British Imperialism

[Methuselah]

Sadly one tyrant,Ian Smith was replaced by another tyrant, Robert Mugabe.

Don't disagree but the 1000% inflation under Mugabe hit the people far harder and the Mugabe 'elite' took far more out of the country than Smith. Rhodesia used to be the 'garden' of South Africa. Mugabe destroyed it.

 

[Rob17896]

It was an achievement and it brought what we call improvements all over the world while we basically picked other nations back pockets. It acquired tremendous wealth for the nation which largely landed in the hands of the few, while ordinary people did all the dangerous dirty stuff.

While I feel sorry for the countries we were ghastly to I also remember to feel sorry for the average british citizen who were exoloitedjust as badly. If you harbour anger then it should be for british ruling classes not the british.

Rail and shipping good. Theft and brutality bad.

The Bauhaus has been the single most influential movement in modern living in my humble opinion.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Don't disagree but the 1000% inflation under Mugabe hit the people far harder and the Mugabe 'elite' took far more out of the country than Smith. Rhodesia used to be the 'garden' of South Africa. Mugabe destroyed it.

Hey mate thought you might be interested in reading this. I have a mate from Zimbabwe who moved to South Africa for work before migrating to Australia about 10 years ago. We were chatting earlier and I mentioned your comments, and what his thoughts on Rhodesia were. This is what he sent me;

'The coloniser always benefits more than the downtrodden, Mugabe was a product of the British empire. He was the Knight of the order of Bath. The British reneged on the Lancaster House Conference agreement. After 10 years of independence if the willing buyer seller on farms had not achieved the required quota of land for the Black Zimbabweans the govt would use it’s nationhood powers to compulsory acquisition of land for redistribution. Had the given the required funds to compensate the white farms the Zimbabwe situation wouldn’t be this worse. I would not pay for land that was stolen from my forefathers.'

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

Hey mate thought you might be interested in reading this. I have a mate from Zimbabwe who moved to South Africa for work before migrating to Australia about 10 years ago. We were chatting earlier and I mentioned your comments, and what his thoughts on Rhodesia were. This is what he sent me;

'The coloniser always benefits more than the downtrodden, Mugabe was a product of the British empire. He was the Knight of the order of Bath. The British reneged on the Lancaster House Conference agreement. After 10 years of independence if the willing buyer seller on farms had not achieved the required quota of land for the Black Zimbabweans the govt would use it’s nationhood powers to compulsory acquisition of land for redistribution. Had the given the required funds to compensate the white farms the Zimbabwe situation wouldn’t be this worse. I would not pay for land that was stolen from my forefathers.'

I don't doubt that what your mate told you is correct. The problem is that the land was taken from the white farmers who knew what they were doing and given to Black Zimbaweans who didn't have a clue about farming so that the farms went into disuse. Perhaps if there had been a more equitable distibution of the land by Mugabe and a programme of training undertaken the situation would have been better.

 

[degsy]

Sadly one tyrant (?) Ian Smith was replaced by even worse tyrant, Robert Mugabe.

Fixed that for you.
Yep getting rid of the white farmers and administrators did wonders for the Country

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

I don't doubt that what your mate told you is correct. The problem is that the land was taken from the white farmers who knew what they were doing and given to Black Zimbaweans who didn't have a clue about farming so that the farms went into disuse. Perhaps if there had been a more equitable distibution of the land by Mugabe and a programme of training undertaken the situation would have been better.

I think if those white farmers (ie British colonialists) hadn't stolen the land in the first place things would be better.

 

[degsy]

I think if those white farmers (ie British colonialists) hadn't stolen the land in the first place things would be better.

The ole Star Trek Prime Directive thing.
Leave 'the noble savage' to stride across the great plains of N America, Peru, Mexico, or the Serengeti and see where he goes...great in theory, but usually where he goes is just over to the next valley to slaughter the neigbouring tribe and steal their women and cattle.

I can see the attraction though .
Would it be better than what actually happened or what would have happened sooner or later anyway?
On balance yes - but that also depends on which end of the musket you're on, aka, the big picture.

Meanwhile in the little picture, over in the next valley, it also depends which end of the spear you're on as well.
Its a conundrum and no mistake.

 

[Billy Dean]

Some masks are slipping in here and no mistake.

 

[Lord Buckethead]

Have we done the bit about bringing Gatling Guns to a Guava fight and turning the survivors into slaves yet?

 

[Tubey]

It depends on your measuring stick. In terms of technological and cultural advancement, good. In terms of pretty much everything else, bad.

If Britain hadn't have done it, someone else would have done - colonies weren't an exclusively British thing. We basically just got ahead of the game at the time due to the industrial revolution.

So I tend to think of it neither in terms of good or bad but rather as something inevitable and of its' time.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

It depends on your measuring stick. In terms of technological and cultural advancement, good. In terms of pretty much everything else, bad.

If Britain hadn't have done it, someone else would have done - colonies weren't an exclusively British thing. We basically just got ahead of the game at the time due to the industrial revolution.

So I tend to think of it neither in terms of good or bad but rather as something inevitable and of its' time.

You think slavery and mass slaughter was ‘of its time’!?

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Not really mate- had say India had the means to have conquered a resource laden Britain in those days do you really believe they wouldn't have done so?

Of course you can look at the positives and negatives of empires

(Positives being they introduced technology and infrastructure to the colonised nations in particular the Roman and British Empires) whilst acknowledging the obvious negatives of it being the take over of another nation and its populace in the pursuit for its resources and the awful things that come with that.

However you are looking at things purely from a civilised modern perspective - back then it was literally the wild west.

A large portion of our empire was in the east tbf

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Yeah but he was an English WS, not a German WS...if one is (almost) universally vilified as being 'bad' doesn't that mean that the other is 'not bad'
It's all about the perspective at the time.
Times change
So you're measuring 100 yrs ago apples with modern day oranges.

True, but when that perspective is taken as official history, it's rather galling.
When the reality is that Churchill and the powers that be didn't oppose Hitler so much on ideological grounds, but rather as a threat to their own hegemony.

 

[Tubey]

You think slavery and mass slaughter was ‘of its time’!?

Well, yeah.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Well, yeah.

So was nazi Germany simply of its time and neither good or bad?