Propaganda

And even if the Britis empire were brutal (which they generally weren't), it doesn't follow that British soldiers, officers and christian missionaries were anything but brave and honorable on a personal/individual level-- unlike how they're portrayed in this simple-minded cartoon of a movie. But I guess that's a bit too much subtlety and nuance for your average Hollywood liberal to grasp.

No that was the Americans during the conquest of the Philippines although I believe they were also used before that against the Native Americans.

Do I detect some anti British feeling here.... I am British and I have always believed that there are good and bad in all. I don't care for politics or religion and what our Ancestors did is not my fault. I enjoyed the film and never occured to me that people here would get so upset about british history.
Just rememeber this:

The white Americans did to the Native Americans
The White Australians did to the Native Australians
Black Africans tribes did to each other.
Germans did to most of Europe.
Russians did to Germans when they tried to wipe out Europe.
Americans did to Japan.
The World trade Centre

The list is endless and yes the British were brutal and cruel.

Humans are basically very cruel but as I said each one has a good side and a bad side. So don't be so bigoted or narrowminded.



The best films are made in an intelligent format.

The British were the most humane and least brutal, and in the end, they gave most of their empire back to the native peoples simply because they were asked"

British treatment of Ireland is a perfect example of this...

you stay classy san diego

Hey guys,
Read my original post, not just a few lines. First, I'm not British. Second, I begin by saying that I belive that the British were wrong to build and empire. What they did was not good. I am not comparing the actions of the British to an absolute moral standard, but TO OTHER EMPIRES. The Ottomans, an empire contemporary with the British, would massacre people by the tens of thousands to make a point. Their behavior in Bulgaria so shocked the British public that it cost Disraeli the election to Gladstone (D was an Ottoman supporter). Ghandi's non-violent tactics would not have worked against most the the empires in history. It depended on the rulers having a conscience.

Can you imagine what the Nazis would have done to these peaceful demonstrations? Most imperial powers would have just kept killing people until everyone else went home. The examination to enter the British civil service during the Empire contained numerous essay questions intended to reaveal the examanee's attitudes towards power and justice. They deliberately attempted to exclude people who would abuse their power. Name another empire that did that.*(see below for irrelivant political comment)

I'm just trying to argue for a little balance here. As one of the posters said, just because the empire did some bad things, it doesn't mean that all of the Brits who went out to the empire had bad intentions. The average Victorian held themselves to a much stricter morality and valued adherance to a standard outside of their own desires than does the modern man. In short, they wanted to be honorable and good people. On a few points, obviously, they were blind, and being human, they had many failings.

If you want anti-British statements, you can get them from from me, but let's be accurate. The British govenment has lead the way in the breakdown of the laws of war, the development of the idea of total war, and the general refinement of atrocities and is particularly adept at blame-shifting (Churchill, like Lincoln in the US, being the master of this skill).

I refer specifically to the concentration camp, developed by them during the Boer war, the violation of the freedom of the seas by their close blocade of Germany during WWI, with the stated intention of starving the German population into submission (this was the single largest step towards total war, in which the civilian population is seen as a legitimate target). They continued the blockade for 4 months after Germany had surrendered. It resulted in the deaths of about 750,000 German civilians, and malnutrution for many more. The German submarine campaign was a poor-man's version of the same thing, done in response to British provocation.

They further blazed the trail by their area bombing of cities in Germany with the stated intention of "dehousing" the German population. German area bombing began as a mistake and continued as a response. However, the British government has only been able to do this through the promulgation of strong propoganda because this kind of behavior doesn't sit well with the average Englishman. They, like the Americans, need to be convinced that they have been reluctantly forced into action. When their government wants to aggrandize itself through various wars and violence overseas, they have to con the public.

So I'm not just sweetness and light about the British empire. And, BTW to the poster that said I should cite something if I want to be taken seriously, how about my citation of Gladstone? His comment on the Mahdist uprising that is the setting of the Four Feathers (this version anyway) was "they are a people rightly fighting for the freedom." His reluctance to fight there cost him his position. As did his support, on more than one occasion, of Irish home rule.

Have the Irish people forgotten Gladstone? He was a great (Victorian!) man.

Ps. Just 2 days ago I was telling my wife about the abuses perpetrated by many English landlords and rulers in Ireland. I was not defending them, let me tell you.

*The Liberal party was particularly good in this regard. It's ironic that their few remaining adherents have fled to the Torries (I mean classical 19th century liberals who believed in liberty and the dignity of the indivudual above all else), who had been their great opponents. The same thing has happened in America, where the modern followers of Thomas Jefferson's ideals find themselves an abused minority in the Republican party (again, their old opponants), courted at every election by the corporate country club and promptly sold out after they deliver their votes.

The person opening this site has written well about the British Empire.

Several comments have come from -as expected -Ireland.

All that has ever been written or said about the Irish situation can be summed up in just two sentences.

1)There is no way that in its entire history, Ireland could ever have been an independent nation

2) If it hadnt been taken under the wing of the English /British it would have been taken over by the Spanish-or possibly the French whose Empires were a hundred times more cruel, vicious and exloitive than the British and whose nations were vicious dictatorships until 1790 (France) and 1970 -(Spain)

Incidentally Ireland is not really independent now.The boom in the Celtic Tiger years was entirely the result of one person-Mrs Thatcher-who single handedly fought the European Union-like a real tiger- to let EU nations set their own level of company taxes,thus allowing Ireland to set its own taxes at virtually nil-its economy being subsidused by EU grants from French German and British taxpayers!

Blair and Brown have kept to Mrs Thatchers policy.But things may change in the future.

I'd very much like to reclaim the Empire. Not enough pink on the globe. WHO'S WITH ME?!?!?!?!?!

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here. I'm the original poster, and I've posted twice more to clarify my statements. I have to stand by my "bloody ludicrous" comment, if it is read as I originally posted it.

I said that they gave back most of their empire "when asked." I didn't say that they gave every piece up when asked and I didn't say that they gave it up when asked the first time. I'm saying that if the Brits had been like every other empire, they would have fought bloody wars to supress independence movements.

I wasn't thinking of Ireland. In fact, I would argue that Ireland was a special case, and not a true exemplar of Victorian colonialism since Ireland was the piece of empire that England had before it began to build one elsewhere. Their patterns of behavior in Ireland had been set centuries before and you had an entrenched interest group absentee landlords to hold on to old ways and fight change. It's a blot in English history.

I'm glad that Ireland has come up, though. It is important to remember and also leads back into Gladstone, who was elected PM at least 4 times as an anti-colonialist who supported Irish home rule. The enduring popularity of his message with the British peoples, in particular his sympathy for oppressed peoples, should be remembered to the credit of the Victorians.

Ps. Why does everyone think that my original post said that the British empire was sweetness and light?

[deleted]

brits get out of Eire and take the blacks with you...still stands despite current emigration

Hear Hear! The Brits frakked up a lot of people for over 200 years.

Let the truth be known though the Heavens may fall...

What the British did to the Native Americans? LMAO. The Natives were on the Brits side over the Americans. What does that tell you? The Brits abolished slavery while the Americans carried it on, and then cheated the Natives. Let's not forget all the burning down of homes the Americans did to the Canadians during the revolution either. The British empire wasn't all sweetness and light but a lot of you Americans don't seem to smell your own crap. After society had become more civil, you still carried on cheating and exploiting the native Americans. You even have a Christopher Columbus day for christ sake even though he was a scumbag who went around pillaging and raping the natives.

Maybe you should read more history books instead of watching Hollywood propaganda like The Patriot.

Its very interesting and sad to see the extraordinary hatred expressed in these posts. The same old tired stories brought out of the cupboard...
The slave trade for example..The main occupation of black African tribes was fighting and capturing slaves.Because there was little use for slaves-with no infrastructure- they were sold to slave dealers usually Arabs.This had been going on since Roman times-over a thousand years before the British arrived-and why incidentally is it always the British?-Many other European nations were involved-and of course most people in Europe were slaves themselves, either in fact -as in Russia but as Indentured Labour -where a person signed away their rights in return for food and lodging.
The British bought slaves from Arab traders from 1621-something that lasted until the American/British took over in 1776.Britain passed anti slavery laws in 1800 and worked to prevent slavery ever since-difficult because many countries in Africa and Asia and India etc are still buying and using slaves in secret today
Too bad the British are not around to stop it...

