Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

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.

Oops, sorry. It's a fair point.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

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?

Yes that has its legacy as well. It's also a fact that most of our immigration policy originates from the country not wanting too many of the people we used to refer to as British subjects coming over here and trying to take advantage of that prosperity.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

You don't think that there might be a difference in the scale of economic extraction under these empires?

veronese68

Stevo_666 said:

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?

Wealth of the nation would be a lot better now if we'd taken a more socialist view and nationalised North sea oil rather than selling drilling rights.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

You don't think that there might be a difference in the scale of economic extraction under these empires?

So colonisation of Africa wasn't the same as say Rome colonising Britain. It's still a stretch to say both weren't colonisation - Britain was effectively ruled by Rome and they did extract slaves and raw materials. They even called their outposts Colonia.

I don't see why there should be resistance to other things being called colonisation but for one period of history where European powers exploited Africa.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

You don't think that there might be a difference in the scale of economic extraction under these empires?

There is a difference of scale in pretty much everything century on century.
I doubt the victims care much either way.

surrey_commuter

blazing_saddles said:

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.

blazing_saddles said:

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.

Half a dozen farmers in North America had no impact on our defeat of the Spanish Armada

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

You don't think that there might be a difference in the scale of economic extraction under these empires?

So colonisation of Africa wasn't the same as say Rome colonising Britain. It's still a stretch to say both weren't colonisation - Britain was effectively ruled by Rome and they did extract slaves and raw materials. They even called their outposts Colonia.

I don't see why there should be resistance to other things being called colonisation but for one period of history where European powers exploited Africa.

I wasn't aware there was resistance to referring to earlier instances of colonisation. The key point is that the the early modern European colonisation of Africa, the Americas, South and South East Asia is the bit where we are still dealing with its legacies.

david37

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?

Whoever this much maligned person is, he must be legend. I bet he nicks sweets from babys too.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

Not in the form readily understood by the term.

kingstongraham

david37 said:

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?

Whoever this much maligned person is, he must be legend. I bet he nicks sweets from babys too.

Sorry to disappoint, it's just someone who's a bit dull and predictable.

david37

kingstongraham said:

david37 said:

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?

Whoever this much maligned person is, he must be legend. I bet he nicks sweets from babys too.

Sorry to disappoint, it's just someone who's a bit dull and predictable.

oh how dull. Im surprised hes maligned on here though. hed fit in with 90% of the posters. Graham.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

You don't think that there might be a difference in the scale of economic extraction under these empires?

There is a difference of scale in pretty much everything century on century.
I doubt the victims care much either way.

No. But we're still dealing with the fallout of the most recent one.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

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?

I think it was more a response to RC claiming colonisation didn't exist before the Brits did it. Ap point he then tried to back up in Brundon Bianchi style by posting a definition that didn't actually say that just that the term is often linked with that period of European colonialism.

I don't think (m)any are saying it was a good thing but dismissing any previous empires as not really exploiting the countries they invaded (not colonised obviously) seems strange especially from a historian. Slavery was at the very heart of the Roman empire from building their impressive infrastructure to acting as personal servants and even providing their entertainment in the amphitheatres.

Pross

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

You don't think that there might be a difference in the scale of economic extraction under these empires?

So colonisation of Africa wasn't the same as say Rome colonising Britain. It's still a stretch to say both weren't colonisation - Britain was effectively ruled by Rome and they did extract slaves and raw materials. They even called their outposts Colonia.

I don't see why there should be resistance to other things being called colonisation but for one period of history where European powers exploited Africa.

I wasn't aware there was resistance to referring to earlier instances of colonisation. The key point is that the the early modern European colonisation of Africa, the Americas, South and South East Asia is the bit where we are still dealing with its legacies.

