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.

@Pepperwort - Noble savages is a common phrase representing the innocent rural idyll, yes, and there are attitudes that are reminiscent of it. Have you not heard the phrase before?

Of course I've heard it. However, it's not a phrase that has any place in modern society. It's a phrase reminiscent if empire.

Look up War of Austrian Succession 1740 (when the poem was written). Then Seven Years War and French attempt to invade in 1759.

France and Britain were constantly at War with each other from 1740 to 1815 when Napoleon was defeated. There was constantly the fear we’d invade over the sea and the Royal Navy was only thing standing between Britain and France.

@Straven123

I was trying to think of countries that weren't colonised and wondering how free, fair and successful they were. S America came to mind. Britain wasn't colonised since Roman Times but was divided by religion. Lots of murdering due to that. Same in N Europe.

Of course Britain has been colonised since Roman times, or at least England, Wales and parts of Scotland- have you never heard of the Normans? The Norman Conquest has had a much longer lasting effect than the Roman one, and still affects daily life today.

As for South America, the Incas would have something to say about colonisation, if they hadn't been exterminated by the Spanish (not to mention the Mayans and Aztecs in Central America). In fact, the Spanish and Portuguese spent much of the 1490s squabbling over who had prior rights to the lands until the Pope divided the 'New World' between them.

Hatred of British colonialism is probably natural among those most affected.

I can tell you most of East Asia still hates Japan for their empire, it was far more brutal than Britain’s too.

I guess the difference is that Japan pretty much ignores this and doesn’t go for the self-flagellation that Britain does.

But those of us affected by Japanese colonialism won’t easily forget it ... (ok, not me but it’s living history still for family members)

Plenty of ordinary people are still glorifying the British empire.

It's tenuous to suggest that singing a song that traditionally signs off the end of the proms season is 'glorifying empire'.

When French sing La Marseillaise are they glorifying the occupation of Algeria or West Africa?

@PlanDeRaccordement

The song Rule Britannia is not about the empire or glorifying it. It was written during a war with us, France, in which we were seriously about to invade you again and take over Britain again. And the song was written to stir up national pride and vow to never be slaves again like the Anglo Saxons were when we French successfully did the Norman invasion.

Actually the Norman invasion was not done by the French, it was done by the Normans. Different country at the time.

@ReceptacleForTheRespectable

The voting on this makes me despair.

Various comparison have been made to Nazi Germany, but the Germans aren't holding televised national sing songs glorifying the Nazis, are they?

Whereas in Britain, the empire and all its evil is still very much glorified - just look at last night of the proms.

I don't think the Nazi regime was anything like the British empire.

People dont dream of doing this with German people and nazism or Russians and the USSR so why do we have to endlessly hear about it?

Shocker, British people hear about British empire abroad, but ignores that many other people get the same fucking comments. Like I really don't get how anyone thinks that people don't make historically-based comments to anyone other than Brits.

When I was in high school in the US, we had an exchange student from Germany. Guess what one of the first questions he was asked in history class was about?

Lots of people discuss the impact of the (on-going) Russian empire to Russians and those from former Soviet countries. I'd recommend the Calvert Journal for writings in English by writers from that background. There are some pieces that talk about the issues different aspects of views they have of each other and views they've had from those from other countries.

I get comments about the US all the time, and I haven't even been there since W Bush's first term. It's just what happens. The issue is how to deal with it, both in how it's discussion is incentivised to go within the country and how it's shown abroad. Acting like it only happens to you and you're uniquely a victim of them isn't going to help anyone move forward from it.

And different parts of South America were repeatedly colonized by different American powers and then by European powers, and now many of the countries have had their government strings pulled by different world powers and corporations than it can be a bit confusing to know who is fucking over who. The joys of corporatism and neocolonialism & it's major effects around the world today. We discuss the impact of all those colonizations and the shit going on now, the layers are all there, it's what to do about them that is still up for people to try to manage.

America is one of the biggest neo-colonial powers now (if we agree they have been replaced by China at the top), so Britain’s past behaviour doesn’t have the same level of importance in discussion as America’s current behaviour. We can’t change the past but we can change the present.

