What were the worst events in the British Empire?
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
The locals would either not care or remind you they won that battle.
There was an interesting report about how there introducing history lessons about Afghanistan for the army.The Army moved into a new town and had a village elder harass them about how the last time the British had been they had burned down the market.They aplogised
and sent it up the chain of command to find out who was to blame.No one could find out who to blame so everyone assumed it was the paras.When someone who was reading a history book pointed out they had burned it down in 1841.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
rofl
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
New book on this subject, link to accompanying article in The Guardian - plus 500 comments following the article....:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/oct/19/end-myths-britains-imperial-past
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/oct/19/end-myths-britains-imperial-past
I don't know how you measure the 'worst' in this discussion.
But the event that has struck me as the most egregiously destructive is the cutting down of the breadfruit trees in early 19th C Tahiti / Micronesia, apparently because God's overwhelming bounty meant that the locals did not have to toil in the manner that was thought fitting to Protestant Christians.
Edited to say: in this instance, the interaction between missionary activity and the "British Empire" was complex. So you can argue about who takes the 'credit' for this wanton destruction.
But the event that has struck me as the most egregiously destructive is the cutting down of the breadfruit trees in early 19th C Tahiti / Micronesia, apparently because God's overwhelming bounty meant that the locals did not have to toil in the manner that was thought fitting to Protestant Christians.
Edited to say: in this instance, the interaction between missionary activity and the "British Empire" was complex. So you can argue about who takes the 'credit' for this wanton destruction.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Useful article by Monbiot, of relevance to the thread, and linking to reports about the systematic destruction of colonial records as the British made their brutal exits from the colonies.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
He did warn readers to skip that paragraph if they had weak stomachs. You might not mean it as a criticism, but it is not 'grisly' to spell out what was done. It is necessary if people are going to pull their heads out of the sand on this one.
The news of the rediscovered archives is really important in the former colonies. I emailed the news to friends in Malaysia; they are very hopeful that it will help in their efforts to unify their country, as so many are still looking for answers about what happened and the polity struggles to overcome the divide and rule mentality employed by the British. There's not much we can do to make amends, but being truthful is a good place to start.
The news of the rediscovered archives is really important in the former colonies. I emailed the news to friends in Malaysia; they are very hopeful that it will help in their efforts to unify their country, as so many are still looking for answers about what happened and the polity struggles to overcome the divide and rule mentality employed by the British. There's not much we can do to make amends, but being truthful is a good place to start.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Scum.
I remember hearing or reading about the first recorded encounter between Australian aboriginals and Europeans (Dutch, I think), and the aboriginals just weren't that interested in the Europeans. They weren't amazed to meet white people, just took it in their stride and some didn't even bother coming over to meet them.
I've never managed to find a proper source for this. Does anyone know if it's true?
I've never managed to find a proper source for this. Does anyone know if it's true?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's a good article, and Monbiot appears to be a bit of an internet forum fiend given how he involves himself in the comments. He comes over well in his replies to the comments. Straightforwardly right.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
He can be an utter cock but, unlike a lot of his smug liberal ilk, I think he's genuine and does have the capacity to learn. And I respect him for reposting all his articles with proper references because the Guardian won't include them. That can't have been easy to negotiate. And, as lbj says, for getting involved in the comments and dealing with the shite chucked at him.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Now finished two books on British Empire
Caroline Elkins Legacy of Violence A history of the British Empire
And
Forgotten Wars End of Britains Asian Empire
by Chrstopher Bayley and Tim Harper
Forgotten wars is a narrative history. More chatty and journalistic. Not a criticism. But the anecdotes at times can swamp the analysis.
Legacy of Violence builds on Caroline Elkins work on the Mau Mau ( see a previous post here)
Both are dauntingly long but worth it at the end.
Elkins book is a mix of political theory and history. I take it as a riposte to the line that the Empire made mistakes but matured into a Liberal Empire that ended up giving independence to countries within the Commonwealth. I also looked to talk she gave on the book which I will put up here as it gives good idea of the book.
Elkins book is incredibly dense and detailed despite its length. It does not deal with slavery. ( been criticised for that) but with the later period of Empire. I dont have a problem with this. As it debunks the narrative that "we" ended slavery and the Empire after that for all its faults was not as violent as other Empires. Transition to independence more peaceful.
Various themes in it are:
How the discipline of history was closely bound up with justifying Empire. Fascinating accounts of how British Academic history was not neutral. And the importance of a national story about Empire for British people.
Following from this the planned way the records were sifted through and destroyed every time Britain handed over a colony to make it independent. Got to give it to the Brits for the totally organised way they destroyed records. This was not at the time that secret. Indian Nationalists were told that records were destroyed. For days near handover clouds of smoke were seen over Colonial buildings.
This makes it very difficult for historians to make a counter history of the Empire. For a historian sources are vital to back up arguments.One way is to look at accounts for example of outraged missionaries about excesses in dealing with the Arab revolt.
The thread that joins repression across Empire. Palestine ( Arab revolt) , Ireland, Boer War, Malaysia are examples. Often some of the same people turn up. She reckons putting down of the Arab revolt in Palestine was important section near end of Empire were techniques of repression were honed. Its a detective story she pieces together. Many of these men closely involved were born in the Empire. Saw themselves as British.
Collective punishment, torture, removing whole populations to "new villages", deportation. A panoply of techniques to be picked from. She terms this "legalised lawlessness". British Empire were sticklers for the rule of law. So the law was used to allow these measures and make sure those who undertook them were covered. So she disputes any notion of a "few rotten apples" or unfortunate "excesses".
The use of violence she traces back to idea that instilling fear into the governed in colonies was a useful way to keep all colonial people in line. This was about terrorising whole populations. So looking at thread title ( I was looking for nearest thread about Empire) what she shows in her book was that legalised violence was at the heart of Imperial rule.
She links this legalised violence with Liberalism. This is where political philosophy comes in. And where the second book I read helps to enlighten this.
The British Empire in later post slavery era tried to justify itself in terms of Kiplings " white mans burden". Liberal Imperialism was carrot and stick. On the one hand guide other races up then allow them to govern their own lands. In Forgotten Wars this is termed "Welfare State Imperialism". Or "Whig Imperialism"
Going onto the second book Forgotten Wars I was staggered that post war government of Attlee were quite into Empire. Bevin saw it as way to rebuild a broke Britain after WW2. Malaysia for example had exports that brought in American Dollers to the Imperial sterling area. Rubber. This was big money. Burma was similar. Dollars were needed as Britain owed the US a lot by the time war ended. Instead of the "white mans burden" the language of "development" was used. In practise Elkins argues that post WW2 saw attempt at Imperial resurgence cloaked in language of helping colonies along with "development"
Independence for Malayia and Burma was seen in decades. With suitable moderate nationalists brought up who would not endanger British business interests. So the spectacle of an Atlee government trying to persuade Burmese nationalists not to nationalise key industries. Nationalisation is fine in UK not in colonial countries seeking independence.
In Forgotten Wars and Elkins book the mainstream grown up politicians were both Liberal Imperial imperialists. It was Communists, Black radicals like Padmore and mavericks in the Labour party who strongly criticised Empire. Fenner Brockways Movement for Colonial Freedom, the maverick MP Driberg and later Barbara Castle. Who got hauled into see Gaitskill due to her comments criticising British armies actions in Cyprus. Criticising the army was seen as unpatriotic.
Elkins book gives impression that outside the left of the Labour party, black radical circles and British communists years of pro Empire propaganda had led to these views opposing Empire at the time being marginal.
Elkins and Forgotten wars agree mainstream politics was Liberal Imperialist.
In Forgotten wars its more that at least some British Soldiers on the ground were not happy continuing fighting and policing ex colonies in the far east once the Japanese were defeated. In the view of Forgotten wars the Labour government faced troops who wanted to go home. Who did not see why they had to reinstall Dutch colonialist back in power for example.
Going onto Forgotten wars. In this book WW2 didnt end whn Japan surrendered. The British military area was India, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia and South Vietnam.
