Crimes of the British Empire
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2014, 03:33 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2014 08:12 PM by Wicked Clown.)
Crimes of the British Empire
This was said in a previous thread and thought it okay to start a new thread on the response and topic.

Quote:I'm sorry, in what universe is economic exploitation worse that outright wholesale extermination?

Not only were they responsible for more destruction than Hitler, they and the French drew arbitrary lines across the continent, trapping opposing ethnic groups together, leading to genocides such as what idi amin did to Uganda. Moreover, they took sustainable economies and forced countries to overhaul into the spice and tea trade, which they then traded for food.

After the older generations that remembered the old ways had all died off, the Europeans pulled out leaving entire countries with spice and tea crops no one wanted and which they couldn't eat, leading to civil wars, famine and disease. Now, we smugly look at the Africans as if they are just some sort of lost cause to be blamed for their own failures.

The French, the Spanish, The Russians, the Germans, and the Italians got paid back in full. The Brittish got away with a slap on the wrist. If History were taught correctly the union jack would an offensive symbol like the swastika!

Here's some good articles on the subject

http://www.exile.ru/...90&IBLOCK_ID=35

http://exiledonline....ring-sri-lanka/

the second one is Sri Lanka, but same shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: British Colonization of Africa
(28-07-2014 03:33 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  This was said in a previous thread and thought it okay to start a new thread on the response and topic.

Quote:I'm sorry, in what universe is economic exploitation worse that outright wholesale extermination?

Still true, by the way. Your ludicrous overstatement is histrionic at best.

(28-07-2014 03:33 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Not only were they responsible for more destruction than Hitler...

Citation needed.

That was your original assertion. I questioned it. You can't substantiate your assertion by repeating your own assertion.

Let me know when the British ever got exuberantly genocidal, all right?

I shouldn't need to repeat the point, because you just explicitly quoted it, but economic exploitation is not comparable to wholesale extermination.

(28-07-2014 03:33 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  ... they and the French drew arbitrary lines across the continent, trapping opposing ethnic groups together, leading to genocides such as what idi amin did to Uganda.

Yeah, the Berlin conference wasn't just the UK and France. Nor are the borders arbitrary. At least, no more so than those of every nation...

(28-07-2014 03:33 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Moreover, they took sustainable economies and forced countries to overhaul into the spice and tea trade, which they then traded for food.

In Africa? Hardly. So far as it's even possible to generalise the diverse history of a vast continent (protip: that's very much what you're doing) the colonial economies were based on resource extraction, not cash crops.

(28-07-2014 03:33 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  After the older generations that remembered the old ways had all died off the Europeans pulled out leaving entire countries with spice and tea crops no one wanted and which they couldn't eat, leading to civil wars, famine and disease.

... and that's another incredibly superficial generalisation. Colonial rule lasted between 50 and 450 years in various places. Let alone trying to lump together the economic histories of Kenyan tea with Zanzibari cloves with Ghanaian chocolate. Egypt is not Somaliland is not Botswana is not Nigeria is not Sierra Leone...
(and the worst post-British colonial states were South Africa and Rhodesia - you know, the ones defying the UK?)

One could as easily blame Cold War proxy wars. Or geography. I mean, it's not like malaria and yellow fever would have existed if those dastardly Brits hadn't created them, right?

(28-07-2014 03:33 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Now, we smugly look at the Africans as if they are just some sort of lost cause to be blamed for their own failures.

Who's we?

(28-07-2014 03:33 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The French, the Spanish, The Russians, the Germans, and the Italians got paid back in full. The British got away with a slap on the wrist. If History were taught correctly the union jack would an offensive symbol like the swastika!

"Paid back"? "Slap on the wrist"? By whom? When? Why? Do you know what history textbooks look like in the UK? In France? The Spanish were never in Africa; to say nothing of the Belgians...

It's possible to say "colonialism was bad" without going full retard Godwin.

(28-07-2014 03:33 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Here's some good articles on the subject

http://www.exile.ru/...90&IBLOCK_ID=35

http://exiledonline....ring-sri-lanka/

the second one is Sri Lanka, but same shit.

Those urls are incorrectly formatted.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
28-07-2014, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2014 08:13 PM by Wicked Clown.)
RE: British Colonization of Africa
Okay, sorry. The point I was making wasn't only limited to the British Colonization of AFRICA. I spoke of that because it was on a thread about someone's African blog.

Okay maybe the British Empire wasn't as Intrinsically as evil as the Nazis, but they stretched to every continent, fought wars on every continent, had concentration camps,
http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-...sh-empire/

and at their height were the most powerful Empire. Hitler had his reign of terror for a few years. The British Empire terrorized the world for more than 400 years. At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power

This empire started Torture centers, organized massacres of civilians, committed what could arguably be considered attemps at genocide against the Irish.

What I meant by Spain, France, and Germany being paid back is they were invaded and conquered at various times and suffered great amounts of bloodshed and hardship after their crimes. Great Britain has never been invaded. At least not in the last four centuries. I don't know much about British history prior to that.

