What were the worst events in the British Empire?

[Johnny Canuck3]

The Moon travel guide on Cuba (better than lonely planet) reckoned Spaniards in colonys went to live abroad permanently, as opposed to Brits who went to make money and come back to Blighty. That said also reckoned the brief spell under the British the Cubans had, was a lot better than being a Spanish colony.

I don't know: but one difference between Spanish colonies like Cuba, and British colonies, was the way that the colonizers attempted to exert control over the slaves. The British did it by erasing all vestiges of the original culture, by denying education etc, to reduce slaves to a malleable subhuman mass [or so they thought]

The Spanish, for starters, came from diverse backgrounds: Andalusia, Catalunya, the Basque region etc. They maintained order amongst themselves by maintaining separate societies within the overriding 'spanish' regime. They believed that the best way to maintain control over slaves was to 'divde and conquer' them by allowing different groups from Africa to maintain their identities to a degree, on the theory that they wouldn't unite against the spanish. The portuguese did something similar - which is why elements of african culture survive today in Cuba and Brazil, etc, while the descendants of British-owned slaves in the US etc, have zero continuity with their African heritage.

 

[gosub]

Ops, drunk, thinking inginous ignore me

 

[nino_savatte]

The lack of interest in the Farhud in Iraq, where Jews were burned out of their homes. The British troops stood by and watched.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What predated slavery wasn't much better for those involved who were "indentured" (I've used quotation marks because the indentures wouldn't have passed muster before any guild), given that a majority of them snuffed it before their (effectively indefinite) indentures expired.
Who was behind that? The same cunts who were behind the slave trade.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Massacre at Amritsar must be one of the many examples.

Although it's always been blamed (by the mandarins and the brass) on Dyer being demented, rather than on him believing that a bit of "pour encourager les autres" was effectively common British policy in the dominions. The Public Records Office at Kew produced an interesting book about the massacre, including facsimiles of the records.

 

[ViolentPanda]

nothing about mismanaging the Irish agriculture industry in the 1800's interesting

Be fair, the "mismanagement" dated from the first settlement of Protestants. It wasn't a specifically 19th-century phenomenon.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There was a slaughter of British people, men women and children, in Afghanistan wasn't there? I know that is British people being killed so you might think it would not count for this thread but I think it counts as a low point.

Aha .. found out something about it
http://history1800s.about.com/od/colonialwars/a/kabul1842.htm

It wasn't a "slaughter" as much as it was the needless deaths of the entire lot because of the incompetence of Elphinstone and his fellow senior officers. All the Afghans can really be accused of is attacking an invader that only a tiny (aristocratic) minority of Afghanis wanted in the country in the first plce.

 

[Random]

It wasn't a "slaughter" as much as it was the needless deaths of the entire lot because of the incompetence of Elphinstone and his fellow senior officers. All the Afghans can really be accused of is attacking an invader that only a tiny (aristocratic) minority of Afghanis wanted in the country in the first plce.

A British army getting defeated is always a slaughter VP, keep up!

 

[toggle]

Be fair, the "mismanagement" dated from the first settlement of Protestants. It wasn't a specifically 19th-century phenomenon.

it also begs the question of whether ignoring an event and not intervening sufficiently to prevent deaths such as in Ireland is as significant as active participation in it. How bad does something have to be before standing idly by becomes as bad as deliberate systematic slaughter.

Are sheer numbers all that matter, or does intent come into it?

 

[toggle]

What predated slavery wasn't much better for those involved who were "indentured" (I've used quotation marks because the indentures wouldn't have passed muster before any guild), given that a majority of them snuffed it before their (effectively indefinite) indentures expired.
Who was behind that? The same cunts who were behind the slave trade.

incidentally, the death rates for the british army sent out to the carribean colonies wasn't all that different to the death rate of the slaves.

anyway, i'll comment more in 6 months, I've got a module on british slavery and abolition after christmass

 

[weltweit]

It wasn't a "slaughter" as much as it was the needless deaths of the entire lot because of the incompetence of Elphinstone and his fellow senior officers. All the Afghans can really be accused of is attacking an invader that only a tiny (aristocratic) minority of Afghanis wanted in the country in the first plce.

"More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad. "

I would call 16,000 people meeting their doom in such a way a slaughter in anyone's language.

 

[dylanredefined]

"More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad. "

I would call 16,000 people meeting their doom in such a way a slaughter in anyone's language.

It also gave them an excuse to go back and kill a lot of more Afghans in revenge.

 

[weltweit]

It also gave them an excuse to go back and kill a lot of more Afghans in revenge.

Oh, did they? I thought it was the last act of empire (there).. the disastourous retreat..

 

[DotCommunist]

wonder how many decided enough was enough and deserted

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh, did they? I thought it was the last act of empire (there).. the disastourous retreat..

there's a reason why it's called the FIRST afghan war you know

 

[Random]

there's a reason why it's called the FIRST afghan war you know

lol

 

[dylanredefined]

Oh, did they? I thought it was the last act of empire (there).. the disastourous retreat..

There have been three Anglo -Afghan wars they all resulted in a lot of dead Afghans and then the Brits got bored and went home (Or achieved their political aims).The most idiotic was the 1919 war the Afgans started that one.Lets pick on a super power that has just fought a world war and invented all sorts of new killing technology we have never ever heard off what could possible go wrong?

 

[ViolentPanda]

A British army getting defeated is always a slaughter VP, keep up!

