British Imperialism

[Tubey]

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

Well, no.

That's why we had things like Article X of the League of Nations, the Geneva Conventions from the late 1800s, the abolition of slavery worldwide, the experience of horrific loss of life during WW1, the desire to formalise UN genocide conventions and so on.

Go back 100-150 years and society didn't have that context.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Well, no.

That's why we had things like Article X of the League of Nations, the Geneva Conventions from the late 1800s, the abolition of slavery worldwide, the experience of horrific loss of life during WW1, the desire to formalise UN genocide conventions and so on.

Go back 100-150 years and society didn't have that context.

I understand what you’re saying, and it’s a valid point. There were however, many anti-colonialists and dissenters during this time also who were perhaps more forward thinking than many.
I therefore don’t think it can be viewed as neither right or wrong due to the context of the time as clearly many other people disagreed with this whilst it was happening. What white westerners did is a stain on humanity and should be remembered as such.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Think the product of their time argument is a bit of a cop out. The fact is that the American public had to be whipped into a frenzy by a massive propaganda campaign in order to gain support for entry into the first world war.
In 100 years will the history books talk about the Iraq war as acceptable at the time? Or will they mention the massive protests and 80 to 90% public opposition to the conflict in Britain and Spain?
And saying 'if we hadn't done it somebody else would have' is an absolutely horrendous defence. It's like seeing a jewellery store window broken and helping yourself to a few watches and gold rings because somebody else will if you don't.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Think the product of their time argument is a bit of a cop out. The fact is that the American public had to be whipped into a frenzy by a massive propaganda campaign in order to gain support for entry into the first world war.
In 100 years will the history books talk about the Iraq war as acceptable at the time? Or will they mention the massive protests and 80 to 90% public opposition to the conflict in Britain and Spain?
And saying 'if we hadn't done it somebody else would have' is an absolutely horrendous defence. It's like seeing a jewellery store window broken and helping yourself to a few watches and gold rings because somebody else will if you don't.

That’s a good point.
Very civil discussion going on in here today. Can someone call someone a racist gammon or an entitled snowflake please?

 

[Tubey]

Think the product of their time argument is a bit of a cop out. The fact is that the American public had to be whipped into a frenzy by a massive propaganda campaign in order to gain support for entry into the first world war.
In 100 years will the history books talk about the Iraq war as acceptable at the time? Or will they mention the massive protests and 80 to 90% public opposition to the conflict in Britain and Spain?
And saying 'if we hadn't done it somebody else would have' is an absolutely horrendous defence. It's like seeing a jewellery store window broken and helping yourself to a few watches and gold rings because somebody else will if you don't.

Not really, as you'd still have the concept of it being stealing. They didn't.

At the time, colonialism and slavery wasn't seen as what it is today. Slaves weren't seen as human for example, by any of the developed world really, not just Britain. They were property - basically animals to be used as tools in the same way as horses. Colonialism was basically seen as taking unclaimed land, not genocide.

It's all about context. Applying modern sensibilities on it makes no sense to do.

 

[PhilM]

I understand what you’re saying, and it’s a valid point. There were however, many anti-colonialists and dissenters during this time also who were perhaps more forward thinking than many.
I therefore don’t think it can be viewed as neither right or wrong due to the context of the time as clearly many other people disagreed with this whilst it was happening. What white westerners did is a stain on humanity and should be remembered as such.

You're right that it was heinous, but I do think the argument that it should at least be balanced with some appreciation of the limitations of hindsight is fair.

In reality, it was an act within their 'Zeitgeist' and that has to be considered.That's not being apologetic for their actions, however simply taking some considerations.

Your point of Nazi Germany is a good one: their actions were horrendous and a real stain on the world. But, I don't expect modern day Germans to feel guilt for this.

 

[The Legend of Southall]

Think the product of their time argument is a bit of a cop out. The fact is that the American public had to be whipped into a frenzy by a massive propaganda campaign in order to gain support for entry into the first world war.
In 100 years will the history books talk about the Iraq war as acceptable at the time? Or will they mention the massive protests and 80 to 90% public opposition to the conflict in Britain and Spain?
And saying 'if we hadn't done it somebody else would have' is an absolutely horrendous defence. It's like seeing a jewellery store window broken and helping yourself to a few watches and gold rings because somebody else will if you don't.

Just to play devils advocate, would you support Spain paying back the riches they stole from the native South Americans, and compensating them for the loss of lands and mass genocide? What if it means Spanish people having to pay more tax?

It's simply not a case of saying 'if we hadn't done it somebody else would' because every European nation worth it salt was doing it. Britain just did it better than the rest. Although Spain and France gave them a run for their money. Even the USA were at it, they where just clever enough to call it something else. Germany simply arrived late to the party, and that's what eventually lead to the first world war.

At some point a line must be drawn under it all. It's history now. There isn't an empire that has ever been benevolent, they can't be by definition. I think us British people can be proud of what a small European island managed to do, whilst simultaneously acknowledging the bad it did to achieve it. For some reason, it's fashionable for British people to hate the empire, anyone who thinks differently is usually labelled as some sort of nationalist xenophobe.

Personally, I think we have managed de-colonisation badly. Whilst giving these nations their freedom was the right thing to do, it was badly done. And we haven't done enough to support our former colonise since. The Commonwealth being no more than a tokenistic gesture. That is the bit we should be most shameful of. We can't change what we did as an empire, but we could of given our former colonies one last gift; peace and a prosperous future. We at least owed them that much.

 

[Billy Dean]

Well, no.