British forces or forces with a British mandate have invaded, had some control over or fought conflicts in 171 of the world's 193 countries that are currently UN member states, or nine out of ten of all countries.

The British Empire conquered more land, fucked over way more people, and done more damage than the Nazis.

[Image: untitled_zpsf2de1abe.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 06:37 PM
RE: British Colonization of Africa
Appealing to emotional hyperbole does nothing to strengthen an argument's merit. Come back with some verifiable facts and I may take you more seriously...

To be clear - there were certainly atrocities committed by the British Colonials but a top 10 list such as the one you cite here, is not an accurate representation. Whilst at number 7 in your link - the Amritsar massacre was clearly an atrocity, its' number 1 listing for atrocities committed by the Empire is the assertion that Churchill exacerbated the Bengal famine of 1943. Firstly it cannot be proven that even if you could attribute it to him, that it was his intent - in 1943 he had a little jumped-up German on his mind...but the listing appears to go off the back of one book on the subject, and frankly that's not enough of a basis for an argument...


"Name me a moral statement made or moral action performed that could not have been made or done, by a non-believer..." - Christopher Hitchens



My youtube musings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfFoxbz...UVi1pf4B5g
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: British Colonization of Africa
(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Okay, sorry. The point I was making wasn't only limited to the British Colonization of AFRICA. I spoke of that because it was on a thread about someone's African blog.

Still deranged and histrionic.

The UK was by most analyses less worse than its contemporaries in administering its African empire (including imperial Germany). Thus, by the transitive property you are claiming that Nazi Germany was better than the Kaiser's empire.

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Okay maybe the British Empire wasn't as Intrinsically as evil as the Nazis...

So your initial comment was what we might call not true. But I see your post does not end here. Are you going to try to justify the claim anyway?

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  ... but they stretched to every continent, fought wars on every continent...

So what? That means nothing so far as how their citizens and subjects were treated.

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  ...had concentration camps,
http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-...sh-empire/

That's a shitty citation. Every state - ever - has had places where it rounds up its (perceived) enemies. Thus relating that statement - in isolation - to a comparative statement is nonsensical (you need something to be better or worse than - and you chose Nazi Germany, so good luck substantiating "worse").

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  ... and at their height were the most powerful Empire.

Not meaningful. That means nothing so far as how their citizens and subjects were treated.
(is America worse than the Nazis? it's had a stint as the world's most powerful state; is China? France? Iran? ditto...)

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Hitler had his reign of terror for a few years. The British Empire terrorized the world for more than 400 years.

Not meaningful. That means nothing so far as how their citizens and subjects were treated.
(also: "terrorized", eh? Rather begging the question)

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power.

Again, not meaningful. That means nothing so far as how their citizens and subjects were treated.

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  This empire started Torture centers...

Citation needed.
(and remember, to make a comparative statement, you must compare this to its contemporaries)

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  ... organized massacres of civilians...

Citation needed.
(and remember, to make a comparative statement, you must compare this to its contemporaries)

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  ... committed what could arguably be concerned attemps at genocide against the Irish.

If it's arguable, then actually argue it. Don't just throw out a facile unsubstantiated assertion out there like a wet fish.

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  What I meant by Spain, France, and Germany being paid back is they were invaded and conquered at various times and suffered great amounts of bloodshed and hardship after their crimes.

Spain hasn't been invaded in 200 years either, and Germany didn't exist until 1871.

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Great Britain has never been invaded. At least not in the last four centuries. I don't know much about British history prior to that.

Again, not meaningful. That means nothing so far as how their citizens and subjects were treated.

They've fought a number of wars on home soil. Does the civil war count? The glorious revolution? The Jacobite rebellions?

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  British forces or forces with a British mandate have invaded, had some control over or fought conflicts in 171 of the world's 193 countries that are currently UN member states, or nine out of ten of all countries.

The vast majority of states they fought against don't exist anymore, and one could easily claim the same of France, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, America, Russia...

That claim actually originates in a book, which freely admits to inflating the number for shock value.
(the book itself is an interesting and mostly sound read - though there are some very bizarre choices - but unfortunately, if predictably, it's only that dodgy pull-quote factoid which seems to have achieved much penetration)

(28-07-2014 06:01 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The British Empire conquered more land, fucked over way more people, and done more damage than the Nazis.

That's just repeating your assertion. Repeating your assertion does not substantiate your assertion.

At best I can tell you're saying the British empire - and even lumping all of its centuries-long and extremely variable history together is a heck of a stretch - was worse not because it treated its people worse, not because it endorsed a worse ideology, not because was as violent, but because it was... around... for longer. Right.

Back to basics on this. How are we measuring "worse"? I think the only reasonable criteria is impact on quality of life for the subjects and citizens of a given state. By any possible such measure Nazi Germany was one of the single worst places ever to be alive, and the British empire was as often as not no better or worse than its contemporaries. Did the British empire, over its history, affect more people? Sure. Even so it would not be worse as I would use the term - that would require being worse to each of those people.

