Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

rick_chasey

If you think it’s a question of invading and conquering *you are missing the defining feature of it*

The exploitation bit is the important bit. That’s what separates it from territorial expansion. Specifically for the benefit of the colonising nation, at the expense of the locals.

pblakeney

A bit tetchy when facts don't suit the narrative. 🤣

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

A bit tetchy when facts don't suit the narrative. 🤣

It’s not a f@cking narrative.

It is so telling people don’t realise it refers specifically to the practices Europeans did elsewhere.

The point of mentioning other non-colonialist examples as examples of colonialism is to move the discussion on from examining what actually occurred during colonialism.


And before you say it, it’s not hand wringing but people should know what actually happened under the process of colonialism.

rick_chasey

What is so challenging to people that a lot of the successes that brought the nation wealth are off the back of exploitation of other people in the world?

Own it and understand it.

pblakeney

pblakeney said:

noun: colonisation
the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.

Jezyboy

I find it incredibly difficult to beleive that a European country not partaking in the scramble for Africa would have in turn found itself carved up by Europeans.

I also wonder quite what the anti woke brigade think is being taught in schools. Unless the history curriculum has got remarkably "PC" under the tories, the A-level syllabus on Empire is really quite forgiving of men like Rhodes.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

pblakeney said:

noun: colonisation
the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.

Christ. You found one definition.

You know there are lots?

Here’s another from forum favourite Wikipedia

Colonialism is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas,[1][2][3] often by establishing colonies[4] and generally with the aim of economic dominance.[5] In the process of colonisation, colonisers may impose their religion, language, economics, and other cultural practices on indigenous peoples. The foreign administrators rule the territory in pursuit of their interests, seeking to benefit from the colonised region's people and resources.[6] It is associated but distinct to imperialism.[1]

Colonialism is strongly associated with the European colonial period starting with the 15th century when some European states established colonising empires. At first, European colonising countries followed policies of mercantilism, aiming to strengthen the home-country economy, so agreements usually restricted the colony to trading only with the metropole (mother country). By the mid-19th century, however, the British Empire gave up mercantilism and trade restrictions and adopted the principle of free trade, with few restrictions or tariffs. Christian missionaries were active in practically all of the European-controlled colonies because the metropoles were Christian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

There's a lovely section below on “definitions” too

rick_chasey

Here’s one from that section

Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.

and another

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the term "to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world, including the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia".

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Here’s one from that section

Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.

Thank you for agreeing with me.
Or are you claiming Genghis Khan did not do the above?

blazing_saddles

Jezyboy said:

I find it incredibly difficult to beleive that a European country not partaking in the scramble for Africa would have in turn found itself carved up by Europeans.

How could a European country possibly be taken over by other Europeans?
It's as if the 20th century never happened.

I'm sorry and I am not in any way condemning the views expressed by many in this thread in regard of Africa, nor am I seeking to derailed the direction of this thread.

However the idea that erasing the Empire from history would have had little effect on how human history played out in it's absence, is nonsense.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

I guess we must have 'let' Spain, Portugal, France, Russia the Dutch and quite a few more grow rich and powerful from their own empires. 😂 Not sure there was ever much of a risk of us becoming part of any of those empires. Spain had one half-arsed attempt but most of the time we were just squabbling over who controlled which colony.

Well never know I guess, but better that we were safe than sorry. We've just extracted ourself from another wannabe empire in case you hadn't noticed

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Oh my god I can’t deal with f@cking stupid people today.

Have a think about why sensible learned people don’t refer to the Uk being colonised and why it’s almost always referring to what the Europeans did from the 15-16th century onwards.

If you don’t understand that colonialism is about exploiting the colony (almost always under the pressure of violence), you don’t understand what colonialism is.

If you think colonialism is great you don’t understand how it works and you don’t understand what happened in the colonies.

If you think colonialism is some “kill or be killed” scenario for Europeans you are either really ill educated or a moron.

It’s not up for discussion because it’s not debatable.

Coming up with examples *that aren’t colonialism* to describe what you think colonialism is is moronic.

F@ck me every time colonialism comes up the moronic takes come out.

Why not read about about what happened in the actual colonies hmm?

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the very essence of condescension....

Read the point again before you re-mount your high horse.

Jezyboy

blazing_saddles said:

Jezyboy said:

I find it incredibly difficult to beleive that a European country not partaking in the scramble for Africa would have in turn found itself carved up by Europeans.

How could a European country possibly be taken over by other Europeans?
It's as if the 20th century never happened.

I'm sorry and I am not in any way condemning the views expressed by many in this thread in regard of Africa, nor am I seeking to derailed the direction of this thread.

However the idea that erasing the Empire from history would have had little effect on how human history played out in it's absence, is nonsense.

I was trying to make a point about the suggestion that colonialism somehow saved us from being a colony. Honestly, I think it's pretty laughable.

In the Early 20th Century having an empire didn't exactly save the Belgians. What was arguably of most use to Britain was the Sea, and being friends with the USA.

Most people who highlight the nastier sides of empire aren't trying to erase the Empire are they? Just trying to make sure that the bad parts don't get erased.

surrey_commuter

blazing_saddles said:

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

Those ones are in "no point crying over spilt milk" territory. Otherwise you could make a good case for the benefits.

So, we can dismiss the ones that actually happened, because they were so long ago and ignore the inconvenient ones that would have happened, without Britain's colonial expansion.
The Empire was the overriding reason for Britain having a powerful navy, without which, even Spain's half-arsed attempt would probably have succeeded.

Interesting how this contemporary view of history manages to ignore and dismiss pretty much anything that doesn't tie into it's focal point.

Britain did not exist in 1588 and the only overseas territory was Ireland which did not add to our wealth and might of the navy which at the time was little different from pirates trying to steal the overseas wealth of the Spanish which by your logic would mean the Armada should have succeeded.

The British Empire came much later and it is then that we built up the RN to police the world’s trade routes. It is said that after Trafalgar nobody even tried to fight the RN for 100 years.

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

blazing_saddles said:

Jezyboy said:

I find it incredibly difficult to beleive that a European country not partaking in the scramble for Africa would have in turn found itself carved up by Europeans.

How could a European country possibly be taken over by other Europeans?
It's as if the 20th century never happened.

I'm sorry and I am not in any way condemning the views expressed by many in this thread in regard of Africa, nor am I seeking to derailed the direction of this thread.

However the idea that erasing the Empire from history would have had little effect on how human history played out in it's absence, is nonsense.

I was trying to make a point about the suggestion that colonialism somehow saved us from being a colony. Honestly, I think it's pretty laughable.

In the Early 20th Century having an empire didn't exactly save the Belgians. What was arguably of most use to Britain was the Sea, and being friends with the USA.

Most people who highlight the nastier sides of empire aren't trying to erase the Empire are they? Just trying to make sure that the bad parts don't get erased.

Nobody is denying that bad things happened. That was the way of the world in those days. But there were also major benefits for us as a nation. And in any event, we can't change it now regardless of how much people bang on about how horrible they thought it all was.

surrey_commuter

Am I allowed to say that from a British point of view the Empire was very successful. I would also say that the majority of Brits are clueless about what that meant to the overseas parts of our Empire and for that reason have a deluded notion that the rest of the world likes us when in reality they think we are a bunch of cvnts who they continue to love seeing cut down to size

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Oh my god I can’t deal with f@cking stupid people today.

Have a think about why sensible learned people don’t refer to the Uk being colonised and why it’s almost always referring to what the Europeans did from the 15-16th century onwards.

If you don’t understand that colonialism is about exploiting the colony (almost always under the pressure of violence), you don’t understand what colonialism is.

If you think colonialism is great you don’t understand how it works and you don’t understand what happened in the colonies.

If you think colonialism is some “kill or be killed” scenario for Europeans you are either really ill educated or a moron.

It’s not up for discussion because it’s not debatable.

Coming up with examples *that aren’t colonialism* to describe what you think colonialism is is moronic.

F@ck me every time colonialism comes up the moronic takes come out.

Why not read about about what happened in the actual colonies hmm?

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the very essence of condescension....

Read the point again before you re-mount your high horse.

That Britain - or more specifically the Crown and those that held key commercial interests in organisations like the RAC and the EIC - did very well out of exploiting its Empire is a statement of the bleeding obvious. The point is that for the places we colonised, particularly India and it was disastrous. The idea that the empire was established to prevent Britain from being colonised is nonsense. For sure some of the wealth extracted from the empire was spent on defence, but its purpose was commercial. The colonisation of India was carried out by a private company and only later brought under the Crown.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

The point is that for the places we colonised, particularly India and it was disastrous. The idea that the empire was established to prevent Britain from being colonised is nonsense. For sure some of the wealth extracted from the empire was spent on defence, but its purpose was commercial. The colonisation of India was carried out by a private company and only later brought under the Crown.

I watched a docudrama about it ages ago, featuring Sid James. I think that taught me all I need to know.

DeVlaeminck

The intention of the report is not to deny the transatlantic slave trade was terrible but just that the history of black and other ethnic minorities re. Britain should not be framed purely in terms of slavery and exploitation. So in education he wants the curriculum to reflect how Britain has been influenced by immigration as well as how immigrants have adapted to Britain.

Sewell's forward to the report talks about creating a narrative purely in terms of victim hood ignores the reality of modern Britain where the stats in education and social mobility shows that often minorities do as well or better than the white British population and where they don't disparities can be mostly explained by factors such as class and geography.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

blazing_saddles said:

Jezyboy said:

I find it incredibly difficult to beleive that a European country not partaking in the scramble for Africa would have in turn found itself carved up by Europeans.

How could a European country possibly be taken over by other Europeans?
It's as if the 20th century never happened.

I'm sorry and I am not in any way condemning the views expressed by many in this thread in regard of Africa, nor am I seeking to derailed the direction of this thread.

However the idea that erasing the Empire from history would have had little effect on how human history played out in it's absence, is nonsense.

I was trying to make a point about the suggestion that colonialism somehow saved us from being a colony. Honestly, I think it's pretty laughable.

In the Early 20th Century having an empire didn't exactly save the Belgians. What was arguably of most use to Britain was the Sea, and being friends with the USA.

Most people who highlight the nastier sides of empire aren't trying to erase the Empire are they? Just trying to make sure that the bad parts don't get erased.

Nobody is denying that bad things happened. That was the way of the world in those days. But there were also major benefits for us as a nation. And in any event, we can't change it now regardless of how much people bang on about how horrible they thought it all was.

Well quite a lot of people are claiming just that; or at least being colonised wasn't as bad as all that. And it's not just people banging on about things that happened before we were born: this is still having material effects on people's lives.

david37

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

Those ones are in "no point crying over spilt milk" territory. Otherwise you could make a good case for the benefits.

So, we can dismiss the ones that actually happened, because they were so long ago and ignore the inconvenient ones that would have happened, without Britain's colonial expansion.
The Empire was the overriding reason for Britain having a powerful navy, without which, even Spain's half-arsed attempt would probably have succeeded.

Interesting how this contemporary view of history manages to ignore and dismiss pretty much anything that doesn't tie into it's focal point.

Because colonialism refers to a specific form of empire as acted out by Europeans in the 16th-18th century.

Heavily orientated around subjugation of colonies and exploiting them parasitically.

shocker one human group subjugates, enslaves, rpes and pillages. Whats wrong with that? it's natural, even the chimps do it.

david37

rick_chasey said:

What is so challenging to people that a lot of the successes that brought the nation wealth are off the back of exploitation of other people in the world?

Own it and understand it.

So what. Id rather be the beneficiary in that scenario.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Am I allowed to say that from a British point of view the Empire was very successful. I would also say that the majority of Brits are clueless about what that meant to the overseas parts of our Empire and for that reason have a deluded notion that the rest of the world likes us when in reality they think we are a bunch of cvnts who they continue to love seeing cut down to size

Not so much the rest of the world as quite few people posting on here?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Jezyboy said:

blazing_saddles said:

Jezyboy said:

I find it incredibly difficult to beleive that a European country not partaking in the scramble for Africa would have in turn found itself carved up by Europeans.

How could a European country possibly be taken over by other Europeans?
It's as if the 20th century never happened.

