To be wary of hatred directed towards the British Empire

[Bumpitybumper]

With the rise of movements such as BLM, there seems to be a growing hatred towards the British Empire and a keenness to point out all of the flaws and terrible things the empire and key individuals within it did. I too am horrified when I think about the role that the empire played in slavery and events such as the Irish Potato Famine. As these things become better publicised then there seems to be a growing school of thought that this is a white or at least British people problem that we must somehow atone for and feel guilty about. The British Empire has been cast as the ultimate villain and something we must be ashamed about.

My concern though is that lots of countries around the world have had empires and inevitably when these countries held lots of power, they acted in ways that we would now regard as morally reprehensible. The Mongol and Roman empires for example, were extremely cruel and many empires sort to brutally stamp out religious or cultural differences and gain control. Equally empires have brought about advancements in technology and improved the living standards of millions of people around the world.

Am I therefore being unreasonable to suggest that it is only fair to look at empires holistically and through the lens of the time they operated in? Of course the wrongdoings and horrendous acts mustn't be hidden, but equally they should be given context and positive acts shouldn't be erased either.

'No, the British Empire is not always the target'

People wang on about it on here frequently as if British, well actually no, as if the English should wear hair shirts and forever apologise. I agree it was a terrible system, I dont defend it but nor do I feel responsible.

I was watching Poldark the other night (I know it is fiction but I gather it is factual regarding the struggle of the poor), the starving children and people living in poverty but I don’t feel responsible for that either. Let's move on.

@mbosnz yes I think public health is medicine , I suppose thats the thing with history there is a lot to learn so can only cover so much
Not sure why public health is there though , suppose it may be relevant today in times we are in , if only we had learnt from it

The idea that up till the BLM movement everyone thought that the British Empire was a wonderful thing is just wrong. Just for example, I'm old enough to remember the huge impact of the film Gandhi, released in 1982. It was the most talked about film, everyone I knew saw it, it won Oscars including best picture, and it was all about the struggle against the British rule in India.

Gandhi is a 1982 period biographical film based on the life of Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent non-cooperative Indian independence movement against the British Raj during the 20th century. A co-production between India and United Kingdom, it is directed and produced by Richard Attenborough from a screenplay written by John Briley. It stars Ben Kingsley in the title role. The film covers Gandhi's life from a defining moment in 1893, as he is thrown off a South African train for being in a whites-only compartment, and concludes with his assassination and funeral in 1948. Although a practising Hindu, Gandhi's embracing of other faiths, particularly Christianity and Islam, is also depicted.

It opened to critical acclaim with major praise drawn towards the film's historically accurate portrayal of the life of Gandhi, Indian independence movement and the deteriorating results of British colonisation on India and also Kingsley's titular performance, production values and costume design. It also became a commercial success grossing $127.8 million on a $22 million budget.

I went to a very old-fashioned grammar school in the 1980s and I remember learning about the British East India company and the triangle of trade which included slaves.

We also learned about other brutal and horrific periods of history, of which there are many. The concept of human rights just didn't exist until very recently. It was accepted by every country that you act in the interests of your own country only.

Yes we wen as a year group to see Ghandi then

Let's move on.

I can understand why this would be a very popular idea amongst the British. Particularly if by 'moving on', you mean not acknowledging or accurately recording history, reflecting the impact of colonisation on those colonised, even when it continues to impact them today. It would be far more comfortable. For those British who felt this way. (And those of British heritage (of which I'm one) in those colonies.) It's just so annoying when others won't play ball. . .

With thanks to localhistories.org - From A Timeline of Empires

1099 The Crusaders capture Jerusalem

1187 Saladin captures Jerusalem

1206 Genghis Khan unites the Mongols and begins to build a huge empire

1211 The Mongols invade Northern China

1221The Mongols attack Delhi

1227 Genghis Khan dies

1236 The Mongols invade Russia

1241 The Mongols invade Poland and Hungary but they retreat after the death of Ogedei, Genghis Khan's son

1250 The Mamelukes take power in Egypt

1258 The Mongols capture Baghdad

1260 The Mamelukes of Egypt defeat the Mongols

1279 The Mongols capture Southern China

1281 A Mongol invasion of Japan fails

C. 1325 The Aztecs found their capital at Tenochtitlan

1369-1404

Tamerlane king of Samarkand builds up a great empire in Asia. He conquers Herat in 1381 and destroys Delhi in 1398. In 1401 he takes Baghdad and in 1402 he defeats the Ottoman empire in Turkey.

