|
Posts:
144
From:
Tx
Registered:
4/25/07
|
|
(16 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Dec 14, 2007 1:52 PM
|
> --
> Had we lived I should have had a tale to tell of
> hardihood, endurance and courage, which would have
> stirred the heart of every Englishman.
>
> These rough notes and our bodies must tell the tale.
>
> Robert Falcon Scott 1912.
..................................................
To bad he was a loser that near killed his entire expedition.
Also
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700023626&start=0
--
Edited by Buckskins32 at 12/14/2007 5:35 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
2,522
From:
GLASGOW
Registered:
6/12/06
|
|
(17 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Dec 14, 2007 3:46 PM
|
> There is NOTHING trivial about the crimes of any
> country. Including my own. Do you have ANY idea at
> all what the British did to the worlds poor in the
> name of Empire? And why is it not taught in what
> passes for their education system. I can understand
> why not in their non fee paying schools. Half of
> those kids appear to be feral or being babysat for
> the parents. In their private fee paying schools they
> are well educated but still their past crimes are
> kept hidden. The Germans have told everything to
> their kids. Why can't the British? The British Empire
> is alluded to with head nodding pride as if it were
> some sort of achievement to be proud of.
Your ignorance is actually quite amusing. The British Empire isn't taught at all in British schools.
> They did no such thing as stand alone against
> t Hitler. They had the entire Empire at their backs.
> To include Free French, Free Poles, ECT. They speak
> about abolishing the slave trade as if they had
> nothing to do with it in the first place. Slavery
> continued in the Empire for another 30 years after
> they so called abolished it.
They abolished the "slave trade", nobody has ever claimed that 1807 was when slavery itself was abolished.
> It was the British that
> for decades imported African slaves to their
> Caribbean plantations where they had a life
> expectancy 0f 6 years. They worked Millions of
> Africans to death. You mention British Concentration
> Camps in South Africa. How about British
> Concentration camps in Kenya as recently as the
> 1950's where thousands of Kenyans were starved,
> tortured, beaten to death, and systematically
> executed.
I'd actually like a figure as to how many Kenyans starved during the Mau Mau conflict? If you are so upset about the camps in Kenya surely you'll also condem Guantanamo Bay as a horrific stain on US history.
> You could not be more wrong. Americans are taught all
> about what we did to our black people, and what we
> did to the American natives.
No, you're not.
> We have the most open
> society in the world. When I think of what America
> has done for the world you're darn right we wonder
> why we are hated. And hated we are. We have never
> build Empires. Since we became a country the only
> land we ever wanted was to bury our war dead. Dead
> usually as a result of fighting for another country's
> freedom. That is however changing fast. There are
> more and more Americans like me who can care less
> about being liked. I have been in the fortunate
> position of being the rich relative in life. It
> doesn't matter about the help you give. You become
> resented for it. It is the same with nations.
No, the United States was an empire, the United States is still an empire. In fact the Founding Fathers admitted that they had laid the foundations to a great empire. However the Empire of the United States is probably a great failure, characterised by the strategy of "get in and get out as quickly as possible and don't give a damn about the consequences".
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
12/19/07
|
|
(18 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Dec 19, 2007 10:34 PM
|
|
I'm an American, and I know that our country has been responsible for some terrible deeds. And most of my countrymen that I know will agree with that statement, and not yell "Why do you hate America". Of course, our country has done some good also, and it is my experience that many people don't want to acknowledge that fact these days.
|
|
|
Posts:
10
From:
england
Registered:
8/9/07
|
|
(19 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Jan 11, 2008 8:45 AM
|
"We have never build Empires. Since we became a country the only land we ever wanted was to bury our war dead"
I'm sorry, what? look up the Monroe Doctrine in detail.
Here i quote the US Secretary of State in 1896 Richard Olney "Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition."
that continent meaning both northern and southern continents of America
--
Edited by rahvin at 01/19/2008 4:09 AM
|
|
|
Posts:
5
From:
uk
Registered:
1/23/08
|
|
(20 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Jan 24, 2008 11:59 AM
|
|
While I can agree with Buckskin32 that we have very little to be proud about regarding the, 'Empire,'I do think he should look a little closer to home before he starts shoveling the manure. The behaviour of the Whigs against the Loyalists at the time of the First Civil War shows very little that the new state could be proud of. Stealing, looting and cruelty on a masive scale against people who wanted only to be left in peace was the bedrock of the Whig success. Also it is as well to think on that one of the serious crimes thrown up against the Home Government was that they protected the Indian lands against encroachment. In time the American Government left the original sttlers very little of their own. Theft on as grand a scale as you'll find.
|
|
|
Posts:
67
Registered:
12/4/08
|
|
(21 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Dec 4, 2008 9:50 PM
|
116 million estimated dead as a result of Famine in India from 1702 to 1973 [271 years] in 11 famines lasting a total of 95 years or 1.2 million deaths per actual famine year.