I'm sorry and I am not in any way condemning the views expressed by many in this thread in regard of Africa, nor am I seeking to derailed the direction of this thread.

However the idea that erasing the Empire from history would have had little effect on how human history played out in it's absence, is nonsense.

I was trying to make a point about the suggestion that colonialism somehow saved us from being a colony. Honestly, I think it's pretty laughable.

In the Early 20th Century having an empire didn't exactly save the Belgians. What was arguably of most use to Britain was the Sea, and being friends with the USA.

Most people who highlight the nastier sides of empire aren't trying to erase the Empire are they? Just trying to make sure that the bad parts don't get erased.

Nobody is denying that bad things happened. That was the way of the world in those days. But there were also major benefits for us as a nation. And in any event, we can't change it now regardless of how much people bang on about how horrible they thought it all was.

Well quite a lot of people are claiming just that; or at least being colonised wasn't as bad as all that. And it's not just people banging on about things that happened before we were born: this is still having material effects on people's lives.

Like the wealth it generated for the country which probably had a knock on benefit to the current times?

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Here’s one from that section

Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonised people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonised population, the colonisers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.

Thank you for agreeing with me.
Or are you claiming Genghis Khan did not do the above?

Not following this entirely, it's clearly just a woke-fest as usual, there's only wokes on BR.

But is this a "Genghis Khan wasn't so bad" take or a "British Empire wasn't ideal" take?

blazing_saddles

Jezyboy said:

blazing_saddles said:

Jezyboy said:

I find it incredibly difficult to beleive that a European country not partaking in the scramble for Africa would have in turn found itself carved up by Europeans.

How could a European country possibly be taken over by other Europeans?
It's as if the 20th century never happened.

I'm sorry and I am not in any way condemning the views expressed by many in this thread in regard of Africa, nor am I seeking to derailed the direction of this thread.

However the idea that erasing the Empire from history would have had little effect on how human history played out in it's absence, is nonsense.

I was trying to make a point about the suggestion that colonialism somehow saved us from being a colony. Honestly, I think it's pretty laughable.

In the Early 20th Century having an empire didn't exactly save the Belgians. What was arguably of most use to Britain was the Sea, and being friends with the USA.

Most people who highlight the nastier sides of empire aren't trying to erase the Empire are they? Just trying to make sure that the bad parts don't get erased.

That's what I have been at pains to point out, but never mind.

kingstongraham

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

But is this a "Genghis Khan wasn't so bad" take or a "British Empire wasn't ideal" take?

Does it matter, if he provokes a reaction?

blazing_saddles

surrey_commuter said:

blazing_saddles said:

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

It's almost definitely better having an empire rather than being a part of someone else's. Which was probably the alternative if we had let other countries grow powerful and rich instead of us.

Sorry, who is supposed to have colonised the UK?

And how does an empire protect against the UK being invaded?

Romans, Angles, Saxons, French and Vikings all gave it a good go and we live with their influences still today. Unless there is an arbitrary self imposed cutoff date.

Those ones are in "no point crying over spilt milk" territory. Otherwise you could make a good case for the benefits.

So, we can dismiss the ones that actually happened, because they were so long ago and ignore the inconvenient ones that would have happened, without Britain's colonial expansion.
The Empire was the overriding reason for Britain having a powerful navy, without which, even Spain's half-arsed attempt would probably have succeeded.

Interesting how this contemporary view of history manages to ignore and dismiss pretty much anything that doesn't tie into it's focal point.

Britain did not exist in 1588 and the only overseas territory was Ireland which did not add to our wealth and might of the navy which at the time was little different from pirates trying to steal the overseas wealth of the Spanish which by your logic would mean the Armada should have succeeded.

The British Empire came much later and it is then that we built up the RN to police the world’s trade routes. It is said that after Trafalgar nobody even tried to fight the RN for 100 years.

Ok, so in it's infancy perhaps, but I think you will find that England's colonial period started in the 16th century.
Even the BBC agrees here.

kingstongraham

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

But is this a "Genghis Khan wasn't so bad" take or a "British Empire wasn't ideal" take?

Does it matter, if he provokes a reaction?

Wasn't him said it.