1453 The Ottoman Turks capture Constantinople and bring the Byzantine Empire to an end

1517 The Ottoman Turks conquer Egypt

1521 Cortes conquers the Aztecs in Mexico

1522 The Ottoman Turks capture Belgrade

1526 In India Babur founds the Mughal Empire

1530 The Portuguese settle in Brazil

1533 Pizarro conquers the Incas

1541 The Turks conquer Hungary

1556-1605 In India Akbar the Great rules over the Mogul Empire

1565 The Turks fail to capture Malta

1568 The Dutch rebel against Spanish rule

1571 The Turkish fleet is badly defeated by Spanish and Venetian ships

1587 The Mogul Emperor Akbar takes Kashmir

1592 In India Akbar the Great conquers Sind

1607 The English found Jamestown, Virginia the first permanent English colony in North America

1626 The Dutch found New Amsterdam, which later becomes New York

1627-1658 Shah Jahan, Mughal Emperor expands his empire

1648 Spain recognizes Dutch independence

1652 The Dutch found a colony in South Africa

1655 England takes Jamaica from Spain

1664 The English capture New Amsterdam, which is renamed New York

1683 The Ottoman Turks besiege Vienna but fail to capture the city

1687 The Austrians defeat the Turks at the Battle of Mohacs. The Turkish Ottoman Empire begins a long, slow decline.

C 1690 In India the Mogul Empire is at its height

1707 The Mogul Empire in India begins to break down

1733 Georgia, the last of the original 13 North American colonies is founded

1757 The British defeat the French at Plassey in India ensuring that India will become a British colony

1759 The British defeat the French at Quebec ensuring Canada becomes British

1775-1783 The American War of Independence is fought

1788 The first settlers arrive in Australia from Britain

1799 Napoleon Bonaparte seizes power in France

1806 The British take over the Dutch colony of South Africa

1813 Napoleon is defeated at Leipzig

1814 Napoleon abdicates

1815 Napoleon escapes from exile and becomes emperor of France again but he is defeated at Waterloo

1816 Argentina becomes independent

1818 Chile becomes independent

1818 Shaka founds the Zulu Empire in southern Africa

1821 Mexico, Peru and Guatemala become independent

1825 Bolivia becomes independent

1828 In Africa Shaka, the Zulu emperor is murdered

1829 Following 7 years of fighting Greece becomes independent of Turkey

1830 The French invade Algeria. Over the following years, the French build up an empire in North Africa

1840 Britain annexes, New Zealand

1867 Canada becomes a dominion

1881 Tunisia becomes a French protectorate

1882 The British army occupies Egypt and Sudan

1884 The Germans take Namibia, Tanzania, Togo and Cameroon

1885 Italy takes Eritrea, Belgium takes The Republic of Congo and Britain takes Botswana

1886 Kenya becomes a British colony

1888-89 The British take control of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)

1894 The British take Uganda

1898 War between the USA and Spain takes place. The USA takes the Philippines.

1901 The Australian colonies are united to form the Commonwealth of Australia

1903 Panama becomes independent

1907 New Zealand becomes a dominion

1908 Bulgaria becomes independent of Turkey

1912 Morocco becomes a French protectorate. Italy conquers Libya

1938 The Germans take Austria

1939 Germany invades Poland so Britain and France declare war on Germany

1940 Germany conquers Norway, Holland, Belgium and France

1941

Germany conquers Yugoslavia and Greece and invades Russia

Japan attacks the USA at Pearl Harbor

1942

The USA defeats Japan at Midway Island

The British defeat the Germans at El Alamein

1943

The Russians defeat the Germans at Stalingrad and Kursk

German forces in North Africa surrender and allied forces invade Italy

1944 Allied forces invade France

1945 Germany and Japan surrender

1947 India becomes independent.

1948 Burma becomes independent

1949 Indonesia becomes independent

1950 China occupies Tibet

'can understand why this would be a very popular idea amongst the British. Particularly if by 'moving on', you mean not acknowledging or accurately recording history'

History is accurately recorded. This isn't about acknowledging the past, it is about people using it as a stick to beat people with today.

No, it hasn't been. You know the saying 'history is written by the victors'?

Up until very recently, this was very true.

The history I was taught, in the 1980's was very much reflective of that.

However, increasingly, there are those that were not the product of the victors, having the education, the voice, and the platform to create a more balanced history, reflecting the reality of those who were the victor's victims.

If those nations and peoples that previously both enjoyed the spoils of victory, and the recording of their victories to portray themselves and their actions in the best possible light don't like this, that's a shame. However, it might be uncomfortable, it won't be fatal.

This is a very important conversation. I for one am proud of Britain, and yes that includes the British Empire. However that is not to say I am a fan of empires (I am not!). However there is benefit to placing these things in their proper context. The British Empire came about during a time of history with rampant colonial expansion in Europe. If we hadn’t ended up conquering our way to the top of that pile someone else and perhaps less benignly would have done so.

Note I am not claiming our Empire was benign, simply by comparison it would likely have been worse. Stacking up the sins of our Imperial past is important work, as it’s part of the reason we should all be grateful that it has passed, but you have to also juxtapose these sins against some of our advances:

• The abolition of slavery, whilst a lot is rightly written and spoken of how dirty our hands our in this regard. We did bring an end to the practice (at a time when it was one of the biggest revenue generators to our economy), furthermore in our role of world policeman at the time worked tirelessly to cease the practice across the globe.

• Advances in moral philosophy and individual rights brought about by classic British Liberalism such as writers like Thomas Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft who made huge strides towards women’s rights and human rights generally.

• Scientific and medical advances. Ok we codified the scientific method just before our Empire exploded across the world (and doubtless one of the many reasons for its success). However our contributions to humanities collective knowledge base is still felt to this day.

• The very fact that we surrendered the Empire not in the end because we were violently usurped but simply because thanks to our progressive values we had outgrown it.

Of course you can take a lot of the above in isolation and claim it would have happened anyway, but that is a very difficult if not impossible case to make.

I would say it is crucial that we study and yes perhaps even celebrate our past, but that doesn’t mean ignoring the many atrocities we committed. As considering those wretched elements can perhaps immunise us from becoming as bad again in the future.

Also the British Empire was a group effort, every nation and culture that participated in its successes deserve to be celebrated, respected and cherished by us all. The clue is in the name of the commonwealth that we are privileged to be a member of to this day. It should be a common wealth of nations that collectively share in each other’s successes.

History is accurately recorded.

You're sure of that? That all history is accurately recorded?

I wonder how much longer the commonwealth will survive? Increasingly, its relevance and value is being debated by many of its members.

@GetOffYourHighHorse - People wang on about it on here frequently as if British, well actually no, as if the English should wear hair shirts and forever apologise. I agree it was a terrible system, I dont defend it but nor do I feel responsible

The only people referring to people today feeling guilt or atoning for the past, are those of you who are insistent that you refuse to feel guilt. Everyone else is talking about recognition of the past and the impact it has had.

One poster has suggested governments should apologise but that is different to individuals feeling guilt for a past they were not personally involved with.

@GetOffYourHighHorse ok where are the memorials to the victims of the empire in London then? History is not accurately represented in our national narrative or our monuments. How is acknowledging that the empire was exploitative and often violent and has shaped society today beating anyone with a stick?

@FiveFootTwoEyesOfBlue I’m not sure what your point is?

@Notfeelinggreattoday the thing is that there are now modules in the curriculum dealing with the slave trade, empire etc, but none is compulsory, teachers can choose, and by and large they still choose the old staples of the Norman conquest, the tudors, the industrial revolution (which tends to be taught from a very local perspective - the british experience)... I studied history all through school and at a uni that is known as an authority in the subject and in all those years I literally had one lesson that discussed empire as it related to Ireland. That’s all. I didn’t learn any details about the empire until I moved to work in a former colony. And I hope things have changed since then but I’m not that old...

