> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Ian Cardinal > Sent: 20 December 2008 16:11 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [canals-list] Re: News from 19 century > > I think it's very hard for us to look at these things from any kind of > perspective other than our own.
However that is what the historian has to endeavour to do. To fully understand history one has to understand the environment in which that history took place > In 21st century terms it is bizarre > that one > small country should go round the world "snatching" land and goods from > indigenous peoples. But that's not how it was seen at the time - and > the > alternative would undoubtedly have been to stand and watch someone else > do > it, if not you, of course. Indeed so. And there was, in part, a genuine (if to our modern eyes misguided) belief that the 'natives' would be much better off under British rule. > However, my comments were particularly aimed at Ireland - and I would > hold > fast to what I said at the time. There are several periods of fairly > massive > repression and fairly horrific sanctions even by the standards of the > day. I largely agree about Ireland - with the caveat that the history of English rule over Ireland dates back, as I said earlier, to long before the rise of the British Empire. In fact, Ireland as a nation state did not exist when the English (or to be more precise the Normans) first conquered the country in the 1100's. At that time, it was a series of mini kingdoms ruled by chieftains. Apart from the bits ruled by the Vikings of course. One can put together a pretty strong case that without the influence of the English, Ireland might not have developed into the independent (barring Ulster) nation state it is today. Whether that was good or bad is, historically speaking, neither here nor there. > It's a popular thing to blame religion in general of course, but in > reality > it was politics and power for the most part. In the middle ages, politics, power and religion went hand in hand. There was a real and genuine fear of Catholic influence then just as there is a real and genuine reason to be concerned about Muslim extremists today. Of course, then as now, it is wrong to tar everyone with the same brush but it seems to be human nature to do so unfortunately. > I don't think endlessly apologising helps - and I think that is > particular > towards post war Germany and Japan. Good point - history is history as it were and no nation should be expected to atone for the sins of its past indefinitely. > As far as the British Empire goes, > it is > worth remembering that the inhabitants of Sierra Leone greeted the > British > peacekeeping forces in 1998 with cries of "Come back and colonise us"! > Not > going to happen, rightly so - but there are always winners and losers > in any > history And put two or more students of history in the same place and you get an argument :-) Good fun though :-) > Ian Cardinal > aka Norman the Narrowboat > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:canals- > [email protected]] On > Behalf Of > > Bru Peckett > > Sent: 20 December 2008 15:45 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [canals-list] Re: News from 19 century > > > > 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:canals- > [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 > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > 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