You can say "colonialism is bad" without going full retard Godwin.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
28-07-2014, 08:38 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2014 08:49 PM by Wicked Clown.)
RE: Crimes of the British Empire
What I was meaning by worse is conquering more land with military force, shedding innocent blood on far more different countries than Nazi's managed to occupy or bomb, and yes, they were far more powerful (for their time) than Nazi Germany, more influential, and guilty of war crimes on every continent, and able to do this for centuries!

Nazi Germany treated its conquered people worse, but I'm guessing we are a lot more aware of those atrocities, and less aware of what Great Britain did. the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story.

Again this is my personal opinion, but I believe that The British Empire committed these war crimes on a much larger scale due to its ability to seize such an enormous amount land through military force and all the war crimes accompanying the conquering and occupation of so much of the World.

That link was a citation for my assertions.

Honestly, I need to do more research on how the subjects were treated. From what I've seen in what I read about their treatment of the Zulus, the Kenyans, the boers, and the Irish, the Indians (from India), the Kikuyus , or others....Well let's just say, I treat animals WAY better.

"Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound."

...The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...atrocities

Hope you have a strong stomach Smile

[Image: th?&id=HN.608041178915931080&...mp;amp;p=0]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: Crimes of the British Empire
(28-07-2014 08:38 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  What I was meaning by worse is conquering more land with military force, shedding innocent blood on far more different countries than Nazi's managed to occupy or bomb, and yes, they were far more powerful (for their time) than Nazi Germany, more influential, and guilty of war crimes on every continent, and able to do this for centuries!

Indeed. By that logic - er, "logic" - not only are the British worse than Nazis, but so too are the French, the Spanish, the Russians, the Turks, the Americans, the Chinese...

(28-07-2014 08:38 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Nazi Germany treated its conquered people worse...

Thank you and goodnight.

(28-07-2014 08:38 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  ... but I'm guessing we are a lot more aware of those atrocities, and less aware of what Great Britain did.

These feels are based on ... ?

(28-07-2014 08:38 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  The British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story.

Do you have a citation on that? Or even anything approaching specifics?
(well; this paragraph is actually taken, verbatim and unattributed, from the Guardian piece you do, eventually, link to - bad form, but okay)

(28-07-2014 08:38 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Again this is my personal opinion, but I believe that The British Empire committed these war crimes on a much larger scale due to its ability to seize such an enormous amount land through military force and all the war crimes accompanying the conquering and occupation of so much of the World.

Is that a useful standard? By modern criteria war crimes were rampant and endemic during every war ever fought up to the last few decades, and most of those too besides.

My objection to your statement was that to be a citizen or subject of the British empire was far preferable than to be a citizen or subject of the Nazi Reich. You've acknowledged this.

So the comparison doesn't really work. What's left is, you're sharing with us the insight that, er, imperialism is bad. Okay, sure, the sun also rises, but so what?

(28-07-2014 08:38 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  That link was a citation for my assertions.

Which? Freaking listverse? Which doesn't give its sources?

(28-07-2014 08:38 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  Honestly, I need to do more research on how the subjects were treated. From what I've seen in what I read about their treatment of the Zulus, the Kenyans, the boers, and the Irish, the Indians (from India), the Kikuyus , or others....Well let's just say, I treat animals WAY better.

Uh, it's part of history. No shit people were treated poorly. It's trivially true to say that colonial and imperialist powers were not nice. And since it's history, nobody else was nice either; one of the reasons Company rule worked for so long in India was that when the British took over they were no worse than their predecessors. For that matter the Mau Mau themselves were incredibly violent; events do not happen in a vacuum.

When you start making comparisons you need to be able to justify them. Decide your criteria, quantify them, substantiate them, do the analysis, show your work.

(28-07-2014 08:38 PM)Wicked Clown Wrote:  "Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound."

...The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...atrocities

Hope you have a strong stomach Smile

Yes. Thank you for the copypasta. The Guardian article, which, by the way, is really this article, is all right; it's pretty disingenuous in its editorialising, but the content is sound (and the latter version actually gives citations).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
29-07-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Crimes of the British Empire
Quote:Great Britain has never been invaded.

Yes it has.
The Germans took some Islands off Northern France during the French occupation which were British territory.

Not to mention the Falklands.

Not major (though Falklands could have resulted in a major war), but still, get your facts straight.

Quote:Spain hasn't been invaded in 200 years either

Pretty sure Spain was invaded by Napoleon.
Consider wait, that was more than 200 years ago wasn't it.. Alright, carry on.

Quote: they were far more powerful (for their time) than Nazi Germany

Not really.
They only managed to do so well because of the great wooden wall.
If there was a land-bridge from France to GB Napoleon would have been sipping tea beneath Big Ben. Same with WW2, they only managed to hold the Nazi's off because they won the Battle of Britain (appropriately named). Given a land bridge and there would have been Panzers rolling across London Bridge.
They weren't powerful because they could shit on everyone, they were powerful because nobody could shit on them. Nazi Germany however was powerful because it could shit on everyone.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
29-07-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: Crimes of the British Empire
What the Brits did was horrible, they pillaged and had no respect for national sovereignty, but they still did not round up and gass 12 million people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: Crimes of the British Empire
12 million people were not gassed!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: