Is Britain to blame for many of the world's problems?
 

David Cameron has suggested that Britain and the legacy of its empire was responsible for many of the world's historic problems. But is that view fair?

Answering questions from students in Pakistan on Tuesday, the prime minister said: "As with so many of the problems of the world, we are responsible for their creation in the first place."

Here two historians give their view.

Nick Lloyd, lecturer in defence studies, King's College London
Mr Cameron's remarks about the painful legacy of colonialism could not be further from the truth and they reveal a disappointing lack of historical judgment. The British Empire in India, known as the Raj, was the greatest experiment in paternalistic imperial government in history.

By the time the British left India in 1947 they had given the subcontinent a number of priceless assets, including the English language, but also a structure of good government, local organisation and logistical infrastructure that still holds good today. Far from damaging India, British imperial rule gave it a head start.

Continue reading the main story
?
Start Quote
The empire gave its colonies real, tangible benefits?
End Quote At the centre of this was the Indian Civil Service, the 1,000 strong "heaven-born" group of administrators that ran the country. Their role in laying the foundations for strong, efficient government in India has never been accorded the respect and admiration it deserves.

While history has recorded that the ICS were aloof and disdainful of the "natives", in reality, the men who ran India were selfless, efficient and - most importantly of all - completely incorruptible.

Not only did they oversee the spread of good government, western education, modern medicine and the rule of law, they also put in place local works, famine relief, and irrigation projects, most notably in the Punjab, which benefited enormously from what was then the largest irrigation project in the world.

Perhaps the most priceless asset of all was the English language itself, which gave a unity to the subcontinent that it had never known before and which is allowing India's people to do business around the world today with great success.

Indeed, it is indicative of this that in February 2011, a Dalit (formerly untouchable) community in Uttar Pradesh built a shrine to the goddess English, which they believe will help them learn the English language and climb out of their grinding poverty.

Although Britain was not able to replicate its success in India everywhere across its vast colonial empire, it is still clear the empire gave its colonies real, tangible benefits. Wherever the British ruled, they erected a light, relatively inexpensive form of government that was not corrupt, was stable, and was favourable to outside investors.

Its imperial civil servants may not always have been completely sympathetic to local peoples, but they were always motivated by humanitarian impulses and did their best in often difficult circumstances. Indeed, when we look at Africa, many of the benefits of imperial rule were squandered in the generations after independence with a succession of corrupt and brutal regimes.

Dr Nick Lloyd is the author of the forthcoming book The Amritsar Massacre: The Untold Story of One Fateful Day

Andrew Thompson, professor of imperial and global history, University of Leeds
Does Britain's colonial legacy still poison its relations with Africa, the Middle East and Asia? Mr Cameron's remark raises important questions for society about how we relate to history.

Continue reading the main story
?
Start Quote
Detention without trial, beatings, torture, and killings punctuated the twilight years of colonial rule?
End Quote There's the inheritance of colonial violence. What you saw in the later stages of empire was a series of British counter-insurgency operations, exported from one hot spot to another. In places such as Kenya, Palestine, Malaysia, Zimbabwe, and of course Northern Ireland, the British were forced to resort to repressive legal and military measures in what was to prove an ultimately vain attempt to curb the tide of political unrest and nationalist opposition.

Detention without trial, beatings, torture, and killings punctuated the twilight years of colonial rule. The disclosure this week of a large tranche of Foreign Office files, hitherto kept secret about full extent of British brutality against Mau Mau in Kenya, suggests there may be further revelations still to come. Will there be similar stories and claims from Palestine, Malaya, Cyprus or Nigeria?

There is also the question of whether the violence that characterised these counter-insurgency operations during decolonisation then set the scene for the way in which independent, post-colonial African and Asian governments dealt with political dissent from their own peoples.

The imperial past is far from being dead. On the contrary it is actually very much part of contemporary politics.

Perhaps we should not be surprised then when British foreign policy interests and interventions today are seen and perceived as "neo-colonial" in their nature.

The reaction of Iran in 2007 when 15 Royal Navy personnel were seized is instructive here. As heavy-handed as it may have seemed to people in Britain, it needs to be understood in the wider context of Iranian sensitivities over the presence of any western powers in or near its territorial waters - sensitivities arising in part from a very fraught and fragile 20th Century relationship over oil and territory.

