the brits and the aftermath of empire are to blame for the woes of the world. discuss.?

Question

northern ireland. israel. afghanistan. kashmir. iraq. sri lanka.
think of al the trouble spots of the world and then think of how the brits f**ked them up. let me hear your thoughts people!

Answer 1

Certainly we have much to answer for in some quarters, but to blame for all "the woes of the world", I don't think so. You only have to look back through history to the periods following the collapse of earlier colonial powers that a similar situation emerges to what we see today.

In the Aegean world of the Late Bronze Age (approximately 1600-1200 BC) 'civilisation', if it can be called that, was seemingly flourishing in both the realtively stable 'Empires' of the Mycenaeanea and Hittites. Yet a sudden period of collapse around 1200 led to over half a millennia of what is often called 'Dark Age' while the region was struggling to bring its head back above the water. We still don't know all the causes and consequences of this collapse and decline, but it happened and is in manhy ways comparable to the situation after the collapse of modern Empires. The same could be said for the Roman Empire. If we follow the idea of a 'Dark Age' after the collapse of this Empire then it took the western world at least almost a millennia to recover during which time we were involved in incessant infighting, war and slaughter.

In terms of the British Empire of the last few hundred years, of course mistakes were made. It would be humanly impossible to meet the needs of all the varied and different cultures the Empire came into contact with without causing friction. Similarly, you would never be able to appease all the later thinkers, writers, scholars and people in general who emerge from these colonial encounters. It is simply impossible to come out smelling of roses from a situation of empire, which by its very nature implies an element of repression and supression of local identities, cultures and ways of life.

At the same time, we have to consider that it was not just the British involved in Empire building during the 17th-20th centuries. Alongside them were the vast European Empires of the French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarians and the like. These all played their own part in the 'civilising' of the world and all brought with them their own problems from which we are still picking up the pieces.

Take the example of the French in Africa. They have been in an almost contant state of conflict with several of the North African nations, most notably the Algerians with whom they still maintain difficult relations and were at war with for several years.

Think also of the Americas. Yes, the British Empire did have some involvement here, but not to the same extent as the Spanish, Portuguese and now the Americans. We could hardly be blamed for many of the current problems in Central America, for example, which are in many cases the by product of American colonialism-yes, American colonialism, much as they would hate to admit it! I can hardly see how the CIA placing an agent as the head of state in a dictatorship in Central America has helped the situation in the slightest.

As for your suggestions of Northern Ireland, Israel, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Iraq and Sri Lanka, well I think they have been pretty well covered already. The problems in Israel stem as much from American funding and armament supplies as they do from any involvement the British had in Israel, which, incidently, was largely after the 'Empire' as such had ceased to exist. Afghanistan and Iraq were never in the Empire, as has been pointed out, and again the current troubles in both, while with some British involvement, is largely the result of American foreign policy. It is certainly not the result of British Empire building. Sri Lanka is more of a problem in that it was, clearly, part of the Empire. But, the current troubles here, although paling in comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan, are largely local issues centred on religion and the like and hardly a result of British colonialism. Someone also mentioned British conflict with the Boers. Well, the Boers weren't actually local to South Africa in the first place, but the result of Dutch colonial activities, so this hardly seems a fair comment!

What of other problem locations around the globe? Think of Chechnya for example. This can hardly be laid at the feet of British Empire building as it is wholly generated by Russian colonialism. Similarly, as far as I am aware the Balkans were never formally part of the Empire and it would be difficult to place the troubles as being the result of the British.

In summary-yes, I think we do have many things to answer for from our colonial years, probably the most notable being slavery and its associated trappings. But I think these issues are inherent in any colonial activites, as are suggested by the earlier Greek and Roman colonial encounters. It is simply not possible to escape problems following the decline of Empire, but at the same time rather than simply finding someone to blame we should perhaps be looking for suitable answers to all of the problems that are present instead of just dropping bombs on the people we either see as a threat or do not know how to relate to. The current problems in the world are as much a result of western foreign policy in the last 15-20 years, and that includes US 'colonial' activites, Britain, the EU and the UN, amongst others, as they are of the British, not to mention French, Dutch, German etc. etc. colonial movements of the last 4 hundred years.