Exactly. Many, many things in recent history were terrible. Of course it's whataboutery but whatabout the workhouses, the 'convicts' hung for stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving family or shipped to colonies in Australia. I don't know anyone who feels responsible for such things though. Lessons have been learnt in this country anyway. I wish people put as much energy into complaing about modern day slavery and poverty. They are maybe concerned about that too but the British Empire is always the target for some reason.

The strange thing is that some of the people moaning about Land of Hope and Glory and Rule Britannia not being sung on the last night of the proms are the descendants of those first victims so I think it is odd that they venerate it so much. I'm Irish descent so I'm much fonder of a verse of Glorious St Patrick Dear Saint of Our Isle and hopefully no one is going to tell me he was into oppressing people. If I was British working class I would hold no more fondness for the rich exploiters who ran the British Empire than I do as the descendant of Irish peasants.

So yes I think more history about what happened to the working class in Britain wouldn't go amiss, things like the glorious army who defeated Napoleon and how many of them died in poverty with no one giving a damn about them. There were many victims and a small group who benefitted.

I'm really heartened, actually, at how many posters here are open to discussions about the negative impacts of the British Empire on the nations and peoples they colonised.

I know it can be very hard to be open to what can feel like hostile criticism of 'your' people. When I studied NZ history at university, I had to open my ears and eyes to actually unlearn what I'd previously been taught, which had sat very comfortably with my cultural heritage.

The very fact that we surrendered the Empire not in the end because we were violently usurped but simply because thanks to our progressive values we had outgrown it.

Mind-boggling.

Is this what you're taught in British schools? Good lord.

@Dervel - If we hadn’t ended up conquering our way to the top of that pile someone else and perhaps less benignly would have done so.

More malevolently might be a better term.

Note I am not claiming our Empire was benign, simply by comparison it would likely have been worse.

Really? That is hugely insulting to the victims of british colonialism.

The very fact that we surrendered the Empire not in the end because we were violently usurped but simply because thanks to our progressive values we had outgrown it.

That's utter nonsense. A small number of countries gained independence peacefully, not because of any benevolence but the british but because they were no longer useful or profitable. The rest achieved independence through insurrection.

Also the British Empire was a group effort, every nation and culture that participated in its successes deserve to be celebrated, respected and cherished by us all.

The colonised did not "participate" in the empire. They were brutalised, exploited, starved, murdered and used. That is not participantion.

Of course you can take a lot of the above in isolation and claim it would have happened anyway, but that is a very difficult if not impossible case to make.

And what might the colonised have achieved if they had been left to their own devices? Your list sounds very much like bringing enlightenment to the savages.

The past is another country and all that.

I find it difficult to take a lot of the things people say with much seriousness for two reasons. One is that few of them have a robust historical knowledge and tend to present it with as much bias as they claim for others.

The other is the vast majority of such people have the same kind of confidence in their own ideas and how they would enlighten and help others as any pro-empire individual who thought the British could run things better and bring enlightenment to the masses did. (And sometimes they did in fact improve on some rather negative social practices they found, though such people don't give any weight to that sort of thing.)

@FiveFootTwoEyesOfBlue

The idea that up till the BLM movement everyone thought that the British Empire was a wonderful thing is just wrong. Just for example, I'm old enough to remember the huge impact of the film Gandhi, released in 1982. It was the most talked about film, everyone I knew saw it, it won Oscars including best picture, and it was all about the struggle against the British rule in India.

Gandhi is a 1982 period biographical film based on the life of Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent non-cooperative Indian independence movement against the British Raj during the 20th century. A co-production between India and United Kingdom, it is directed and produced by Richard Attenborough from a screenplay written by John Briley. It stars Ben Kingsley in the title role. The film covers Gandhi's life from a defining moment in 1893, as he is thrown off a South African train for being in a whites-only compartment, and concludes with his assassination and funeral in 1948. Although a practising Hindu, Gandhi's embracing of other faiths, particularly Christianity and Islam, is also depicted.

