Palestine to seek UN Statehood

[scotsgit]

Fred, I'd agree but it's interesting to note the number of detractors of the Empire (ie Bernard Shaw) who were quite happy to claim the benefits of the Empire as well.

It's also interesting to see who did/didn't like it - at its height, there was worse poverty in the East End of London than anywhere else in the Empire, yet there were many men (pre-1857) from poor areas who joined the East India company's armies, others were more than happy to take jobs in the Empire that they would have had no hope of at home. It's also interesting to note that when these people ran the Empire, it seems to have run smoothly, it's in the later period when to run anything you have to have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth that it all starts going to ratshit.

I don't argue that many of those in the occupied territories doubtless opposed the Empire, but it should also be remembered that there were many (of all classes) who benefited a great deal from it - if we take the example of India, look at the vast numbers of troops who willingly joined the British Indian armies and Navy or the Civil Service which was (and still is) seen as one of the best jobs to get in India.

Yes, the other European powers were envious of the British Empire for ruling one-third of the world, yet other countries were more than happy to be associated with it, including the USA.

[ltfred]

Sept 23, 2011 5:32:24 GMT -5 scotsgit said:

Fred, I'd agree but it's interesting to note the number of detractors of the Empire (ie Bernard Shaw) who were quite happy to claim the benefits of the Empire as well.

Ad hominem- nobody's perfect, just right. The empire was a bad idea, even if the people who opposed it weren't Jesus-like enough to voluntarily accept poverty in order to fulfill the absurd moral requirements conservatives (who are wrong) like to put on being right. And for obvious reasons- it's hard to criticise rightful beliefs, and it's hard to criticise the morally upstanding people who have those beliefs (your MLKs, your Gandhis and what have you). So you put unrealistic restrictions on who are allowed to have those beliefs, and if people don't fulfill them, claim moral superiority. Because conservatives totally have the right to judge other people, right?

I actually think it should be the other way around; people who are wrong should have a greater standard to fulfill. People who are right should be given a little of leeway in personal matters.

In any case, what these people did was laudable. People like Edmund Morel went to jail to protest a system that they could have benefited from. That's even better than protesting a system that doesn't help you.

In any case, it has no bearing on the actual moral value of a thief's empire.

at its height, there was worse poverty in the East End of London than anywhere else in the Empire, yet there were many men (pre-1857) from poor areas who joined the East India company's armies,

'Yet'? I'd say 'and therefore'. These people were conscripted into the army, sure as Napoleon's legions were- they were just given the poverty draft.

others were more than happy to take jobs in the Empire that they would have had no hope of at home.

Yet again, poverty draft. You look at most poor-people's organisations from the Imperial period*; they opposed at least the kind of imperialism practiced. The abolitionists and such; they were disproportionately poor as well.

And you can see the same deal in the US. The peace movement in the 60s/70s were disproportionately ill-educated, non-white, poor Americans. Well-educated, white, wealthy Americans supported the war.

I don't argue that many of those in the occupied territories doubtless opposed the Empire, but it should also be remembered that there were many (of all classes) who benefited a great deal from it

Obviously. That's how you run a good colony- divide and conquer. Pick some group, whether it be relligious (Ireland), racial (America), social (India) or arbitrary (Rwanda). Pay them well, give them good stuff. They are in charge now- they'll keep the other 90% well down.

Yes, the other European powers were envious of the British Empire for ruling one-third of the world, yet other countries were more than happy to be associated with it, including the USA.

Very true. The US, of course, was running it's own Empire in California, the Phillipines, Cuba and so on. The logic of Manifest Destiny is the same. Virtually all the leaders of the Western World agreed that a good way to establish profitable capitalism was to rip of the unarmed black people. They were envious at Britain doing it better, and tried to cosy up to them to legitimise their own Empires.

Maybe they even convinced themselves that stealing from the poor and black and giving to the rich and white was right.

* Basically trade unions and the socialist/labor parties.

[scotsgit]

'Yet'? I'd say 'and therefore'. These people were conscripted into the army, sure as Napoleon's legions were- they were just given the poverty draft.

But that's been the main recruiting point of armies in peace time throughout history: Say to the poorest of that the have a guaranteed job, free clothing and three square meals a day and then stand back and watch the crowd stampede to join. Pre-, mid- or post-Empire it's always been the same.

Yet again, poverty draft. You look at most poor-people's organisations from the Imperial period*; they opposed at least the kind of imperialism practiced. The abolitionists and such; they were disproportionately poor as well.

And you can see the same deal in the US. The peace movement in the 60s/70s were disproportionately ill-educated, non-white, poor Americans. Well-educated, white, wealthy Americans supported the war.

Not really what I mean - what I mean is that there were many who, for whatever reason, couldn't get certain jobs at home, could go out into the Empire and take the same jobs. There seems to have been (until the latter stages of the 19th Century) very much an attitude that if you went out to serve in the Empire (in a public or private capacity) you were able to start afresh. Yes, this was done at the expense of the locals, but it's interesting to note who it was who went, many of whom were Irish.

Obviously. That's how you run a good colony- divide and conquer. Pick some group, whether it be relligious (Ireland), racial (America), social (India) or arbitrary (Rwanda). Pay them well, give them good stuff. They are in charge now- they'll keep the other 90% well down.

Yes and no - units from the (then) British Isles were usually the first to be sent abroad (which pre-Childers reforms could be for anything from 2 - 20 years), so they weren't repressing anyone at home. There are, of course, exceptions such as the 42nd Royal Highland regiment (raised to police the Highlands). Another point is that Indian and African units seem to have been used in the way Britain now uses Home Service battalions - when the British regiments went off to war, they took over their garrison duties. Obviously, there were regiments such as those comprised of Sikhs or Gurkhas who went where the rest of the army went as well as one or two Indian army units.

However, there was also a considerable amount of others outwith the military machine who capitalised on the Empire both at home and abroad, usually through Free Trade.

I'm not saying the British Empire was a benevolent entity, but Brendan's comments were far from the mark.