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.

I said every country has at one time invaded and colonised another. And that most have attempted to build an empire.

At least quote yourself right. You said:

"Every country at one time has invaded/colonised another country and most have also set up empires of their own" (My bold.)

[quote prettybird]Good article explaining what happened

[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml]][/quote]
Actually, if you look closely at the article, it seems that the money was spent on building houses and importing food, while the Germans spent on infrastructure.

The real difference is that the Germans and the Japanese weren't spending anything on defence, while the British spent 7% per annum. But that's got nothing to do with Marshall Aid, and everything to do with Germany and Japan having been defeated. Decommissioning the entire armed forces (including the second largest navy in the world) would have been pretty irresponsible given that the Cold War was just beginning.

What the article assumes is that the UK should have ringfenced Marshall Aid money, despite having additional expenses it was committed to.

@TomPinch - excellent points. The reconstruction of post war Europe is fascinating. Stalin was building his own Empire....

China has huge influence in Africa (mining).
It has also control over much of Tibet.

@TheSandman

I said every country has at one time invaded and colonised another. And that most have attempted to build an empire.

At least quote yourself right. You said:

"Every country at one time has invaded/colonised another country and most have also set up empires of their own" (My bold.)

Yes, that’s what I said and I stand by it. Just looking at world maps over the millennium and seeing the changes in borders shows countries invading, colonising, taking over each other. It shows the spread and then fall of empires.

"one should not take pride in the achievements of the Empire" and other contextual stuff about that was then and this is now.

Seriously, fuck off with that.

@PlanDeRaccordement , take time off pontificating and take a little look-ette at the history of Ireland.

You said firstly:

"have also set up"

and then changed it to

"have attempted to build"

Vastly different things.

And an Empire isn't just invading or annexing an adjacent country. I agree most countries will have done that sometime in recorded history for a variety of reasons. But England taking over, by fair means and foul, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland didn't make an 'English Empire'.

Most countries in the world did not 'set up empires'.

[quote bellinisurge]@PlanDeRaccordement , take time off pontificating and take a little look-ette at the history of Ireland. [/quote]
Are you saying there were no Irish colonists in the Americas?

Most countries in the world did not 'set up empires'

Yes they did if you look at all of recorded history. From around 4000 BC to present day.

@PlanDeRaccordement - Are you saying there were no Irish colonists in the Americas?

You're just making yourself look foolish with comments like that.

And an Empire isn't just invading or annexing an adjacent country.

It can be depending on the geography, time period in history and the technology available at the time. British Empire had to be by sea because Britain is a tiny island. But China and Russia are both empires built by invading and annexing adjacent lands/countries.

@PlanDeRaccordement - Yes they did if you look at all of recorded history. From around 4000 BC to present day.

You should probably look up the definition of empire. You are obviously struggling with its definition.

[quote OchonAgusOchonO]**@PlanDeRaccordement* - Are you saying there were no Irish colonists in the Americas?*

You're just making yourself look foolish with comments like that.[/quote]
How so? To the native Americans especially, all Europeans were invaders and colonists in the Americas.

Are you saying there were no Irish colonists in the Americas?

The majority of Irish emigration to North America was a direct result of the Irish Potato Famine which was an immoral crime committed by the English elite on the Irish people.

So it’s not the same thing.

@PlanDeRaccordement - I can only assume you are being disingenuous. Correlating individuals with empire goes well beyond a misunderstanding of its meaning..

Also here is some history for you on the Irish and Native Americans. It was on the news recently so quite commonly known

penntoday.upenn.edu/news/kindred-spirits-irish-native-american-solidarity

@RomeoLikedCapuletGirls - The majority of Irish emigration to North America was a direct result of the Irish Potato Famine which was an immoral crime committed by the English elite on the Irish people.

While you are absolutely correct, the term Irish Potato Famine is not appropriate. It was not a potato famine. The blight was merely a catalyst. It is referred to as the Great Famine in Ireland but the Irish Famine is an acceptable description.

To the native Americans especially, all Europeans were invaders and colonists in the Americas.

Not really. Some Europeans acted with kindness (see above link) whilst some laced blankets with smallpox and reneged on land treaties.

It didn’t have to end the way it did. The US is filled with uninhabited land. The Native Americans and Europeans could have co-existed quite easily.

It is referred to as the Great Famine in Ireland but the Irish Famine is an acceptable description.

thanks

The US was not filled with "uninhabited " land when the settlers arrived, that's racist bullshit. It was inhabited by people whose way of life depended on their being tracts of unspoiled land from which they made an often nomadic or semi-nomadic living mixing farming, hunting and fishing. It suited the settlers not to recognize land as being owned because it was not lived on and farmed the European way but let's not pretend that was ever the case. Native Americans being displaced and then later exterminated was an integral and necessary part of the settlement of the USA, not an unfortunate case of mismanagement.

Ireland didn't exist as a nation when the US was being filled with Europeans.
Irish people on the whole went to the US to escape the Great Famine which was used by the British as a weapon of murder and oppression against the Irish.
Individual Irish born people have, over the years, done terrible things in the service of the British Empire. Not the "Irish Empire " for fuck's sake.
Jesus, and we laugh at American millennials who call the Holocaust a hoax.
Please read some history that isn't written by some arse on Facebook.

[quote OchonAgusOchonO]**@PlanDeRaccordement* - Are you saying there were no Irish colonists in the Americas?*

You're just making yourself look foolish with comments like that.[/quote]
Well to be fair most Irish people were deported there during the 1st phase of colonialism and held in captivity. Then in the second phase were indentured.

According to google 'There are 574 federally recognized tribes living within the US, about half of which are associated with Indian reservations. '
Native Americans, that is.

I remember reading that many Irish were recruited into both sides of the American Civil War, as they arrived off the ships

@Straven123 I wonder how many there were before the Europeans arrived?