Being proud of colonialism

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

Perhaps it's no wonder that we let our government get away with continuing to screw over other parts of the world for spurious, often covert, reasons.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

I only learned about the 'potato famine' as an adult. As a child it was pitched as a terrible natural disaster. The part the english played in it omitted.

It was really the British (not English, there was no such thing at the time) government who fiddled while the Irish starved and for dogmatic reasons (Liberals, don't interfere, let the market decide), rather than the British people, most of whom were in a not dissimilar boat - not starving in quite the same way but exploited and worked to death in horrendous conditions. We might not have had slavery in Victorian Britain, but the poor had little freedom and did not benefit from Empire (except for some philanthropists using their potentially ill-gotten wealth building new libraries, schools etc which the poor might have had the chance to use).

I slightly dispute that. My grandmother ( very very poor miner]s daughter from the NE took a ship to India in the 1920s to get a job as a nanny there - she benefited from empire). My 4 great uncles who were almost starving in the UK after the 1929 crash moved to the US and Canada (mind you they didn't exactly thrive there but at least they were largely fed even if mostly living on the streets). They were benefiting in that sense from empire.

Also Victorian Britain saw a lifting of many people out of poverty because the sun never set on our empire - all kinds of new labour saving devices came out and many many people suddenly had paid employment. Then came all the legislation to start to protect people - that came in the Victorian age.

And tomato what business is it of Britain's, what 'state' other countries would be in confused

Because a lot of people who are proud of the British Empire perpetuate the view that the level/state/existence or modernisation of these countries is thanks to British Empirial rule. I was making the point that without knowing how these countries would have developed if they hadn't been exploited by Britian and contributed to Britains wealth and growth, then we cannot say that for sure what state they or Britain would be in today if colonialism hadn't happened. So it is a weak argument to use in order to back up their pride in the British Empire.

Ireland wasn't part of the British Empire, it was part of the United Kingdom until the Free State became a dominion in the twenties.

That's not entirely accurate. Ireland had a somewhat hybrid position in the UK. It was represented at Westminster unlike other colonies, yet had a Viceroy, unlike other parts of the United Kingdom. It was highly garrisoned by the Army, unlike other parts of the UK, and had an armed and highly militarised police force. It also was subject to sustained periods of emergency legislation. So it was not in any meaningful sense a regular part of the UK like Devon or Lancashire. On the other hand, Irish people also participated in imperial projects, esp in the civil service. So it's a complicated story after 1800.

Before 1800, and especially before 1700, it's a much more straightforward tale. The Cromwellian conquest/genocide arguably a blueprint for British imperial expansion later on. Historians of empire are increasingly seeing Ireland as the first colony (even though its status changed over time).

Also Victorian Britain saw a lifting of many people out of poverty because the sun never set on our empire - all kinds of new labour saving devices came out and many many people suddenly had paid employment. Then came all the legislation to start to protect people - that came in the Victorian age.

The same thing is happening today in many countries. What's even more amazing is that they are managing to do it within the setting sun of their own borders!

tom sorry, i know what you meant. I was agreeing in the style of; 'yeah, yeah and another thing....'

It sounded as if I was arguing with you, didn't it

LagoonaBlu OH I thought you were confused about why they were interested in the state of other countries. Now I get what you meant!

LagoonaBlu that comedy sketch is brilliant. Have you seen this gem from Eddie Izzard?

LumelaMme - I had the same reaction to your statement as annadale - maybe I went to the same place as her!

As a Brit I don't feel proud of colonialism but I don't feel ashamed either, it's just part of the fabric of what made us all where we are today. I did find it interesting to speak to lots of young people in the Caribbean who were angry with their parent's generation for voting to take them away from a system that enabled them to have free healthcare and education.

Maybe you did, Silver - in which case, lucky you!
I should get out more!

As a British person I don't feel any particular guilt about the Brish Empire. My great great grandparents were farm labourers, my great grandparents and grandparents worked in the coal mines. They were only one step up from enslaved. They certainly didn't benefit from the spoils of empire.

The taking and selling of slaves was common place in Africa during Roman times. The taking and selling was done by one tribe or another to another tribe. The British Empire was just a new place to sell them.

The Irish potato famine happened due to potato blight which was the staple crop of Ireland. Regular famines also occurred in rural areas of the mainland of the UK during Victorian times but are little discussed. Many British landowners did as much as they could to help their tenant farmers in Ireland. Some behaved appallingly and clearly contributed to many Irish people dying - but it was the blight that fundamentally as the problem.

There were many things that the British Empire did that were foul but sometimes the myth making that occurs after the events suits the politics of the current time. Blaming the British Empire for the corruption and repeated failure of Govts throughout Africa and Asia since it collapsed are clear to see.

The British Empire sent millions of its citizens to die in foreign fields and in so doing gave the world a global language, much of the early scientific discoveries we enjoy today, much of the basic medicine, most of the world's sport, great classical literature, art and music. Much of the world's business transactions uses our legal system and our system of Govt has been copied around the world.