In a deeper and more fundamental sense still, Britain's colonial legacy can be seen in the ways in which globalisation is being experienced today. From the 1870s onwards, the integration of labour, capital and commodity markets promoted by empire was very much skewed towards its "white" settler societies.

The economic benefits of empire for the so-called dependent colonies were much more meagre in comparison or did not exist at all. When we find critics of globalisation questioning whether economic integration and cultural diversity can comfortably co-exist, we should remember that for much of the last century the form of globalisation the world experienced rested on a view of social relations governed by racial hierarchies.

Finally, we might reverse the colonial encounter and think about how empire has left an imprint on British society. Despite its multi-ethnic empire, Britain did not embrace ethnic diversity at home.

There was the rhetoric of an inclusive imperial citizenship for the peoples of all Commonwealth countries. But in reality in post-war Britain there was little desire to promote integration for immigrants from the likes of the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent.

The consequences are perhaps reflected in experiences today, especially in terms of the so-called ethnic penalty many of these communities face in education, employment or housing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12992540

How many Jews does Britain have?

yes, he's right, he always is.

They have their share of responsibility for sure.

I will have to read this later, sounds interesting at the least.

UK was aware about the upcoming turkish invasion to Cyprus, yet it didn't warn the local govt obviously as a result of following a long-term geopolitical agenda.

I stopped right there because that's all I needed to see to realize this was going to be
noting more than a "supremacy rant".

As if governments cannot function unless they speak English.
That assertion alone is so absurd that reading more of it would truly be a
waste of time.

To even refer to the English language as "priceless" when Russia, Germany, Italy,
France, Spain, Japan, China, etc... function quite well without it is just insane.

English is only valuable when trying to speak to arrogant westerners who will
not "stoop" to learn any other language themselves.

yes when their empire withdrew they left behind territorial demarcations that are the root of most of the conflicts in the world today.

I blame the African cunts seeing as:

A) We all came from Africa

and

B) We all came from Africa

Duh. Stupid cunt.

Ever heard of the "international banking language".

If you want to do business with other countries it's best to learn ONE SINGLE LANGUAGE so that EVERYONE can learn/understand it.

No fucker can learn 10 - 20 languages just to keep up with other folks.

Dumb fucking cunt.

I hope you don't fly.

Oops.

Drunk posting btw

DUHHHH

When the Brits were closing down the Empire it was because of an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt. Part of the War Aid program, to provide the UK with the goods required to fight the Nazis, was closing down the British Empire. Not a gradual orderly withdrawal, just a get out ASAP.

Also the countries fighting for self rule weren't asking for Britain to leave the country slowly and teach them how to run a Democratic Country. They wanted the British out ASAP so they could manage their own affairs. With hind sight as you point out they were clearly unable to do that peacefully.

It ended a lot of the time as tribe against tribe, race against race and religion against religion. Slaughtering each other.

When the world was putting pressure on Prime Minister Smith of Rhodesia to proclaim equal voting rights to all Rhodesians, ethnic African or European did they stop to think of the consequences? No they just went ahead and Mugabe is the result and now from being the Bread Basket of Africa exporting food, Zimbabwe is the Basket Case of Africa living on hand out.

And whose fault is it?

Always the White man. They want Independence, so long as they're supported by the West. Left on there own some can survive and a lot can't.

Most of the time because the very few at the top are soaking up all the money and letting those at the bottom starve. Look at the leaders, do you see a thin one? Then look at the people.

How many times is a leader kicked out to live penniless and how many times to live in a luxury on a few billionaires experience. Gaddafi is just one of many filling his pockets while his people starve. I suppose that's our fault as well, giving him the money. Us = US, EU, UK, Japan, China, Russia, Canada, and every other country sending him and other tyrants money, guns and what ever they asks for.

Remember Marcos in the Philippines?

Agent you're clueless. Go read some books on World History in the 20th Century.

god shut up. you totally missed what i said again and used it as an excuse to post your nonsensical dribble.

You are mad because you're too fucking lazy and stupid to learn another language.

:1orglaugh


Lazy assed one voiced westerner.

Motherfuckers have translators in the business world and the CEO doesn't need
to know 8 languages, he just needs a labor pool that's not full of arrogant jackasses
that think they are bowing to domination because they learn about another culture.