People are complaining about comparing empires etc.This is almost funny.The person who says the British Empire was the worst says he is an Indian.
If Britain had been defeated by the Germans in WW2 and the Germans had taken over India Im afraid Ghandis tactics of passive resistance would have been useless. Lying down in front of German tanks would most definitely not have worked! India would still be part of the German Empire today

Another game played by some people is always to blame the worlds present problems on the British

If the British decision to create Kashmir is a problem why hasnt Pakistan and India sensibly settled it? They have had over 60 years to do so .Most African countries have been independent for nearly fifty years-and have had huge amounts of aid.Why do they still blame the British for their troubles? Why cant they get their act together and settle their problems themselves?

But the real reason why people still attack Britain is because unlike Spain for example, Britain is still a force and influence in the world despite being bankrupted by two world wars.
Thats not bad for a small nation-to have been at the top of the world since 1600 and to be still -despite present problems -still going strong!

In Defence of the British Empire:

Firstly, I need to make clear that I am British.

Oh, it wasn't that bad. In general, it was better than other empires, massacring less of the indigenous populations, certainly less so out of a matter of government policy (I say less, not ‘none’). The British were ruthless, you can't have an empire without ruthlessness, but they attempted to rule their empire according to a moral code, particularly in the C19th and C20th.

Without a British Empire there would be no Australia, Canada, New Zealand or USA. One might say these countries would still have been colonised (or not) by another European country and would still exist in some form today, but not as we know them now and most likely not as good as they are now. Look at Mexico and all countries south of it, then compare them to the above list.

A Britain without an empire would not have been strong enough to stand up to Napoleon. Austria, Prussia, Russia and Spain were the main protagonists in the actual job of fighting Napoleon, but it was British political leadership and British money that kept them in the fray. Furthermore, Napoleon invaded Russia to force it to cut all trade links so he could starve Britain, which he would not have had to do had Britain not been a threat.

Had Napoleon been successful, then the 2 world wars may not actually have happened, at least not as we knew them. However, had they done then there would have been no-one to support France in 1914 and prevent the Germans taking Paris as they had done in 1870. Moreover, there would have been no-one to carry on the fight after the Fall of France in 1940 (and no USA to win the war in 1945).

It is argued that Britain hindered the development of its colonies, thwarting any nascent industries so it could use them as a source of cheap materials and protect its own industries. There would be some truth in this. However, many of these countries would have been colonised regardless.

Take India as a case in point: Britain began to conquer India in response to French attempts to do so. Had the Royal Navy been less powerful, India's 2nd language would now be French. Also, Britain built India's modern infrastructure, but at the cost of hindering her industrial capability. Only now are Indian companies becoming a world force. Yet would Indian companies really be so big now? They currently have a huge and growing market to feed upon, which also happens to provide a cheap labour force. India as a politcal entity is also growing in stature, as is right for a country of 1.2 billion people. However, would it be a democracy if it had not been British? Could it have developed into a dictatorship like the largely uncolonised China? Furthermore, would India even exist as a single entity? As it was, Pakistan and Bangladesh broke off in 1947 (Partition) due to religious differences, but in the late C18th the whole continent was breaking into small states as the Mughal Empire waned - that's exactly the reason why the British were able to take over in the first place.

Britain spread fire and warfare across the globe. It conquered territories, sometimes massacring or marginalising the native populations (Australia, New Zealand). It sucked resources in to power its own economic development.

On the other hand, it spread democracy, enlightenment, individual liberty and opened up markets around the world to create the global system of wealth and exchange of ideas that we enjoy today. Think hard: for all its faults, would the world really be a better place if the British Empire never existed?

Funny how the British actually ended the slave trade in India, against the wishes of the locals. They also tried to stop the brutality against untouchables, which Gandhi opposed. Yeah, the Brits did some bad things, but I'd prefer being ruled by them over your *beep* up caste system any day.

Hmm, overlooking the fact that it's okay for Muslims and Hindus to kill each other. Nice comparison.