It opened to critical acclaim with major praise drawn towards the film's historically accurate portrayal of the life of Gandhi, Indian independence movement and the deteriorating results of British colonisation on India and also Kingsley's titular performance, production values and costume design. It also became a commercial success grossing $127.8 million on a $22 million budget.

I went to a very old-fashioned grammar school in the 1980s and I remember learning about the British East India company and the triangle of trade which included slaves.

We also learned about other brutal and horrific periods of history, of which there are many. The concept of human rights just didn't exist until very recently. It was accepted by every country that you act in the interests of your own country only.

One of the things that has struck me about a lot of the recommendations of people getting into the BLM bandwagon is how they are basically identical to the things we supposedly discovered back in the 80s, and back in the 60s. The observations aren't any different. Nor are the proposed solutions like "more education". Which has not had the kind of impact that such people seem to assume from a more correct indoctrination of young people.

I think this is the main reason a more holistic perspective is actually important - it's only with a more sophisticated and encompassing approach to things like empire, or economic exploitation, that you can see enough to begin to understand their true mechanisms.

@keeprocking I am talking about most reasonable first world leaders here when I say they want peace and cooperation. That would be the main reason behind the formation of the EU. And would be the reason why other world leaders are now so condemning of UK's plans to breach international law and threaten that peace. And why Amal Clooney is now added to those who have resigned in protest.

The UK meanwhile is still looking for the cooperation part - this week the NHS asked the HSE for help conducting covid testing.

thanks to our progressive values we had outgrown it.

Really?

I suspect it went a bit more like:

INTERIOR DAY: AN OFFICE DEEP IN THE HEART OF WHITEHALL:

"Well, Tarquin I've run the figures past our chaps in accounting and the Empire's actually costing us more to run than we're getting out of it."
"Really Piers? You surprise me."
"Yes it was a bit of a shock. Turns out we've bled the thing dry and now that we can't just nip through the Suez Canal with all the loot... the old profit margins you know, well they're going a bit south."
"Ah well. Better bring the army home then.... Just the white ones mind you."
"Righto. I'll just go and tell the PM... Who is it by the way? Not still that ghastly Attlee chap is it?"
"Hang on.... (RUSTLES THROUGH SOME PAPERS) ah. Apparently it's some fellah called Macmillan..."

The rest is History.

There have being empires throughout history. Romans, mogul empire, french colonialism, Spanish conquistadors, British empire...the list goes on and on.

The affect on countries of this type of colonisation has been a mixed bag but with plenty of negativity. It is what it is and should not be a extrapolated endlessly into modern day societies.

Learn from it. Then accept it's history. Trying to make the British people (namely white British people) feel guilty for something done by past generations is just a nasty manipulative bit of gaslighting.

It does seem as if we’re going backwards - the whole Brexit fiasco is desperately trying to take us back to a time of petty powers all struggling against each other to become the alpha state. Meanwhile my go-to text on the Empire is Jan Morris’ trilogy - published 1978. An admittedly imperfect post-WW2 awareness of destruction, interest in consensus and celebration of diversity is being broken up and sold off.

Lots of my family were Empire building types and some were quite well known, I actually have huge admiration for them. It was a hard life in many ways and their intentions were admirable. I know it is profoundly unfashionable to say I admire them but I do. You cannot judge the past with current standards. I'm tired of hearing about white privilege and I apologise for nothing my ancestors did.

Learn from it. Then accept it's history. Trying to make the British people (namely white British people) feel guilty for something done by past generations is just a nasty manipulative bit of gaslighting.

Well, actually, for some, it's current events. The impacts are being felt to this day. I would argue that saying, 'oh well, it was shit, but it's in the past, move on', is a nasty bit of gaslighting. A bit like a dude smashing a woman, then saying, well yeah, I did it, it's a bit shit, but it's the past, move on'. Particularly if the woman's jaw is still wired up.

And quite frankly, it's not all about the British people and how they feel about it being talked about, it's about nations, colonies and people's affected, exploring their history and experience and talking about it and recording it, and how they feel about it.