Drop your pig ass attitude about other cultures and you will easily see that
no one language is needed in the global economy.

You're just afraid of other languages because you fear having to learn something.
You fear because you are stupid.
You fear being left behind.

You're already behind with your Japanese car and Korean television.
They translate the owners manual so your dumb one voiced ass can read it.
But if they didn't translate it, you would still buy it because it's better than
the shit produced by arrogant one voiced pigs of hatred.

:1orglaugh

I hope you don't travel abroad because it would blow your feeble mind apart to
realize how many people don't give a shit about speaking English.

Nothing wrong with a little interracial sex every now and again

When I go on holiday, it always amuses me to see a German tourist talking to a Spanish waiter in ENGLISH.

See, common ground.

Nuff said.

ps, personally speaking, I'm quite good in 3 languages beyond English.

I'm also just a realist...

No I didn't. I told you why the withdrawal was so fast and was so bad. You had no intelligent reply so didn't try to offer one.

The US and the countries in the Empire wanted the Brits out ASAP. They weren't able to to draw lines in the map on their own without killing each other. And that was the Brit fault????

As for US involvement overseas, that's a shambles and nothing to be proud of. Supporting dictatorships that kept the population under an iron fist. Not promoting real democracies and all in the name of profit.

Look at the history of Persia/Iraq, Cuba, Philippines and lot's of places in S. America. So long as the ruler was anti communist he was fine.

I forgot Vietnam. Another fine example of the US supporting a despot.

Yep, it's all Britain's fault. The rest of us expect to be compensated.

What I meant was all planes run in English but you're too busy having fun being abusive to realise.

Somebody has to take the blame

What a load of crap, according to that article, the countries in the empire only did badly from their occupation. so those countries didnt benefit from Britain's industrial revolution or (for the time) advanced social reform. the protection and internal trade the empire gave? Britain dragged most of those countries into a state where they were ready for world stage trading. If the empire was so bad, how come most of them still want to be in the commonwealth?

It's just another lefty BBC propoganda piece. Coming at a time when the British people are finally waking up to how the country has been irriversably destroyed in the last 25 years by the PC brigade and rampant immigration, the article is just another piece of "us brits are bastard and deserve to now be the dumping place of the world so suck on it."

Please chant along with me :

America is the shit 'cause we kicked out the Brits
Now the Brits ain't worth a bag of grits
Dumb motherfuckers can suck my dick
America is the shit 'cause we kicked out the Brits

:thumbsup


:1orglaugh

look in the history books and you'll see that america wasn't a big prize to the empire, it was more interested in the east - america was not seen as being worth getting in too much of a spat with the French.

And it can't possibly be the Natives can it?

Before the Europeans came to Africa it was mostly like the National Parks they have today. Forest, Jungle and open plains. Mostly tribal, mostly warring amongst each other, look into the history of the Zulus for more, some farming on a small scale and hunter gatherer tribes.

The Europeans built houses like this off the profits from the farms.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53...7c3ef2029a.jpg

Not sure if that one was but many like it were.

Growing crops like tobacco, maize, rice, coffee, bananas and fruits. Plus beef and also horses I believe. Remember Rhodesia EXPORTED food. When run by the Europeans. There was also natural wealth in the ground, diamonds, gold and other metals.

There is absolutely no reason at all why Africa should be getting Aid. But today it's run by Africans and all they did was carry on as they were before fighting tribal wars with a few at the top being immensely wealthy while the rest suffer. Even in countries that are a success the gap between wealthy and poor is vast.

In India it's the same, a few very rich, some middle class and millions living in poverty, yet it's one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Yes all Empires and great countries have skeletons in their cupboards. Like the Spanish and their slaughter of the native population of S. America. The Spanish were up in arms and tried to invade England because we were stealing the gold they stole from the Aztecs and Incas. The Americans slaughtering American Indians, many many countries profiting from slavery.

The list goes on and still today it happens. Russia with it's Empire, China invading Tibet and still India and Pakistan can't stop fighting over a piece of land that's pretty useless. And is America in Afghanistan to help the people or itself. Add Iraq to that question as well.

Most here get their history from the movies they see.

You're spot on. America was not a big piece of the Empire, it was a back water. Africa, India and Hong Kong were all far far more important.

None of that(if even true) changes the fact that America became a much
better functioning country after kicking out the Brits.