WW2 had changed everything in these colonial area. The British were face with populations who did not want to go back to old colonial days. In Indonesia ( dutch) the Indonesians en mass refused to go back to the pre war status quo. the far east was awash with weapons due to the war. At one point the British decided to make an example of one town. Surrounded it told the inhabitants to surrender their arms. They refused. What took place was the last set piece battle by British army aided by airforce. They through everything at them but had to fight street by street. The people never surrendered.
Eventually the British called it a day and left it to the Dutch. Same happened in Vietnam.
In Malaysia the best armed and battle hardened group was the Malaysian Anti Japanese Peoples Army. Who had worked with British Special Forces. They were led by the Malaysian Communist party. The gentlemans agreement with British Special forces was that they would come under British South East Asia Command on promise after war they could organise legally in Malaysia. With defeat of Japan they held a lot of the Countryside.
They kept their side of the bargain. However they ( my reading) became to popular once they came out of the jungle. The war had changed everything. Peasants, workers , women. All those who did not have a voice before were not going to put up with a return to pre war society.
At this stage Atlee government comes to power. Being concerned about rise of communism they send a proper old school Labourite Trade Unionist to Malaysia to teach them what proper Trade Unionism was about and wean them off this what they saw as dangerous tendency to Communism. Which in fact the appeal of communism was due to dire state of economy, lack of jobs and general feeling by people that they were impatient for freedom from colonialism. Even though it was of a Labour Liberal Imperialist form
To cut a long story short the Labour government moved from the carrot to the stick and the Malaysian so called Emergency went on for years. Elkins points out such terms as Emergency were used as to say these were wars would mean that post war human rights agreements could come into play.
In Elkins book she goes into development of human rights law. Which due to WW2 shifted up a gear. Imperial countries including Britain lobbied hard to make sure their were get out clauses for European countries with Empires. So human rights did not apply to Colonial people.
Under Atlee government deportation on mass of ethnic Chinese took place, Villages were relocated into guarded camps. All with a dollop of Labour welfare to help to reform and educate those in these camps. A massive population movement and deportation movement was started and continued under Tory government.
Ethnic Chinese were mainstay of Communist party. So targetted. Example of collective punishment.
Atlee government come across as absolutely hating any form of Communist movement. Even if it is home grown with legitimate grievances.
This "Hearts and Minds" was considered a success. Its lessons in counter insurgency still looked to as example of how to do it.
A quite shameful period in late British Empire history in which the Labour party were implicated. That is the "grown up" ones not the left in the party. Who whilst small turned out to be on the right side of history.
Their is more. So given the thread title Id say the lesson of these two books is that Empire always was about violence.
Caroline Elkins Legacy of Violence A history of the British Empire
And
Forgotten Wars End of Britains Asian Empire
by Chrstopher Bayley and Tim Harper
Forgotten wars is a narrative history. More chatty and journalistic. Not a criticism. But the anecdotes at times can swamp the analysis.
Legacy of Violence builds on Caroline Elkins work on the Mau Mau ( see a previous post here)
Both are dauntingly long but worth it at the end.
Elkins book is a mix of political theory and history. I take it as a riposte to the line that the Empire made mistakes but matured into a Liberal Empire that ended up giving independence to countries within the Commonwealth. I also looked to talk she gave on the book which I will put up here as it gives good idea of the book.
Elkins book is incredibly dense and detailed despite its length. It does not deal with slavery. ( been criticised for that) but with the later period of Empire. I dont have a problem with this. As it debunks the narrative that "we" ended slavery and the Empire after that for all its faults was not as violent as other Empires. Transition to independence more peaceful.
Various themes in it are:
How the discipline of history was closely bound up with justifying Empire. Fascinating accounts of how British Academic history was not neutral. And the importance of a national story about Empire for British people.
Following from this the planned way the records were sifted through and destroyed every time Britain handed over a colony to make it independent. Got to give it to the Brits for the totally organised way they destroyed records. This was not at the time that secret. Indian Nationalists were told that records were destroyed. For days near handover clouds of smoke were seen over Colonial buildings.
This makes it very difficult for historians to make a counter history of the Empire. For a historian sources are vital to back up arguments.One way is to look at accounts for example of outraged missionaries about excesses in dealing with the Arab revolt.