That's why we had things like Article X of the League of Nations, the Geneva Conventions from the late 1800s, the abolition of slavery worldwide, the experience of horrific loss of life during WW1, the desire to formalise UN genocide conventions and so on.

Go back 100-150 years and society didn't have that context.

So at which point then does "of its time" change from acceptable to unacceptable? At one point Nazi Germany and the British Empire were operating simultaneously.

 

[PhilM]

So at which point then does "of its time" change from acceptable to unacceptable? At one point Nazi Germany and the British Empire were operating simultaneously.

That's a really interesting question and to be fair one that's probably very difficult to answer or at least an answer that will be suitable for all.

In reality, it's less of whether something is or was acceptable, but rather how the general public now perceive those actions - how relevant it is to them.

For example, if you were to ask the general public about the Roman Empire and The British Empire would you get similar answers regarding to their actions?

Working on a hunch, I suspect that the majority of people (we're not talking about historians here) would possibly look at the Romans more sympathetically.

Would people look more to their advantages and how they modelled the modern world or their vicious and occasional totalitarian rule? What about with the BE?

Rightly or wrongly, I feel that over time the memories of our sins will disappear into the ether if the advantages (I use that lightly) outweigh them.

 

[everton fan number one]

That's a really interesting question and to be fair one that's probably very difficult to answer or at least an answer that will be suitable for all.

In reality, it's less of whether something is or was acceptable, but rather how the general public now perceive those actions - how relevant it is to them.

For example, if you were to ask the general public about the Roman Empire and The British Empire would you get similar answers regarding to their actions?

Working on a hunch, I suspect that the majority of people (we're not talking about historians here) would possibly look at the Romans more sympathetically.

Would people look more to their advantages and how they modelled the modern world or their vicious and occasional totalitarian rule? What about with the BE?

Rightly or wrongly, I feel that over time the memories of our sins will disappear into the ether if the advantages (I use that lightly) outweigh them.

Caesar was accused of genocide in Gaul.

Surely you can condemn the society as a whole if not individuals.

And there was of course a backlash against the colonies. Belgium had to shut down their colony in Congo due to public horror against atrocities.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Not really, as you'd still have the concept of it being stealing. They didn't.

At the time, colonialism and slavery wasn't seen as what it is today. Slaves weren't seen as human for example, by any of the developed world really, not just Britain. They were property - basically animals to be used as tools in the same way as horses. Colonialism was basically seen as taking unclaimed land, not genocide.

It's all about context. Applying modern sensibilities on it makes no sense to do.

I'm sorry, but the concept of taking something by force has generally always been frowned upon by the victims and colonialists knew only too well that they weren't taking unclaimed land. That was the spin of the time.
More rigorous historical investigation than has often been applied suggests that even in ancient history, populations had to be convinced that the other guy was the baddie. Goebbels didn't invent anything.

 

[PhilM]

Caesar was accused of genocide in Gaul.

Surely you can condemn the society as a whole if not individuals.

And there was of course a backlash against the colonies. Belgium had to shut down their colony in Congo due to public horror against atrocities.

You most definitely can, but my point was that - rightly or wrongly - people often equate or correlate time with a growing ambivalence over previous actions.

The Romans did many, many terrible things that would put modern societies to shame, but for a multitude of reasons most people don't relate that with their image.

On balance, people relate the Romans with their technological and social advancements rather than their crimes; I suspect people will with the B.E. in later years.

Alternatively, people at the time of these actions often don't see their significance either: I think of America's own imperialism over the past one hundred odd years.

I think there's a growing movement that perceive their actions as more detrimental than first thought, but in another hundred years it'll soon dissipate.

Basically, it's a bit of a cycle...

 

[everton fan number one]

You most definitely can, but my point was that - rightly or wrongly - people often equate or correlate time with a growing ambivalence over previous actions.

The Romans did many, many terrible things that would put modern societies to shame, but for a multitude of reasons most people don't relate that with their image.

On balance, people relate the Romans with their technological and social advancements rather than their crimes; I suspect people will with the B.E. in later years.

Alternatively, people at the time of these actions often don't see their significance either: I think of America's own imperialism over the past one hundred odd years.

I think there's a growing movement that perceive their actions as more detrimental than first thought, but in another hundred years it'll soon dissipate.

Basically, it's a bit of a cycle...

Sure

Was an additional comments rather than a response to your point.

My general point is that people circa the colonial era were not oblivious to the moral character of their actions and are therefore blameworthy. That is whether or not subsequent generations properly judge them.

Some people here assume that because colonialism was a common practice at the time there was no notion of wrongdoing on the part of most colonial nations/ actors. I find that implausible.

 

[degsy]

You most definitely can, but my point was that - rightly or wrongly - people often equate or correlate time with a growing ambivalence over previous actions.

The Romans did many, many terrible things that would put modern societies to shame, but for a multitude of reasons most people don't relate that with their image.

On balance, people relate the Romans with their technological and social advancements rather than their crimes; I suspect people will with the B.E. in later years.

Alternatively, people at the time of these actions often don't see their significance either: I think of America's own imperialism over the past one hundred odd years.

I think there's a growing movement that perceive their actions as more detrimental than first thought, but in another hundred years it'll soon dissipate.

Basically, it's a bit of a cycle...

Plenty of Empires going back 1000s of years,
Down the historical track, when we've all got over our blame angst...if we ever do, I think the Britsh Empire won't be the worst by a long chalk.
But i would say that wouldn't I.

 

[Chewbacca]

I think us British people can be proud of what a small European island managed to do, whilst simultaneously acknowledging the bad it did to achieve it.

You want me to be proud of something that was bad? No

I acknowledge it was bad and would like us to do something to correct it