Manifest Destiny

There was a time when no one could mine deep.Ireland does not have the ability to extract natural gas , but we allow a commercial company to explore and develop these gas fields for us. I'm quite sure the african nations would have the same relationship with commercial companies , to their benefit, without the British empire.The african nations would have got a lot more of the profits than they did.
I know what you are saying,and I'm sure you honestly belive,about this lenient empire .But , forgive me,you are viewing this attitude from the view of the oppressor not the oppressed.The British used bribery ,manipulation of local religious and political factions and and they always had an economic stranglehold on the countries the occupied.They were very good at the carrot and stick approch to the trouble some natives.The longer they stayed in a country the better they got at it,and it must be said the native population adapted to survive in their situation.Adapt and survive was how the empire survived longer than other empires but also because of the implisate treath of violence if the natives did not comply .In the last years of the war of independance ( 1918- 1921 ) the ordinary british tommy conducted themselves quite well, but the british goverment used the black and tans and auxilliers to terrorise the country.Their actions became news around the world .They turned ordinary people in to fervent republicans.My grandfather was shot at several time by the Tans while he worked on his allotment minding his own buissness.He was a medic at the somme and survived the war and was a pasifest the rest of his life but his brothers became active I.R .A men.( old I R A ).Discussing degrees of brutality is difficult if you have been on the reciving end of it.In modern parlance it was state sponsored terrorism .Trust me there was no leniant empire there.
I agree that meny peoples fought for ' mother country ' in both wars but meny also fought against the nazi's not for king or country.My uncle left Dublin in 1940 at18 and joined the R.A.F.He joined for excitment and to fight evil,not for the empire.
The british have left its mark on all they countries they occupied. the evolution of these countries has been helped in meny respects by Britian,But the degree of violence inflicted on these countries was just like any other empire clinging to power.They evolved more than most empires because they lasted longer than most.All empires are built on a foundation of violence and fear.American history books written shortly after the war with Mexico blamed Mexico totally for the war.Nothing was said about the brutality and crimes the american military inflicted on the mexicans .History written by the winner. But now History books are telling a different story, revision of history always takes time.Some day British history will admit the full horrors they inflicted on weaker nations just like all the other empires.You seem to hold on to this idea of leniant empire like a blanket to cover a multituide of sins.

Once again, I have to state that Britain was more leniant than it's predecessors. Most likely because it grew wise as it out-lasted all others. I'm not denying that Britain killed millions, starved millions and oppressed hundreds of millions.

I understand that Britain ruled through military power. But the idea that Britain was some over-the-top evil empire is just silly. We can study the Roman Empire and look at its pros and cons, the empire developed much of the known world and civilised a lot of it too. The fact that they enslaved and had games where people killed each other is just footnote on the impact the Romans had on mankind. The same applies to the British Empire. Even the Mongolians, who destroyed everything in their path as they had a hatred for organised city life can be studied for their pros - they were, after all, the greatest military force in their day.

You do not deny the empire killed millions,starved millions and oppressed millions...........If thats not evil what is.
.Freedom from control of a foreign power superceeds any good things that comes out of that oppression .Try and view this from the view point of the oppressed.If it was so good why did so meny peoples rebel time and time again ?

Killing people is evil I agree and yes the British empire did do it but once order was restored in a conquered country the killing generally stop and the commerce was set up and the situation went back to similar/better than before. Generally more order, better communication, trade, transport etc. Name one country from the empire that has done badly for itself and then name one from another empire (the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, German etc) that is doing as well (and was doing as well during the time of empire --> unrest, trade etc). You will find that the countries under the British empire did better and have done better than those who were under another foreign powers rule. The most successful countries in Africa are all ex-British colonies (Eygpt, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa etc) and the same in the Indian sub-continent all the countries are doing well. A good example is Hong Kong for the hundred years that Hong Kong was a part of the empire it was had the best standard of living, the highest earners etc than anywhere else in China (something which is still in place today although the bigger cities of China are catching up). If you would of rather been under the rule of another empire other than the British, then name it. If you had the choice of being under the rule of the British or one of the other European countries with an empire which would you choose? The British empire was the biggest and most powerful of them all because of the trade set up, the transport links produced (helped by the size of the empire --> lots of places to trade). Without the empire (I agree with pD here) it is unlikely that the mineral wealth of Africa would be used to the extent it is now. It just would have been found in the quantities is was by the British who then had the know-how and the equipment to exploit it for the benefit of Britain and the country the goods were from.

