the likes of the East India Company or La Compagnie française des Indes orientales for example.
Another issue is what exactly do we mean by the British? In actuality, we should be more blunt in saying that allot of the important figures British Colonialism were born across the British Isles. For example, Arthur Welllesly, later to become the Duke of Wellington and uber-pwn'erer of Napoleon, was a rather ruthless administrator in India and was born and raised in Ireland, old English in fact (that is, Irish of Norman descent). Another example is Thomas Glover, an incredibly talented Scottish businessman who essentially created modern Japan, founded what is now Mitsubishi as well as the Kirin Brewery. To understand the Empire, it is essential to acknowledge that responsility for the successes and failures of Empire must be shared by all of the Home Nations and not just England.
Another thing to take into account is that you cannot view these cases in isolation. Britain did not simply walk into India and take control overnight. It was a 400 year struggle between Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and even Denmark which made the great game seem like a simple disagreement in a pub. Each nation had their puppet ruler, each wanted their share of India and each had their own private armies and navies on account that the official armed forces of state were active elsewhere back in Europe. This gradually meant that the authority of the indiginous Muhgal empire was eroded gradually until, when Britain eventually 'won', it had virtually taken over the administration of India anyway. Subdugation was inevitable, not by design but as a consequence of intense commercial competition between nations.
New Zealand is a similar case. It was inevitable that it was going to be aquired by one European power or another. It was well known that France had grand designs on the islands and if France decided against annexation, it would have probably have been signed off to either a newly unifed Germany or even Belgium in a treaty with absolutely no participation of the Maori locals signed in somewheria in Bravaria. While The Treaty of Waitangi wasn't ratified by Parliament here as well as being unjust and hastily rushed in both drafting and presentation to the Maori people, in comparison with total and utter cultural annihilation and (in the case of German or Belgian occupation) possible genocide, that was the best deal on the table at the time. Should the British apologise for Waitangi? That really should be for the New Zealanders to answer and I can only merely rehash history and cannot give that answer.
Empire however, will always be defined by the actions of one man: Rhodes. He was an incredibly complex man, he was born actually just up the road from me in Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire. He was a white supremasist and at the same time a valued supporter and financier of the Irish nationalist cause. An ardent supporter of Anglo-Saxon worldwide supremacy and yet at the same time almost violently opposed to any interferrence from government. Rhodes and Southern Africa were far more influential in colonial thinking than Robert Clive and the East India Company. The latter were merely violent carpet baggers and gangsters, intent on extorting the Muhgals of every last Rupee until there was nothing left.
Rhodes and the BSAC however based everything on a sound financial platform. Improved communication links linking Britain and Southern Africa enabled a level of corporate governance never seen before. However, it also enabled Rhodes to lobby and pressure government into allowing him free reign in his affairs. This doesn't take away from the lasting damage which Rhodes' actions have left on Africa which we are still seeing the effects of today.
This boring spiel which you're all probably going to skip anyway isn't meant to declare that the Empire was great or the Empire sucked, more intended as briefing notes for people to debate the legacy of Empire when put in context.
P.S. no outlandish and incredibly offensive comments please. If you know what you are going to type will be controversial and offensive, then don't post at all please. You will get a warning and the post will be yanked. I know this thread will stir heavy emotions but it is far more enjoyble to discuss this with a level head.
