Britain is responsible for all the ills of the World?

[shoeshine]

Yes that is quite correct.

But while the English were there conditions improved dramatically.

In reality the only people who suffered during the British Empire were the people at home.

All others saw a massive leap in living conditions.

 

Really, artisan.......PPPLLEEEEEZZZZEEEEEEE!

[LordChaverly]

Really, artisan.......PPPLLEEEEEZZZZEEEEEEE!

 

There is actually quite a lot of truth in what artisan says here shoey. We are so blinded by the liberal/leftist paradigm of the Empire as a monodirectional exploitative enterprise, purely motivated by collective economic gain that we fail to understand that the reality was far more complicated than that and that it sprang from a mixture of motives (some of them even altruistic, or indirectly beneficial). Moreover, even Marx recognised the benefits accruing to the colonies from the Empire as a modernising force. The ordinary working people of the UK were living and working in dreadful conditions for starvation wages more or less throughout the period of the Empire and were hardly the beneficiaries of it. Indeed, much of the indigenous capital which might have been used to develop the UK was flowing outwards to the colonies during this period and by no means all of it flowed back. Look at any old photographs of the conditions in which ordinary Brits were living in during this period and then ask the fundamental 'cui bono' question in relation to the Empire.

[shoeshine]

There is actually quite a lot of truth in what artisan says here shoey. We are so blinded by the liberal/leftist paradigm of the Empire as a monidrectional exploitative enterprise, purely motivated by collective economic gain that we fail to understand that the reality was far more complicated than that and that it sprang from a mixture of motives (some of them even altruistic, or indirectly beneficial). Moreover, even Marx recognised the benefits accruing to the colonies from the Empire as a modernising force. The ordinary working people of the UK were living and working in dreadful conditions for starvation wages more or less throughout the period of the Empire and were hardly the beneficiaries of it. Indeed, much of the indigenous capital which might have been used to develop the UK was flowing outwards to the colonies during this period and by no means all of it flowed back. Look at any old photographs of the conditions in which ordinary Brits were living in during this period and then ask the fundamental 'cui bono' question in relation to the Empire.

 

I fully understand your point, Lord Chaverly, but I would question strongly your premise that wealth did not flow back to Britain. Of course it did.

 

Unfortunately, the governing/ruling classes chose to keep it unto themselves, perhaps, with no reward or advancement in the quality of life available to the general populace at the time.

 

That's how we have vast National Trust Estates to view these days.

[KenH]

Britain clearly is to blame for many of the worlds problems but we are only one of the culprits. If you trace any problem backwards then you will find lots of contributing factors and we will be behind some of them. Take the current problems in Iraq, we are responsible because we invaded but we are also responsible because we drew the borders of Iraq after the Great War. The US is also responsible because they invaded and Turkey is responsible because they invaded in 1915. The Austrian Empire is responsible for starting a war in which Turkey took part, or maybe the Bl**dy Serbians are to blame. If we hadn't drawn the borders in (I think) 1919 then who can say if greater chaos might not have broken out and things might have been much worse.

[fr8neck]

=KenH;2016288]Britain clearly is to blame for many of the worlds problems but we are only one of the culprits.

 

Do you mean you?

 

Are you trying to drag me and mine into this culpability lark?

[JoeP]

There is the joke that the most dangerous thing in the Post WW1 world was a Brit and a Frenchman with a map, pencil and ruler.

 

Anyone who's had any impact on the world could be have said to have led to the current world situation. The way in which we treated our subject nations was very much 'de riguer' for imperial powers of the day and it's foolish to try and judge the behaviours of 300 years ago with the knowledge and ethical stance of today.

[Bozo]

There is actually quite a lot of truth in what artisan says here shoey. We are so blinded by the liberal/leftist paradigm of the Empire as a monidrectional exploitative enterprise, purely motivated by collective economic gain that we fail to understand that the reality was far more complicated than that and that it sprang from a mixture of motives (some of them even altruistic, or indirectly beneficial). Moreover, even Marx recognised the benefits accruing to the colonies from the Empire as a modernising force. The ordinary working people of the UK were living and working in dreadful conditions for starvation wages more or less throughout the period of the Empire and were hardly the beneficiaries of it. Indeed, much of the indigenous capital which might have been used to develop the UK was flowing outwards to the colonies during this period and by no means all of it flowed back. Look at any old photographs of the conditions in which ordinary Brits were living in during this period and then ask the fundamental 'cui bono' question in relation to the Empire.

 

Quite clearly British workers were not the beneficiaries. While you might argue that there was little difference in the levels of absolute exploitation, in strictly Marxist terms British workers faced a higher level of relative exploitation, producing higher levels of 'surplus value' due to higher levels of machinisation. Of course this in part is why Marx saw some progress in the development of the colonies, because he believed it would make them ripe for socialism. While Marx saw economic laws as underlying historical developments, he was never so crude as to attribute economics as the motivating factor in each and every political turn. It is an ongoing argument as to whether a section of British workers did begin to benefit towards the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century (the so called labour aristocracy).

Even allowing for the above, however, it is also true that colonisation did do a lot of damage, people were treated abysmally and much of the ongoing damage was done by the method in which Britain then chose to leave former colonies, leaving behind unnatural land divisions and deliberately selecting minority rulers.

[evildrneil]

PAH! we were only copying the Roman Empire so all the ills of the world are the Italians fault and they should hang their heads in shame and feel guilty for the fact even though it was over 2 thousand years ago! In fact why not take the sins of the father thing to it's logical extreme and blame everything on mitochondrial Eve - those damn rift valley hominids it's all their fault

[rubydazzler]

In fact why not take the sins of the father thing to it's logical extreme and blame everything on mitochondrial Eve

 

I knew it'd end up being all our fault

[evildrneil]

I knew it'd end up being all our fault

 

Your 140,000 years old I wouldn't have put you a day over 135,000!