I genuinely don't have time to get into this debate properly right now, unfortunately but briefly ...
One can argue that we 'milked the world commercially' equally one can argue that we disseminated technology, education, justice systems and so on and provided a market for the produce and output of the nations within the Empire. Is India poorer today than it otherwise would have been without the British Empire? Who can say. For sure, it's unlikely that India would have the extensive rail system that it has for one thing! We're constantly being told that the Empire was a bad thing, often by people who have themselves benefited from the educational, justice and political systems installed by the British. Would Ghandi have been allowed to campaign openly against the British rule in India if the country had been ruled by Germany, France, Spain or Portugal? I very much doubt it! Indeed, Ghandi had the opportunity to study law at University College London, a classic example of the British Empire offering opportunities for education and advancement. How likely is it that a scion of the ruling family of a small tribal state in the far East would have had such an opportunity at that time without the Empire? And I don't see much sign of poverty or political meltdown in Canada, New Zealand or Australia, all former dominions of the British Empire! As for Africa, Britain shares a proportion of the burden of guilt for the state of the continent today but by no means all of it. The Germans, Dutch and Portuguese did their fair share too! At least the British were the first in to bat against the slave trade (albeit only after we'd profited extensively from it I admit). This is the crux of my point - there are two sides to the story of the British Empire. It was not all good but nor was it all bad either. To present the Empire as all bad (or all good to be fair) is rewriting history to suit modern sensitivities - a practice which I abhor. And now I must get on with what I'm supposed to be doing! Bru > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Steve Haywood > Sent: 20 December 2008 12:37 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [canals-list] Re: News from 19 century > > 2008/12/20 Bru Peckett <[email protected]> > > > Steve Heaven wrote ... > > > > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:12 +0000, Ian Cardinal wrote: > > > > > > > Like it or not, Britain did have a terrible colonial > > > > history in Ireland > > > > To be pedantic, *England* had a terrible history in Ireland dating > back to > > long before the colonial era. > > > > > And most of the rest of the world ! > > > > And by and large, the British Empire was a relatively benign > influence (I > > emphasise the word 'relatively'). > > > > I remember my first trip to India. At that stage I thought the > British > Empire had a 'relatively benign' influence too. That was until I got > into my > first discussion with an educated Indian versed in Indian history. We > milked the world commercially for 200 years, Bru. And for no better > reason > to make money out of it. As a result large swathes of the world, > including > India, are much poorer than they should be. Other parts, particularly > in > Africa, have been in political and economic meltdown ever since. Is > that > what you mean by 'relative'? > > Steve > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1857 - Release Date: > 19/12/2008 10:09
