61–70 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
British concentration camps predated Nazi's
British concentration camps weren't created for the purpose of mass extermination.
Yes one of the great quirks of European history is that the British Empire is not held in the same esteem as the Nazi empire. The British Empire was bizarrely racist and killed tens of millions of people worldwide. Maybe even more than that if you include the promotion of slavery as a business on global scale. England is so lovable now though.
Except it was the British Empire that persecuted slavery and brought to an end the slave trade far in advance of other nations. What people forget is that the norms of the past are not the same as the norms of today. At one time, slavery was normal across vast swathes of the planet. That it isn't today, is in part due to a moral revolution that took place in Britain and resulted in a policy change by the British empi…
I think you may not be aware of the graylevels within that statement. It is true that the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished the African slave trade. But you need to know the details to realize why the powers that be allowed that to happen. Also, it is worth mentioning that while the same 1833 act made an explicit exception for territories possessed by the East India company. Further, slavery was replaced by indentured labor. This is why you find large populations of non-African slave descendants in many countries. If you've ever vacationed in Trinidad, you'll notice lots of Asians (Indian, etc) people. They got there because their ancestors were brought as indentured labor to replace African slaves. In many cases, as is still occurring today in places like Qatar/UAE, indentured labor is just a #define for slavery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it was the British Empire that persecuted slavery and brought to an end the slave trade far in advance of other nations. What people forget is that the norms of the past are not the same as the norms of today. At one time, slavery was normal across vast swathes of the planet. That it isn't today, is in part due to a moral revolution that took place in Britain and resulted in a policy change by the British empi…
Once the economic advantages were outweighed by the political disadvantages. "while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it". I guess this depends on how you define "country", but lets take it to mean the majority of a population. I'll give you that countries benefiting from the slave trade were clearly fine with it. I sincerely doubt the populations being enslaved were though. (…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blood and repression is the norm for empires, from Sumeria down through. The new thing is being ashamed of it.
Hm. Lots of people believed that the British Empire was absolutely fantastic. In reality, though it brought lots of trade to Britain, I don't think there was much interaction with the Empire for the normal person on the street. If they had actually known what atrocities had been committed in order to get them that rubber or cotton would they have been so happy about it? I think modern shame is very much the product o…
Lets put the atrocities to one side for a moment. We should also consider the fact that in many cases colonial invasions put into place highly extractive political institutions and extractive economic institutions. That's relevant for the long term. In almost all cases, the colonial governments put into place winner-take-all environments. That meant, if you were willing to be the corrupt puppet native leader, and were willing to supress your other natives at all costs, then you got to be "King". The structures created in those colonial countries still maintain such winner-take-all society which results in authoritarian/dictatorial leaders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
British concentration camps predated Nazi's
British concentration camps weren't created for the purpose of mass extermination.
Yes one of the great quirks of European history is that the British Empire is not held in the same esteem as the Nazi empire. The British Empire was bizarrely racist and killed tens of millions of people worldwide. Maybe even more than that if you include the promotion of slavery as a business on global scale. England is so lovable now though.
Except it was the British Empire that persecuted slavery and brought to an end the slave trade far in advance of other nations. What people forget is that the norms of the past are not the same as the norms of today. At one time, slavery was normal across vast swathes of the planet. That it isn't today, is in part due to a moral revolution that took place in Britain and resulted in a policy change by the British empi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it seems like the action of a government attempting to appear concerned when quite clearly humanitarian issues were a tertiary concern. If a genocide occurs as a result of a commitment to a political or economic ideology, does intention really matter?
I think it matters, because the very definition of genocide involves deliberate intent and policy to achieve the goal of wiping out a people.
I would note however, that the goal of wiping out a people (in this case it could be argued that "a people" could just as easily refer to "poor people" as "Irish people") was at least a bonus as far as Westminster was concerned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.sh...
"The Irish viceroy actually proposed in this fashion to sweep the western province of Connacht clean of as many as 400,000 pauper smallholders too poor to emigrate on their own. But the majority of Whig cabinet ministers saw little need to spend public money accelerating a process that was already going on 'privately' at a great rate."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The initial British response was to buy £100,000 of corn meal from the US to import to Ireland to combat the famine. This doesn't seem like an action of a government intent on genocide. It seems more to me that British policy in Ireland during the famine is marked by an extreme ideological commitment to laissez faire economics (ie, letting land owners export food from Ireland in large quantities to make money, lettin…
No, it seems like the action of a government attempting to appear concerned when quite clearly humanitarian issues were a tertiary concern. If a genocide occurs as a result of a commitment to a political or economic ideology, does intention really matter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once the economic advantages were outweighed by the political disadvantages. "while nearly all other countries in the world at the time were totally fine with it". I guess this depends on how you define "country", but lets take it to mean the majority of a population. I'll give you that countries benefiting from the slave trade were clearly fine with it. I sincerely doubt the populations being enslaved were though. (…
That's the very thing I am talking about. Britain was the first country in which it was a massive political liability to support slavery, and the first country in which the opinions of ordinary people mobilising and campaigning against slavery actually mattered and made a difference. You can cast this in cynical terms as self interest, but you can do that with any action by any state in history - Britain is hardly un…
Its basic economics. Had the ruling elite deemed it necessary I'm sure Punch could have been commissioned to print all manner of xenophobic cartoons about subhuman slaves and their barbarism in order to justify the practice further.
This isn't to diminish the efforts of the anti-slavery movement or the individuals involved.
*Edit: Also, yes, this is not unique to any country at all. I'm sure there are a myriad of examples of slavery within any of the countries that Britain colonised throughout history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the parent comment author meant the usual anti-colonialism which attacks western colonialism as something unique and blames virtually any hardships of former colonies on it. I recently saw an article which argued that honor killings in Pakistan are to be blamed on colonialism — because, apparently, palistani men felt oppressed by colonial past and had to take it out on their wives, daughters and sisters.…
I guess people get upset about this sort of thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I... Or this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7991820... But sure, focus on some absurd strawman, and ignore the millions of deaths that the British were responsible for.