Of this roughly 43 million deaths can be indirectly attributed to British governmental indifference and inaction or poor policy.
In addition 12.5 million Indians were killed by the British Army under ?Home Rule? putting down rebellion after rebellion. The British referred to these as terrorists while the Indians saw themselves as freedom fighters.
?From 1857 [the year of the first major Indian rebellion against British rule] ?the British Raj as the British governing body was known after 1857, had instituted a widespread series of mercantilist economic rules intended to foster a favorable balance of trade for Britain relative to the Subcontinent as well as other colonies, which had a dramatic impact on the economic milieu within India. Because of these effects and the Raj's role as the supreme governing body within India, contemporary scholars such as Romesh Dutt in 1900?who had himself witnessed the famines first-hand?and present-day scholars such as Amartva Sen agree, that the famines were a product both of uneven rainfall and British economic and administrative policies. British home rule lasted 347 years from 1608 to 1947.?
> 12 million in the Bengal Famine as a result of government inaction 1770-1790
~ 5 million die in Bengal famine due to inaction 1865-66
1877-1902 famine, [ ~26 million dead]
"Lord Lytton replied, "Let the British public foot the bill for its 'cheap sentiment,' if it wished to save life at a cost that would bankrupt India," substantively ordering "there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of Government with the object of reducing the price of food," and instructing district officers to "discourage relief works in every possible way.... Mere distress is not a sufficient reason for opening a relief work."
"Then in 1876 a huge famine broke out in Madras. Lord Lytton's administration believed that 'market forces alone would suffice to feed the starving Indians' [7]. Beatty Balfour wrote in her book, Lord Lytton's Indian Administration "
"In the despatch addressed to the Duke of Buckingham, in which the Viceroy announced his intention of visiting the famine districts of Madras and Mysores, the general principles for the management of famine affairs were once more laid down. After stating that the Government of India, with approval of Her Majesty?s Government, were resolved to avert death by starvation by the employment of all means available, the Viceroy first expressed his conviction that ?absolute non-interference with the operations of private commercial enterprise must be the foundation of their present famine policy.? This on the ground that ?free and abundant trade cannot co-exist with Government importation? and that more food will reach the famine stricken districts if private enterprise is left to itself (beyond receiving every possible facility and information from the government) than if it were paralysed by Government competition.[8]"
"The results of such thinking proved fatal (some 5.5 million starved [9]) and so such a policy was abandoned"
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Romesh-Dutt
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Amartya-Sen
http://www.blurtit.com/q500922.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Famine-in-India
I don't know how many people died as a result of Hitler or Stalin, I?ve heard in the tens of millions each. The plain fact is that all countries that seek empire do so on the backs of the populations they subjugate regardless of cost.
If the British can't accept or admit to this they are hypocrites , ignorant or just in denial.
|
|
|
Posts:
9
From:
Charlotte, NC
Registered:
12/2/08
|
|
(22 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Dec 9, 2008 4:47 PM
|
|
Hey!! My last name is Lytton!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
England
Registered:
12/22/08
|
|
(23 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Dec 22, 2008 6:43 PM
|
Britain Empire conquered half of the world bringing slavery and crimes that decimated millions of people on 5 continents (10 times more than nazis in WW2).
Romans hegemony is for 300 years, nazi hegemony 6 years...British Empire's crimes are for more than 500 years.
|
|
|
Posts:
305
Registered:
7/3/05
|
|
(24 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Dec 26, 2008 10:31 AM
|
any number of issues GB should be ashamed of:-
opium war, boer war, zulu war, and a myriad of smaller ones
leaving India in such a rush with insufficient security
tasmania, definitely,
not in the same league as Stalin or Hitler, though.
GB is only 300 years old. Before 1707 nowt to with us Scots
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
4/16/09
|
|
(25 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Apr 17, 2009 10:48 AM
|
|
i would say the other colonial powers ie the french, the dutch, the portuguese and the spanish have to share some of the blame as well. Their systematic exploitation of the natives while claming to bear the 'white man's burden' is nothing to be proud of. While at least the British were by and far willing to grant independence to their post-war colonies as long as they did not veer towards communism, the same cannot be said for the French and Dutch, who were willng to fight tooth and nail to cling onto what little foreign possessions they had. Thus, in that aspect it would seem the Bitish Empire was more progressive when compared to her comtemporaries. That is not to say that the British were not guilty of atrocities, but that the other colonial powers were as well.
|
|
|
Posts:
888
From:
South Texas, where the snow never falls.
Registered:
1/12/09
|
|
(26 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Jul 3, 2009 10:18 AM
|
> 116 million estimated dead as a result of Famine in
> India from 1702 to 1973 [271 years] in 11 famines
> lasting a total of 95 years or 1.2 million deaths per
> actual famine year.
>
> Of this roughly 43 million deaths can be indirectly
> attributed to British governmental indifference and
> inaction or poor policy.