Answer 2

Ok it's obvious that we haven't been paying attention in history lessons here. Most of the Empire was built on trade, not conquest, and wherever the British went they instilled a good, well paid incorruptable civil service for good governance.Where military action was required, it was usually in defence of a colony or indigenous peoples. The British fought the Boers to defend the Blacks, and hey people guess what we abolished slavery throughout the Empire nearly sixty years before the Americans thought it might be a good idea. In India we stamped out the practice of Thuggee murders, and Widow-burning, and built a railway right across the sub-continent and transported surplus harvests from one region to another where the harvest failed, thus reducing death by famine by 95 per cent. Gosh, we British were b*****s were'nt we?
Now Ireland. Do you know why the British were in Ireland? Because the Irish wanted to conquer Wales to have a good base to strike at the English. So England conquered and annexed Wales to strike at the Irish first.
During the recent troubles the British army spent a great deal of its time defending republicans from loyalist hostility
and indeed that was the original brief.
The British never had Afghanistan as part of the Empire. I don't think anybody managed to conquer it ever. If it's one of the world's biggest s***holes it's only got itself to blame.
Yes, the Empire got some things wrong. It was run by people and sometimes they do the wrong thing for the right reasons. It's called intending the best.But the fact that we left Kenya one of the richest nations and now it's depressingly poor suggests that life was better under Empire for indigenous populations. Red Indians displaced in the US moved to Canada because they knew that Empire government would treat them with decency.
By the way, you don't have to thank the Empire for standing up on it's own for 2 years against the German-Italian-Japanese Axis.
In summary then, the British Empire was the latter day equivalent of the Roman. Yes, we took from the Empire, but we gave sanitation, government, policing, justice, railways, proper agricultural practices, industrialisation, education and wealth. We protected the weak from the strong. We weren't always right in what we did, but it was done with the best intentions of the greatest good for the greatest people- and we built a world that was just slightly better for most than we found it.

Answer 3

Iraq does not fit the list, as it's problems are not due to Empirical forces.
Israel was forced upon the British during the post war years due to the USs 'lend/lease' programme funded by American Jews, who decided that $ profit was more important than the wellbeing of the European Jews, and sold them out.
Kashmir is directly to do with the boundaries, as is Northern Ireland, where the areas were partitioned according to religious & cultural criteria (India ruling the Hindi predominant area, Pakistan the Islamic), likewise with Ireland.
Sri Lanks was simply freed from British governance and it's problems are purely internal, there was no partitioning here.

Of course, these problematic areas would have quickly sorted out their own problems had the USA kept its nose out of these areas. Selling nuclear warheads to India, but not Pakistan. Selling nuclear warheads to Israel, but stopping Islamic states from trying to get them. Backing the shah dictator in Iran, funding Saddam Hussein, funding Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, funding global terrorism including the IRA.

Perhaps if Britain had stayed in control then the fractionalisation of these areas would not have occured, however this would have been unfair to those countries citizens, and they had fought Hitler and the spread of Fascism alongside other countries, whilst the US milked the human carnage for money. Had Britain not had an empire in the first place, then these areas would have come under French, Spanish, German, Dutch or Portugese rule, and we only have to look to Algeria, Argentina, Chile, Indonesia to see that where there is any change trouble follows, certainly for a period.
We should also take a look at such countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ghorka, Fiji & the Caribbean, where freedom from the rule of London has led to great successes.
Only the parts of the world where America has funded international terrorism, and shored up corrupt dictators are in tatters, which clearly shows America was the greatest failing of the British Empire, as the native Americans would never have behaved as deplorably as the 'white' Americans have, both internally and externally.

On behalf of all British people may I offer our apologies for the USA.

Answer 4

When the Ottoman empire was broken up after the WW1 Britain and France certainly made a political mess of the Middle East ,and the Balfour Declaration and the decisions of the UN after WW2 made things even worse by giving way in the face of jewish terrorism.
Northern Ireland was a remnant of empire left after the rest of Ireland managed to achieve independence after WW1 but the terrorism there was supported by the people of the USA (especially New York and Boston) until they got a dose of their own medicine on 9/11.
Afghanistan was never succesfully invaded by either the British or Russians, a lesson that seems to have been lost on the Americans.
Kashmir is another remnant of the retreat of empireand was ill tought out for those responsible for drawing the boundaries..
Sri Lanka is probably a home grown problem.

Answer 5

I am gonna hazard a guess and say that you are an American. I wont go into all the details as everyone else seems to have done that all ready.
When it comes to screwing up countries I would say the the Brits did make a few mistakes but compared to the USA they were mere beginners. Lets see Iraq is to easy of a target so lets move to Afghanistan , Well you don't learn there do you. The Soviets pours millions of ponds worth of hardware into invading that country and got now where. Now look at the USA trying again and getting no where.
Where else well theres Vietnam . What a mess you made there . Went in to stop Communism and what was the result . A very communist country. How about Korea. Well lets see it is now split into two halves. And Northern Korea is now developing Nukes.Yeah well done there.