The thread that joins repression across Empire. Palestine ( Arab revolt) , Ireland, Boer War, Malaysia are examples. Often some of the same people turn up. She reckons putting down of the Arab revolt in Palestine was important section near end of Empire were techniques of repression were honed. Its a detective story she pieces together. Many of these men closely involved were born in the Empire. Saw themselves as British.
Collective punishment, torture, removing whole populations to "new villages", deportation. A panoply of techniques to be picked from. She terms this "legalised lawlessness". British Empire were sticklers for the rule of law. So the law was used to allow these measures and make sure those who undertook them were covered. So she disputes any notion of a "few rotten apples" or unfortunate "excesses".
The use of violence she traces back to idea that instilling fear into the governed in colonies was a useful way to keep all colonial people in line. This was about terrorising whole populations. So looking at thread title ( I was looking for nearest thread about Empire) what she shows in her book was that legalised violence was at the heart of Imperial rule.
She links this legalised violence with Liberalism. This is where political philosophy comes in. And where the second book I read helps to enlighten this.
The British Empire in later post slavery era tried to justify itself in terms of Kiplings " white mans burden". Liberal Imperialism was carrot and stick. On the one hand guide other races up then allow them to govern their own lands. In Forgotten Wars this is termed "Welfare State Imperialism". Or "Whig Imperialism"
Going onto the second book Forgotten Wars I was staggered that post war government of Attlee were quite into Empire. Bevin saw it as way to rebuild a broke Britain after WW2. Malaysia for example had exports that brought in American Dollers to the Imperial sterling area. Rubber. This was big money. Burma was similar. Dollars were needed as Britain owed the US a lot by the time war ended. Instead of the "white mans burden" the language of "development" was used. In practise Elkins argues that post WW2 saw attempt at Imperial resurgence cloaked in language of helping colonies along with "development"
Independence for Malayia and Burma was seen in decades. With suitable moderate nationalists brought up who would not endanger British business interests. So the spectacle of an Atlee government trying to persuade Burmese nationalists not to nationalise key industries. Nationalisation is fine in UK not in colonial countries seeking independence.
In Forgotten Wars and Elkins book the mainstream grown up politicians were both Liberal Imperial imperialists. It was Communists, Black radicals like Padmore and mavericks in the Labour party who strongly criticised Empire. Fenner Brockways Movement for Colonial Freedom, the maverick MP Driberg and later Barbara Castle. Who got hauled into see Gaitskill due to her comments criticising British armies actions in Cyprus. Criticising the army was seen as unpatriotic.
Elkins book gives impression that outside the left of the Labour party, black radical circles and British communists years of pro Empire propaganda had led to these views opposing Empire at the time being marginal.
Elkins and Forgotten wars agree mainstream politics was Liberal Imperialist.
In Forgotten wars its more that at least some British Soldiers on the ground were not happy continuing fighting and policing ex colonies in the far east once the Japanese were defeated. In the view of Forgotten wars the Labour government faced troops who wanted to go home. Who did not see why they had to reinstall Dutch colonialist back in power for example.
Going onto Forgotten wars. In this book WW2 didnt end whn Japan surrendered. The British military area was India, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia and South Vietnam.
WW2 had changed everything in these colonial area. The British were face with populations who did not want to go back to old colonial days. In Indonesia ( dutch) the Indonesians en mass refused to go back to the pre war status quo. the far east was awash with weapons due to the war. At one point the British decided to make an example of one town. Surrounded it told the inhabitants to surrender their arms. They refused. What took place was the last set piece battle by British army aided by airforce. They through everything at them but had to fight street by street. The people never surrendered.
Eventually the British called it a day and left it to the Dutch. Same happened in Vietnam.
In Malaysia the best armed and battle hardened group was the Malaysian Anti Japanese Peoples Army. Who had worked with British Special Forces. They were led by the Malaysian Communist party. The gentlemans agreement with British Special forces was that they would come under British South East Asia Command on promise after war they could organise legally in Malaysia. With defeat of Japan they held a lot of the Countryside.