It wasn't all bad and frankly if we hadn't done it some other nation, possibly far worse, would have.

Potato may have been the staple crop of the poor, but during the famine, Ireland was producing enough grain to comfortably support its population. The British allowed/encouraged it to be exported because it was more profitable.

The taking and selling of slaves was common place in Africa during Roman times.
that sounds like a child who says "I didn't start it, he did it first"!!

The so called taking of slaves was actually common place in Europe and Asia in Roman times as well. How does that justify what the Europeans did?By the 17th Century most African countries no longer practiced selling and/or enslaving tribal enemies! Another myth to justify the horror of colonialism.

It had nothing to do with me or my family, who were busy being oppressed by the english ruling class. Let them feel the guilt.no wonder we dont learn much about it in school, its all part of the airbrushing of the aristocratic ruling elite in the uk

The Irish potato famine happened due to potato blight which was the staple crop of Ireland

BetaDad you really need to do a little further research than the incorrect secondary school education you have on the subject of the famine before posting such crap.

Blaming potatoes or the lack of them for what happened incredibly insulting.

Men caused the famine, not a blight.

abetadad1 just because someone is selling stolen 'goods' you don't have to buy them.

I've been watching lots of history programmes recently about England, spain, Russia and now china. when are the television companies going to make a 10 part series about Britain's actions in the west indies, outlining the hundreds of years of murder, rape, exploitation and theft, or empire building as you all like to call it?

One thing that's occurred to me about slavery a number of times was that the Roman model was very different to that of later times, as far as I understand. It was not tied to racism particularly and among house slaves at least (agriculture and mining being different) it wasn't necessarily for life. Freedmen became a major force in Rome eventually. The slavery as practised in later times was particularly abhorrent.

At least we can take some comfort in the idea that Britain was one of the first (or the first?) major powers to take a stand against it. Not much of a crumb, but its something.

I think the percentage of skilled and freed house slaves was pretty low in the scheme of things Bungo. The vast majority of Roman slaves lived in barracks, were poorly fed and were worked to death in mines or fields. The Romans were horrible brutal people.

True, Tinkly. They didn't have a particular concept of prejudice based on the colour of skin though, I don't think. They just hated everything that wasn't the Roman ideal.

Mistress - it is undeniable that the Irish potato crop failed for 6 - 7 years from 1847 onwards because of blight and that supplied 60% of the calorific intake of Ireland. That was cut in half by the blight.

There was some relief given initially and more grain was imported than exported. Total grain imports were sufficient to feed Ireland but high prices prevented pauper farmers buying it and welfare assistance after the first year was minimal. Soup kitchens operated but only for 6 months.

The failure was to keep the relief going for the full 4 - 5 year period of the famine. Some of that was down to Victorian ideology of liberal economics and divine providence.

Without the blight the famine would never have happened. The impact of the famine was made worse by failure to act. It was not a deliberately created famine such as the Ukrainian famine in 1932 - 33 - although in that case a crop failure also contributed.

More like without the Victorian ideology of liberal economics and divine providence the famine would never have happened.

The famine happened because of natural factors that led to potato blight sweeping across Ireland.

However, it was the failure to act to alleviate the famine more aggressively beyond the first year, the unprecedented multi-year impact of the blight, the fact that Ireland largely grew only one type of potato and the high dependency of the poorest people in Ireland on potato as a staple of their diet meant the famine had a more devastating effect than it otherwise would have had.

The British Govt did provide welfare assistance, assisted people to emigrate and also provided workfare schemes. None of the schemes were long lasting enough. That is why very large numbers of the poorest people in Ireland died.

The Irish Potato Famine is a very emotive subject and the British Govt made a huge policy error but it was not a deliberate policy to kill Irish people. It has become a totem of Irish Nationalism so there is little chance in a balanced debate on this issue as with many issue related to the Empire.

The fact that the Irish people hugely benefited from a period of heavy investment in road building and industrialisation in the early 1800s is not acknowledged.

I think the teaching of history probably depends on the country it's being taught in. Different perspectives and all that.

That's why history needs to be taught as a research subject and not as a "fact" based subject. Evidence needs to be gathered from a range of sources - and not just Wikipedia. Foreign language sources etc. Then carefully and critically analysed - without coming at it with cognitive bias.

It's a fascinating subject. One that the Government needs to ensure is evidence based and not just taught as facts. It teaches us about the past and how the past has shaped today. It also shows us our future mistakes.

Arrogance is thinking that your country's view of events is the correct one.

Abetadad1 some of your points are correct but I dispute that it was purely natural factors. One could argue that it was Cromwell's actions in Ireland which lead to us being herded into the areas with the crappiest land which contributed. The blight was itself one factor, but there were very many others that combined to cause the deaths of one million people. To describe the actions of the British government at the time of a laissez faire attitude would be being generous. Not directed at you, but at some of the other posters - please don't use the term 'potato famine'. That's always been the term used to minimise it. It's 'The Great Famine'.