Tell that to the indigenous people of S. America

Oh well, at least the weren't British colonists!
@OchonAgusOchonO

The book This Thing of Darkness about Captain Fitzroy who mapped the east and south coasts of S America talks about the Argentinian General who ordered the massacre of local indigenous. They were seen as a nuisance, stealing, troublesome. Whether the Argentinian General was from a different indigenous tribe originally or European I wouldn't know.

@BiBabbles

When I was in high school in the US, we had an exchange student from Germany. Guess what one of the first questions he was asked in history class was about?

^This. Of course Germans keep having to answer questions about the war. Think of all the popular war films that are regularly on TV.

@Rustybear
Actually the Norman invasion was not done by the French, it was done by the Normans. Different country at the time.

No, you are wrong. Normandy was not a separate country from France during the 1066 Norman invasion, it was a Duchy under the French crown. William the Bastard (as we know him) you know as William the Conqueror was the Duke of Normandy, and his liege Lord was the King of France. He invaded Britain with the full blessing of the King of France and the Pope. He had also mercenaries in his army paid for by the King of France.

OK, maybe I shouldn't have said country, but they were a different territory and were descended from the Vikings, so they still weren't French. Probably had as much right to consider themselves a different country from France as Scotland from England during much of its history.

@RustyBear

OK, maybe I shouldn't have said country, but they were a different territory and were descended from the Vikings, so they still weren't French. Probably had as much right to consider themselves a different country from France as Scotland from England during much of its history.

They were French. They spoke French. They were all French under the rule of King Phillip of France. Normandy is a northern French dukedom not a territory and was even then. Yes the Duke was descended from 1 Viking, Rollo, from 500yrs prior, but Rollos wife was a French noblewoman and all the people and the soldiers were French and had been since Charlemagne. The Vikings never took Normandy, the French king just allowed a small settlement there, in Northern France.

This is like me saying that the current day Duke of Cambridge is not British and Cambridge is a separate country from England because it’s in East Anglia which King Ecbert sold to the Vikings centuries ago.

You are just historically wrong.

@RustyBear
You're wrong. The Normans were French.

I don't think it is about re-writing the past but about being aware of how it still has an impact on our present...

@RustyBear

Oh, well, I'm still trying to think of uncolonised countries.

@woodhill I don't think the Nazi regime was anything like the British empire.

The British had concentration camps long before the Nazis during the second Boer war.

The concentration camps (however vile) were not anything like the camps set up by the Nazis.

[quote OchonAgusOchonO]**@Pepperwort* - Noble savages is a common phrase representing the innocent rural idyll, yes, and there are attitudes that are reminiscent of it. Have you not heard the phrase before?*

Of course I've heard it. However, it's not a phrase that has any place in modern society. It's a phrase reminiscent if empire.[/quote]
The policing of language smacks of authoritarianism. The hypersensitivity around words reduces the wealth of imagery available in the English language to a very superficial level and prevents grappling with deeper meaning.

I also don’t agree with your apparent logic that: Catholicism caused all Irish maltreatment of women; Catholicism was imposed by England; England therefore causes all bad things in Ireland. The history of religion in Ireland is far more complex than that, as is misogyny everywhere.

The policing of language smacks of authoritarianism. The hypersensitivity around words reduces the wealth of imagery available in the English language to a very superficial level and prevents grappling with deeper meaning.

So you agree with the use of the n word and similar? Language evolves.

*also don’t agree with your apparent logic that: Catholicism caused all Irish maltreatment of women; Catholicism was imposed by England; England therefore causes all bad things in Ireland.

That is not what I said.

@RustyBear

OK, maybe I shouldn't have said country, but they were a different territory and were descended from the Vikings, so they still weren't French. Probably had as much right to consider themselves a different country from France as Scotland from England during much of its history.

Things get complicated don’t they? Now let’s ask to what extent the identity “French” existed at the time and who belonged to it. It wasn’t that long after Charlemagne and the Merovingian empire.

I feel like the Nazis went on a mission to exterminate undesirables actively seeking the out

I mean non Aryans

I don’t think it’s quite the same thing.