They kept their side of the bargain. However they ( my reading) became to popular once they came out of the jungle. The war had changed everything. Peasants, workers , women. All those who did not have a voice before were not going to put up with a return to pre war society.
At this stage Atlee government comes to power. Being concerned about rise of communism they send a proper old school Labourite Trade Unionist to Malaysia to teach them what proper Trade Unionism was about and wean them off this what they saw as dangerous tendency to Communism. Which in fact the appeal of communism was due to dire state of economy, lack of jobs and general feeling by people that they were impatient for freedom from colonialism. Even though it was of a Labour Liberal Imperialist form
To cut a long story short the Labour government moved from the carrot to the stick and the Malaysian so called Emergency went on for years. Elkins points out such terms as Emergency were used as to say these were wars would mean that post war human rights agreements could come into play.
In Elkins book she goes into development of human rights law. Which due to WW2 shifted up a gear. Imperial countries including Britain lobbied hard to make sure their were get out clauses for European countries with Empires. So human rights did not apply to Colonial people.
Under Atlee government deportation on mass of ethnic Chinese took place, Villages were relocated into guarded camps. All with a dollop of Labour welfare to help to reform and educate those in these camps. A massive population movement and deportation movement was started and continued under Tory government.
Ethnic Chinese were mainstay of Communist party. So targetted. Example of collective punishment.
Atlee government come across as absolutely hating any form of Communist movement. Even if it is home grown with legitimate grievances.
This "Hearts and Minds" was considered a success. Its lessons in counter insurgency still looked to as example of how to do it.
A quite shameful period in late British Empire history in which the Labour party were implicated. That is the "grown up" ones not the left in the party. Who whilst small turned out to be on the right side of history.
Their is more. So given the thread title Id say the lesson of these two books is that Empire always was about violence.
Last edited:
Humberto
Callooh! Callay!
It was a greed enterprise. An easy target. And an exceptionalist/superioty complex. Yes they more advanced technologically. But they assumed themselves superior or Gods, and they weren't. They were cruel and tyrannical mixing pseudo-science with theories of racial hierachy.
Belgium (Leopold III) had similar 'exterminate inconvenient lesser populations' mentalities, the Nazis of course and no doubt others.
Belgium (Leopold III) had similar 'exterminate inconvenient lesser populations' mentalities, the Nazis of course and no doubt others.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Agreed though would say that later British Empire was not about extermination.
This is where Elkins I think is good. And its those parts of the book that I think I need to re look at.
She does a critique of liberalism. Later British Empire justified itself a bringing these colonial people up to the same level of civilization as the British people. This Elkins argues was always underpinned with a level of violence.
Elkins also say in the youtube discussion ( Ive yet to put up) that bringing people up to the level where they can exercise independence always seemed to be at some point in the future. Never now.
Another thing about British Empire which was still seen in Malaysia was way academia and social science ( which you say correctly were used) were still used in updated form in post war Malaysia.
Captured communists were studied and classified as being "delinquents". Not that as Forgotten Wars points out they might have sound rational reasons for joining the communist guerillas. Idea was these people could be "reformed". Very post war welfare Labour party.
Both books show the WW2 was and stil is seen very differently in the Far East. WW2 was not about ending Empire as an idea. It was about ending Japanese Empire and Hitler. But not about giving democracy and self determination to all peoples. That was not on the agenda and never was. Despite American noises about it. European powers were not fighting Hitler and Japan for universal rights in their Empires.
So on reading these books my view of WW2 has changed.
This is where Elkins I think is good. And its those parts of the book that I think I need to re look at.
She does a critique of liberalism. Later British Empire justified itself a bringing these colonial people up to the same level of civilization as the British people. This Elkins argues was always underpinned with a level of violence.
Elkins also say in the youtube discussion ( Ive yet to put up) that bringing people up to the level where they can exercise independence always seemed to be at some point in the future. Never now.
Another thing about British Empire which was still seen in Malaysia was way academia and social science ( which you say correctly were used) were still used in updated form in post war Malaysia.
Captured communists were studied and classified as being "delinquents". Not that as Forgotten Wars points out they might have sound rational reasons for joining the communist guerillas. Idea was these people could be "reformed". Very post war welfare Labour party.