You know - it seems like you are agreeing more than you disagree, basically saying the same thing - just in a different way (on most of the issues).

You are correct, but I resent the overtone of " But we ( the british empire ) did what we did for your own good " mentality.All empires founded on violence and greed are evil this includes the British.
A saying used here expresses what I think " Do not piss down my back and tell me its raining ".

Sure, you could say empires are evil by modern day standards. BUt in those days an empire was just another thing to be dealt with. As an old say "People get bored of love, play and work long before they do of war,".

I understand what you are saying but you're taking it from a modern standpoint. The reality behind it all is simple, the British Empire was in place when empires were naturally accepted. Had the nations under its rule not revolted more lives would have been saved. Ideally for the great British Empire the whole world would have been unified under the Union Jack - but national pride causes revolts, that's what has stopped the world joining together. And will always stop us.

plan_D said:

but national pride causes revolts, that's what has stopped the world joining together. And will always stop us.

Click to expand...

you mean the workers of the world are not going to unite? There's not going to be a world w/o borders where all humanity is united w/ social equality for all!? I don't believe you!

You have to be kidding !!!! We should have accepted the invasion by a forign power,then all join hands and sing" God save the Queen ". Then it would be utopia . By that logic the world would have been a nicer place if the occupied countries of europe had just excepted the nazi's .

No, I said ideally for Britain. That's what Britain wanted at the time. I never said everyone should have.

And I'm sorry, mkloby, we all hate each other too much.

Hate each other.....No not me .......I'm just cranky.

"They kepted the empire for so long because of military might, when that might began to weaken they lost their grip on on control of the empire."

Britain did not lose her empire because her military was failing. She lost it because she gave everything she had to World War I and World War II, and she could no longer afford her colonies in the face of war debts and internal problems caused by the two world wars. America would not be the superpower it is without Britian, and not just because we were colonized by them. We replaced Britian because of economic reasons, notably because of the implementation of Socialist programs to help Britian's war-torn citizens. A Socialist nation is hard-pressed to afford large defense measures; this was proven by the fall of the Soviet Union. Britain's sacrifices over the past century made America what it is today.

The only difference between American and British imperialism is geography. Perhaps if Britain were not so tiny a nation, they would not have felt so great a need to expand so far beyond their borders. Manifest Destiny was about an American right to land which no one really had a right to. This makes America no better or worse than Britain.

Delusional said:

"They kepted the empire for so long because of military might, when that might began to weaken they lost their grip on on control of the empire."

Britain did not lose her empire because her military was failing. She lost it because she gave everything she had to World War I and World War II, and she could no longer afford her colonies in the face of war debts and internal problems caused by the two world wars. America would not be the superpower it is without Britian, and not just because we were colonized by them. We replaced Britian because of economic reasons, notably because of the implementation of Socialist programs to help Britian's war-torn citizens. A Socialist nation is hard-pressed to afford large defense measures; this was proven by the fall of the Soviet Union. Britain's sacrifices over the past century made America what it is today.

The only difference between American and British imperialism is geography. Perhaps if Britain were not so tiny a nation, they would not have felt so great a need to expand so far beyond their borders. Manifest Destiny was about an American right to land which no one really had a right to. This makes America no better or worse than Britain.

Click to expand...

Britain began the push towards socialist policies before WW2 - The Labour Party was a powerful force between the world wars. UK introduced national healthcare and unemployment in 1911, and pensions in 1925. A valid point I see in any tie-in to American power being derived from being colonized (majoryly) by Britain is the special relationship that has lasted, politcally and economically, between the US and the British (save obvious things like War of 1812). A major source of US power has been from natural resources, a giant buffer between US and Europe (atlanic ocean, as well as Royal Navy), and the ability to develop such resources and build a tremendous industrial base throughout the 19th and early 20th century.

I disagree on your comment that a socialist nation is hard pressed to "afford large defense measures" proven by the collapse of the USSR. Presuming taxes are raised - which they generally are - there may still be ample funds left to cover large defense budgets. If gov't provides healthcare, the system may completely eliminate healthcare provided by the private sector. The actual real cost of the service may not change very much. It's much more complicated than social programs prevent expenditures on defense. You'd have to look at specifics in terms of GDP. Consider that it is estimated that China spends a higher portion of GDP on defense than even the US. Plus, their economy is growing at a rate 3 times the US real growth... this is an official Chinese gov't figure of 10.2% yearly, so who knows actual accuracy of this figure.