In fact America became so much better operating that it emerged as the
new economic and military power in the world.

The nations that were not able to kick the Brits out at that time lagged far
behind the advancements of the US. The longer the Brits stayed in a nation
the further behind the nation got when compared to nations that overthrew the
empire in earlier times.

Get over yourselves.

You promised gold and grain but delivered nothing but suffering and pain.

The Brits left a fucking mess in Zimbabwe with it's racist allocation of farm land
to whites. Then proceeded to embark on a bitter campaign of economic destruction
upon the liberated nation. With calls to the western world to impose harsh sanctions
with the purpose of starving Africans. The slander of Mugabe continues as the
Brits are bitter to the end about their defeat.

Accusing Mugabe of "taking land" from whites when in fact it is the Brits that
reneged on their agreement to compensate white farmers for the land that was
already agreed to be turned over and voluntary delayed for a decade to further
assist the transition of white farmers at the expense of starving Africans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe#Land_reform



The message from the rest of the world to the Brits is clear :

Stay the fuck out!

You manage a nation with racism, hatred and arrogance and launch bitter campaigns
of lies and distortions when you are defeated and run out of town.
You leave town with a "scorched earth withdrawal" in hopes of punishing the
liberated people who dare to rise to end their never ending suffering under
British tyranny.



Cliff Notes : Links pulled!

:1orglaugh

England and most of Europe.

america only became the world leaders due to them fucking over everyone else during world war 2 america was a mercenary force that demanded to be paid for the war the cost of which bankrupt Britain for decades afterwards. A great deal of Britains ill's can be directly attributed to having to pay back that crippling debt.

Are you serious? do you know what is happening in that country? apart from the fact that those handovers are being done by force, do you really think that the black who are taking over those farms know how to run them? those farms are being handed to currupt govenment officals who only want to run the farms into the ground to make a quick buck, which of cause, means that the ordinary black worker will be the ones to suffer the most when the economy fails and famine strikes

And talking of racism is funny from an american. america was for many, many years, one of only two countries to have an aggresive apartheid policy (along with South Africa).

LOL, no. the message from the rest of the world is, why do you hang around with america?

That still beats the heck out of letting the Nazis run you over.

If Britain went broke then don't you think America would have gone broke
without payment? Thinking that America should go broke defending it's former
imperial masters is not reasonable.


Yes, I am serious because it was Britain's obligation under the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979 to pay white farmers for land so that they would not be forced
out without compensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Agreement

Further, I think you know the score on who gets "first dibs" in a resource deal.
The elite of course! Where and when has this type of corruption not occurred?
It should be expected in reality.

And finally, it was not Britain's responsibility to decide how the land was re-distributed.
It was only their responsibility to pay the white farmers.
They reneged!
And that caused the problems as self styled vigilantes, who were tired of 100
of years of bullshit, simply started taking the land back the same way
it was taken from Africans.

Steal by the sword and fucking die by it when people reclaim their shit.

The collapse of the Zimbabwean currency is directly caused by the bitter
western boycott of the currency in international trade which makes the import
of farming machinery/goods next to impossible and thus is the cause
of all the failed farming.

But hey, blame it on niggaz because you can't swallow the bitter pill that
you made yourself.



Yeah, America has a racist past but has also done more than any country in the
world to actually address it.

America has an elected black president while only 12% of the nation is black,
what about your government?
I heard Tony Blair liked fried chicken, is that as close as you Brits can get? :1orglaugh

I'm just surprised that your parliament doesn't still wear those stupid white wigs.
Or maybe you still do, I'm not sure. :1orglaugh


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...eG4KihjWuVP0JK


The legacy of the British Empire is a stain on the cloth of humanity.

:pimp

He's black? His mummy was white and from English descent. That makes him mixed race. you could say that he's white, just as much as he's black.

The legacy of america's rule is yet to be finalised but you have to admit, history isn't going to look kindly on it - Once the american economic empire is dead, it's history will make the wrong-doings of the British empire look pedestrian.

Yes you could.

But who did?

:1orglaugh

And that would be a whole different issue that reaches across the globe.

Every Major Government in the world has a good number if not a majority of the people that speak english to some level.

While I do agree with you about the supremacy rant its more of a rant of how supreme the british are.

Yes they built a government but they also destroyed one to build their own.

Did they leave it a better place? No I dont think they did.