Both books show the WW2 was and stil is seen very differently in the Far East. WW2 was not about ending Empire as an idea. It was about ending Japanese Empire and Hitler. But not about giving democracy and self determination to all peoples. That was not on the agenda and never was. Despite American noises about it. European powers were not fighting Hitler and Japan for universal rights in their Empires.
So on reading these books my view of WW2 has changed.
Kate Sharpley
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the read and review
Related article about India. Not sure if its entirely accurate, though it may well be, but still quite informative I think :
www.aljazeera.com
How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years
The extraordinary mortality rates in India between 1880 to 1920 were no accident.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Whatever the figure, the fact that Britain purposely retarded Indian development is pretty undeniable. Dependency theory, first developed in the context of Latin America, has gone out of fashion in recent years. I'm not entirely sure why. I think it provides a powerful way to understand the exploitation of colonies and neo-colonies such as Latin American states dependent on the US. The flow of capital is one-way.
Another sobering read, and something not mentioned in school curricula wrt WW2, concerns the Bengal Famine of 1943. 3 million dead at a time when the region was exporting food to help the British war effort. Counts as a war crime, I would have thought.
ETA:
Indian economist Amartya Sen is a good read on the Bengal Famine. He makes the point that it is various mechanisms that drive up prices rather than shortages per se that are the proximate causes of most famines. This is from his wiki page:
Another sobering read, and something not mentioned in school curricula wrt WW2, concerns the Bengal Famine of 1943. 3 million dead at a time when the region was exporting food to help the British war effort. Counts as a war crime, I would have thought.
ETA:
Indian economist Amartya Sen is a good read on the Bengal Famine. He makes the point that it is various mechanisms that drive up prices rather than shortages per se that are the proximate causes of most famines. This is from his wiki page:
Last edited:
bcuster
Well-Known Member
The Hudson River prison ships were right up there on the list:
www.historynet.com
British Prison Ships: A Season in Hell
Colonial American captives aboard Britain’s horrific prison ships cried, starved, and prayed for death as England refused to recognize them as prisoners
www.historynet.com
The British Empire was the point of the spear, The handle was forged many thousands of years before it came into existence
There is no right & there is no wrong in what has happened, Only an understanding of new values & we are a changing nation that brings those values on board
Some would argue the change is slow & for those I would say evolution is slow too
Making slaves out of our brothers & sisters was & still is a horrible & greedy trait that is possessed by many that are in power
But slowly & surely the masses will a mass & one day hopefully our world will be just.
Theres alot of wrong in what happened
petee
no gods, no malarkey
The Hudson River prison ships were right up there on the list:
British Prison Ships: A Season in Hell
Colonial American captives aboard Britain’s horrific prison ships cried, starved, and prayed for death as England refused to recognize them as prisoners
one detail: east river, brooklyn side. but yes they were hellish.
Prison Ship Martyrs Tombs
During the American Revolution, thousands of American soldiers, sailors, and civilians perished aboard British prison ships anchored near New York City. Captured during the Battle of Brooklyn or in…
nycemetery.wordpress.com
The Grisly History of Brooklyn's Revolutionary War Martyrs
The Prison Ship Martyrs Monument, a crypt in Fort Greene Park, may become part of the national park system
long narrative article
a lot of bad things happened & it was individual people that caused them to happen, not the expanding embrace of civilization
Nasty, Power Hungry self serving people that caused horrible atrocities, Why don't we name those people here ?
Last edited:
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
This is causing trouble to this day.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
Agreed. General Clinton was a monster
Oliver Cromwell was one my ancestors had to deal with, he was a god fearing man that had no trouble ordering the men under his command to kill innocent children & when he was bored killing he did what putin is doing today in Ukraine, he cut the food supplies off from entire communities to try & bend them to his will, dirty rotten bastard is to light a description for him & those that followed him.
Siege of Drogheda - Wikipedia
"Hell or Connacht," 1653-1654
The argument in favour of independence for Ireland as propounded by Darrell Figgis
Cromwellian conquest of Ireland - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Similar threads