>
>
> In addition 12.5 million Indians were killed by the
> British Army under Home Rule putting down rebellion
> after rebellion. The British referred to these as
> terrorists while the Indians saw themselves as
> freedom fighters.
>
> From 1857 [the year of the first major Indian
> rebellion against British rule] the British Raj as
> the British governing body was known after 1857, had
> instituted a widespread series of mercantilist
> economic rules intended to foster a favorable balance
> of trade for Britain relative to the Subcontinent as
> well as other colonies, which had a dramatic impact
> on the economic milieu within India. Because of these
> effects and the Raj's role as the supreme governing
> body within India, contemporary scholars such as
> Romesh Dutt in 1900who had himself witnessed the
> famines first-handand present-day scholars such as
> Amartva Sen agree, that the famines were a product
> both of uneven rainfall and British economic and
> administrative policies. British home rule lasted
> 347 years from 1608 to 1947.
>
> > 12 million in the Bengal Famine as a result of
> government inaction 1770-1790
>
> ~ 5 million die in Bengal famine due to inaction
> n 1865-66
>
> 1877-1902 famine, [ ~26 million dead]
>
> "Lord Lytton replied, "Let the British public foot
> the bill for its 'cheap sentiment,' if it wished to
> save life at a cost that would bankrupt India,"
> substantively ordering "there is to be no
> interference of any kind on the part of Government
> with the object of reducing the price of food," and
> instructing district officers to "discourage relief
> works in every possible way.... Mere distress is not
> a sufficient reason for opening a relief work."
>
> "Then in 1876 a huge famine broke out in Madras. Lord
> Lytton's administration believed that 'market forces
> alone would suffice to feed the starving Indians'
> [7]. Beatty Balfour wrote in her book, Lord Lytton's
> Indian Administration "
>
> "In the despatch addressed to the Duke of Buckingham,
> in which the Viceroy announced his intention of
> visiting the famine districts of Madras and Mysores,
> the general principles for the management of famine
> affairs were once more laid down. After stating that
> the Government of India, with approval of Her
> Majestys Government, were resolved to avert death by
> starvation by the employment of all means available,
> the Viceroy first expressed his conviction that
> absolute non-interference with the operations of
> private commercial enterprise must be the foundation
> of their present famine policy. This on the ground
> that free and abundant trade cannot co-exist with
> Government importation and that more food will reach
> the famine stricken districts if private enterprise
> is left to itself (beyond receiving every possible
> facility and information from the government) than if
> it were paralysed by Government competition.[8]"
>
> "The results of such thinking proved fatal (some 5.5
> million starved [9]) and so such a policy was
> abandoned"
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Romesh-Dutt
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Amartya-Sen
>
> http://www.blurtit.com/q500922.html
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Famine-in-Ind
> ia
>
>
> I don't know how many people died as a result of
> Hitler or Stalin, Ive heard in the tens of millions
> each. The plain fact is that all countries that seek
> empire do so on the backs of the populations they
> subjugate regardless of cost.
>
> If the British can't accept or admit to this they are
> hypocrites , ignorant or just in denial.
No wonder they don't teach history in British schools.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,803
Registered:
10/30/07
|
|
(27 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Jul 3, 2009 12:23 PM
|
> Britain Empire conquered half of the world bringing
> slavery and crimes that decimated millions of people
> on 5 continents (10 times more than nazis in WW2).
It's not at all clear that they brought slavery anywhere. It existed in most places well before they got there and indeed they outlawed it in many of them. What crimes did they bring that weren't there already? I can think of few but not many. Your numbers don't make sense. The Nazis were a significant force on 2 continents the British on 5 that's less than 10 times. If you are talking victims what are your numbers and where did you get them?
> Romans hegemony is for 300 years, nazi hegemony 6
> years...British Empire's crimes are for more than 500
> years.
Rome lasted for a lot more than 300 years. Caesar was conquering Gaul before the birth of Christ and there was still a Roman Empire after 400 AD. Britain also brought a lot of good to her colonies during that 500 years. Although that figure is curios as well. What time line are you basing it on?
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
7/9/09
|
|
(28 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Jul 9, 2009 5:50 AM
|
I like see ships. So speaking only about navy and only in XIX-XX centuries the crimes of the British Empire were:
1) the destroy of French fleet at the Second World war
2) the destroy of Russian fleet after the First World war
|
|
|
Posts:
6
Registered:
7/9/09
|
|
(29 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Jul 9, 2009 5:54 AM
|
I like see ships. So speaking only about navy and only in 19-20 centuries the crimes of the British Empire were:
1) the destroy of French fleet at the Second World war
2) the destroy of Russian fleet after the First World war
|
|
|
Posts:
1,178
Registered:
9/10/09
|
|
(30 of 30)
Re: Crimes of The British Empire.
Sep 25, 2009 6:44 PM
|
It's bad, but the casualties were fairly light and spread out over centuries. Compare that to over eleven million deaths in the span of half a decade thanks to Hitler.
--
I am a loony and proud of it.
|
|
|
|
|