I never said that Britain implemented its Socialist programs after World War II. My post concerned both world wars.

The difference between Socialist/Communist nations like China and the former U.S.S.R. and Great Britain is that China and the U.S.S.R. spend/spent billions of dollars on defense at the expense of their citizens. Millions of Soviet citizens starved while the nation was stockpiling ICBMs. I doubt very much that the situation in China is much better, except for the fact that they are much more open to trade with the West than the Soviet Union ever was, which is helping their economy immensely. They have learned many lessons from the former U.S.S.R. Just because a nation spends a lot on defense doesn't mean that they should or that they are actually capable of doing so in the long run.

OK - I misinterpreted your previous post...

Delusional said:

"We replaced Britian because of economic reasons, notably because of the implementation of Socialist programs to help Britian's war-torn citizens.

Click to expand...

I took that to mean WWII, due to the term "war-torn" and because the US definitely did not take Britain's place as the most powerful and influential state until after WWII. Some consider the Greek civil war the prime example of the US taking up Britain's role.

I will still argue that socialist programs do not preclude large defense spending. Taxes can be levied to cover new programs that are instituted. If social spending increases, and taxes do not increase, then you are right and it is zero-sum there - the money has got to come from another type of spending... but this is not always the case.

I see on the b.b.c that Britian is almost finished paying back the war loan ( WW2 )to America.They could buy proper quantities of body armor for their troops in harms way now .

You are right, mkloby, British socialist spending did not reduce defence spending. Great Britain introduced the NHS and National Insurance in 1949 and continued to expand its military well into the 1960s. In the 1950s, the Royal Navy was the largest it had ever been - and the navy is the most expensive arm of the military.

Britain still has high military spending now, but they spend it in all the wrong places. Most of the problem today in money wastage is in the immigration system, and paying £5,000,000,000 a year to house asylum seekers in better accomadation than our troops receive. But that's another discussion.

I do agree with delusional that Britain didn't lose it's empire because it lost the military strength it once had. Although, having the mighty Royal Navy we had in the 19th Century would be nice...

plan_D said:

You are right, mkloby, British socialist spending did not reduce defence spending. Great Britain introduced the NHS and National Insurance in 1949 and continued to expand its military well into the 1960s. In the 1950s, the Royal Navy was the largest it had ever been - and the navy is the most expensive arm of the military.

Britain still has high military spending now, but they spend it in all the wrong places. Most of the problem today in money wastage is in the immigration system, and paying £5,000,000,000 a year to house asylum seekers in better accomadation than our troops receive. But that's another discussion.

I do agree with delusional that Britain didn't lose it's empire because it lost the military strength it once had. Although, having the mighty Royal Navy we had in the 19th Century would be nice...

Click to expand...

And the NHS was predated by the National Insurance Act of 1911, which really got the ball rolling for socialism in the UK - and it seems that it was consistently expanded throughout the ensuing decades.

Don't forget that along w/ curtailed military capability following WWII, the political climate throughout the world was one of intense anti-colonialism, and made it extremely difficult for a western democracy to continue to maintain colonies. This sharply compounded UK's military difficulties. You can analyze French responses to this same sentiment, and their attempts to cling to their empire. It did not serve them well.

Britain's population was certainly war-torn after World War I as well as after World War II, don't you think? Although the U.S. had not completed its replacement of Britain until after WWII, we were certainly on the rise while Britain was certainly on the decline beginning at the end of WWI.

Good luck taxing poor citizens to cover expenses for programs that they need because they are poor.

Delusional said:

Britain's population was certainly war-torn after World War I as well as after World War II, don't you think? Although the U.S. had not completed its replacement of Britain until after WWII, we were certainly on the rise while Britain was certainly on the decline beginning at the end of WWI.

Good luck taxing poor citizens to cover expenses for programs that they need because they are poor.

Click to expand...

Great Britain, while war torn from WW1 was still quite the empire post WW1. As far as taxing poor citizens, what 's your definition of poor and what programs do you think these "poor" citizens need?