Even in your own country you caused enough problems How many Indians were killed so you could go looking for gold and other riches.
Slaves it took you SIXTY years to get on to that bandwagon after we abolished it in the rest of the world.
Northern Ireland. the only reason British troops went in was to keep the two religions apart , Then we ended up getting it from both of them. And to make that one a good one .A lot of the money that funded the terrorist groups was raised in the USA in bars in New York . So when G Bush gonna start there in his war on terror.
We did make a few mistakes but we also helped alot of countries to develope. America has done alot for the world it claims . In WW1 and WW2 it left the rest of the world to fight for a few years before joining in and helping out a bit. As some one said . In holly wood everything done in history involves Mel Gibson or an American. they twist history to suit their own agendas to make them selves look better.


Right rant over.


Oh and you bastardised our language

Answer 6

The Countries you mention may be f**ked up but

1) Some of them were like that when we found them
2) In some of them it is arguable that we saved more lives than we took
3) In Northern Ireland we were only there to stop the indiginous population from killing each other
4) If you are American you will appreciate this one - At least when we suppress an indigineous people we dont almost wipe them out entirely if a fit greed-fuelled genocidal slaughter: Native Americans? Remember them? Very few countries have a spotless record in this area.
5) It is possible to try to administer an area with the best of intentions and still make a terrible mess of it. Iraq, for example.

Answer 7

Actually - the Republican Irish are to blame for Northern Ireland. The majority want to remain part of the UK. But the Republican minority want to be part of the Republic - they can't accept the democratic process so they kill people to try to get their own way. Then retards like the ex-reverend Ian Paisley has his "Loyalist" buddies retaliate.

Then you can't blame England really for Afghanistan - The British Empire, the USSR, Alexander the Great AND the USA all FAILED to truly conquer the Afghans.

As for the rest (ignore Israel) England has been out of them for long enough now & the inhabitants have still not made peace - sure England screwed them up a long time ago. But there comes a time when you just gotta blame the current population for wanting to go on killing each other.

Answer 8

Afghanistan and Iraq were never part of the British Empire. Iraq was a protectorate for a time.
The way you put it, it sounds like a school project.
The Brits can be blamed for many current conflicts, but not all. There were other colonial powers.
You conveniently didn't mention Africa. Colonial powers (not just the Brits) grabbed bits of Africa and gave those areas a name. They didn't consider tribal, ethnic or religious differences. This has led to problems, in that there are countries which are so mixed up that, without colonial interference they would never have been considered to be a national entity.

Answer 9

well, they were certainly a bunch of greedy bastards during the anglo boer war in south africa.just after the boer republics discovered gold in THEIR OWN COUNTRY,all of a sudden britain had a problem with the fact that the british GUEST WORKERS who were there digging for the gold ,had no voting rights.why did they need voting rights if they were there as guest workers.anyways,the great empire builders of the day saw that as a reason to declare war on these 2 peacefull republics under the pretence of human rights.what a lot of bullshit if you ask me.they just wanted to get their hands on the gold.war was declared and the british army suffered a humiliating defeat.but as this was the british empire,they decided to import troops from all over the world(australia,canada,india,new zealand and uk)until they built up and army of 450 000 men,to fight against 80 000 boers.still the brits suffered defeat after defeat until the only thing they could do to win was incarcerate the entire boer civilian population.every woman and child that was left at home while the dads were off fighting the empire.they burned down farms the land and even destroyed livestock.they couldnt win as the boers had moved to guerrilla war,so the brits employed the "scorched earth policy".28 000 boer women and children died in their concentration camps and 20 000 native africans.the entire countryside was completely devastated.the war only came to an end after the boer men had heard of the horror stories coming out of camps.22 000 empire troops,6 500 boer troops and 28 000 boer civillians and 20 000 thousand native africans had to die all because the empire(vampire) wanted to feed and suck dry everything they could get their hands on.

Answer 10

End of Empire is getting to be a long time ago. People have to carry the can for their own F*ckups. Not Empire, but the End of Empire caused most of them.
A lot of the latest generation of historians think the British Empire was a damn good thing. Niall Ferguson was on the telly saying the Empire protected human rights. The interviewer questioned this and Ferguson replied, "What is the suppression of slavery if it's not protecting human rights?"

Answer 11

iraq? ? israel? kashmir?
you clearly dont know much about the British Empire because they were never in the empire.

the middle eastern countries have been warring for centuries, to before the time of Christ when England was inhabited by barbaric local tribes, before the Anglos, Saxons and Vikings invaded.

besides, many countries in the empire were in it for protection from the spanish and french empires. the british empire civilised many countries (ie Australia) so before you say Brits f**ked them up, do your research.

ps. Northern Ireland are on our side, its the Republic of Ireland that are independent.

pps. dont forget Americans, that unless you are of 100% native-american blood (which there arent many of any more) that you are decended from Brits whether you like it or not. today's brits played no part in our age old empiring and crusading, and you are decended from them just like we are.