Always sold as such, yes of course, but we're not buying, are we?

 

[ViolentPanda]

it also begs the question of whether ignoring an event and not intervening sufficiently to prevent deaths such as in Ireland is as significant as active participation in it. How bad does something have to be before standing idly by becomes as bad as deliberate systematic slaughter.

Are sheer numbers all that matter, or does intent come into it?

I'm sure intent does, given the opportunism involved in the various colonial enterprises. "Letting things happen" that serve to benefit your endeavour is (IMO), as the Catholics say, a sin of ommission rather than a sin of commission, but it's a "sin" nonetheless. it's merely one that can be sold as "we got there/found out/were informed too late to help" to the swinish multitudes back home.

 

[ViolentPanda]

incidentally, the death rates for the british army sent out to the carribean colonies wasn't all that different to the death rate of the slaves.

No, so I've read. I wonder how the causes of death differ, though?

anyway, i'll comment more in 6 months, I've got a module on british slavery and abolition after christmass

Have you read "White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America" by Michael Walsh? It presents (among some fascinating facts about the requirement for and use of a labour force whose lives were cheap) some interesting theories on the growth of use of African slaves.

Enjoy your module, btw!

 

[ViolentPanda]

"More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad. "

I would call 16,000 people meeting their doom in such a way a slaughter in anyone's language.

That's because you're a muppet.
They set out at the wrong time of year. The leaders of the retreat made little provision for the protection of camp followers (the wives and families of the enlisted men, plus sundry "service" workers like smiths etc) and the senior officers made disastrous tactical errors. All this meant that over a period of months, the 16,000 died. They weren't "slaughtered", they died gradually. A slaughter implies they died en masse. They'd have been better off if they had been slaughtered.

 

[ViolentPanda]

wonder how many decided enough was enough and deserted

Not too many, I suspect. The column was dogged from Kabul onward by mounted scouting and raiding parties who picked off stragglers and outliers.

 

[DotCommunist]

I have noticed that I have two 'likes' for my post that consists of 'Operation Storm'.

I would like to clarify this because people might be thinking I'm talking about a different Operation Storm to the one I am talking about. I'm not on about the croatian one or the soviet one in afghanistan. I was referring to the SAS operation in the Oman putting down communist insurgents on behalf of the autocrat rulers. This loan job probably gives David 'we defeated the commies and singlehandedly brought down the Berlin Wall' Cameron a massive hard-on but I consider it to be a shitty action.

 

[weltweit]

That's because you're a muppet.
They set out at the wrong time of year. The leaders of the retreat made little provision for the protection of camp followers (the wives and families of the enlisted men, plus sundry "service" workers like smiths etc) and the senior officers made disastrous tactical errors. All this meant that over a period of months, the 16,000 died. They weren't "slaughtered", they died gradually. A slaughter implies they died en masse. They'd have been better off if they had been slaughtered.

Well that is a completely different story to the one I had received.

 

[Random]

Oh my fucking god!
http://www.gandamacklodge.co.uk/

 

[Random]

"The British base in Kabul, Camp Souter, on the way to the Supreme shopping PX, is named after Captain Thomas Souter of the 44th who wrapped the regimental colours around his waist to save them from the attacking Afghans as the last British soldiers fought at Gandamack on January 13 1842." Someone skipped the 'cultural sensitivity' classes at Sandhurst?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well that is a completely different story to the one I had received.

Then do a bit of research.

The retreat was made in winter. Elphinstone commanded a retreat to Balla Hissar fortress, a tactical mistake obvious to many of his senior officers, although they refused to contradict him, then countermanded his order, and later countermanded his order again, reinstating the order for a retreat which had to be obeyed. All the while Elphinstone vacillated, Afghanis were rallying to the insurrection against the British, building up a sizeable opposition force.
The army's best hope of making Jalalabad was to secure the camp-followers (the Afghans offered terms that would have allowed them to be hostages) and move in force as fast as possible - they didn't, and instead the entire number attempted to cross the mountain range leading to the Khyber pass (and India) in deep snow and in the middle of blizzard season. That's fine if you're a local and know where to secrete yourself out of the weather, not so good if you're relying on canvas tents to provide shelter. Those that didn't die of cold or from the predations of Afghan skirmishers starved. Bad decision-making by the leadership killed more thousands that the Afghans did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"The British base in Kabul, Camp Souter, on the way to the Supreme shopping PX, is named after Captain Thomas Souter of the 44th who wrapped the regimental colours around his waist to save them from the attacking Afghans as the last British soldiers fought at Gandamack on January 13 1842." Someone skipped the 'cultural sensitivity' classes at Sandhurst?

At Sandhurst you get birched and buggered if you show cultural sensitivities.

 

[toggle]

No, so I've read. I wonder how the causes of death differ, though?

Have you read "White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America" by Michael Walsh? It presents (among some fascinating facts about the requirement for and use of a labour force whose lives were cheap) some interesting theories on the growth of use of African slaves.

Enjoy your module, btw!

cause of death was generally disease. the average soldier at that time wasn't thought of much better than the slaves, for a start, a good 1/3 of them were irish catholic. a significant part of the rest were offered the army instead of prison.

and thanks for the recomendation

 

[ViolentPanda]

cause of death was generally disease. the average soldier at that time wasn't thought of much better than the slaves, for a start, a good 1/3 of them were irish catholic. a significant part of the rest were offered the army instead of prison.

and thanks for the recomendation

No problem. I've got it on pdf, if you'd like a copy.