There was, Rick claimed it was invented by the Europeans in the 16th century and that the stuff before that wasn't colonisation.

ilovegrace

Just found the thread so have not been involved in what can only be described as an "interesting thread"
What I would like everyone to consider is this ,
Given that Bikeradar is a fairly wide representation of Britain , each one of us has to ask our self "am I a racist " yes or no.
I would guess the "yes" answer would be very very rare ,if at all .
So we have to ask ourselves (or at least the people who do not believe the report) ,
If we are a racist country ,"where/who are these racists "?

To he who only has a hammer everything is a nail.

david37

great empires are built off the back of massive technological or cultural advance or strengths. Empires are never going away.

As one wanes another rises. the liberality enjoyed in the waning empires give way to illiberal develoipment of new empires it has always been the same and always will be. Everyone isnt going to play by the rules that the dominant group dictates, and why should they?

China, Russia France non of them play by the rules.

In any case, we're all slaves one way or another.

blazing_saddles

surrey_commuter said:

blazing_saddles said:

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.

blazing_saddles said:

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.

Half a dozen farmers in North America had no impact on our defeat of the Spanish Armada

Perhaps not, but that was not exactly the main point.
Our colonial period started in the 16th century, not much later as you claimed.
Thanks for the example.

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

Not in the form readily understood by the term.

Since I am not sure everybody follows, could you explain the differences in say Roman Empire and what is "readily understood by the term," to the uninitiated?

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

You don't think that there might be a difference in the scale of economic extraction under these empires?

So colonisation of Africa wasn't the same as say Rome colonising Britain. It's still a stretch to say both weren't colonisation - Britain was effectively ruled by Rome and they did extract slaves and raw materials. They even called their outposts Colonia.

I don't see why there should be resistance to other things being called colonisation but for one period of history where European powers exploited Africa.

I wasn't aware there was resistance to referring to earlier instances of colonisation. The key point is that the the early modern European colonisation of Africa, the Americas, South and South East Asia is the bit where we are still dealing with its legacies.

There was, Rick claimed it was invented by the Europeans in the 16th century and that the stuff before that wasn't colonisation.

I'll let him comment on whether that's an accurate reflection of his views. Clearly the idea of invading another territory and taking over control with the aim of taking command of its resources was not a new 16th century idea. Rulers had been acquiring bits of land from one another for centuries. I think the key differences from earlier empires are the distance of the colonies from the home territory, which put a lot of the activities out of sight; the massive international transportation of slaves to provide labour for the colonies; and most importantly the ideology of a superior race bringing civilization to savages that was developed to justify what was really just a commercial operation.

I've had this debate with RC before and I'm not convinced that racism was entirely an invention of the 16th century. The idea of bringing civilization to barbarian foreigners is a hand-me-down from Greek and Roman antiquity, and almost every European ruler since has wanted to be the new Caesar. But I do think it was taken far further.

In any case, even if this is just the latest iteration, it's the one we are dealing with now. That the Romans had slaves too is a bit beside the point.

rick_chasey

blazing_saddles said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

Not in the form readily understood by the term.

Since I am not sure everybody follows, could you explain the differences in say Roman Empire and what is "readily understood by the term," to the uninitiated?

Well the Romans had a very different approach to running their empire. Read up on it if you’re interested. But there was much more listening to subjects and incorporating them and their cultures - taking on their pagan festivals and incorporating them into Roman Christianity for example.

The word colony or colonialism its current usage did t really come into existence until the 15th-16th century and is synonymous with the European empties from 16th-20th C.

It’s quite different in that the way in which Europeans ran their empire destroying entire social structures, from power structure to culture to language to faith.

They obliterated the local way of doing things to the point that when the locals finally got freedom, they knew only how to live within the structure the Europeans left.

That was not how the Romans operated; the technological means were not available.

For sure, countries invading other countries and being nasty to the locals has gone on forever - it’s still horrendous it happens. I don’t really understand why it gets brought up when people defend the empire.

I’ve made the point here that Nazi Germany took the logic of colonialism and imported it into Europe. I don’t think anyone here would defend what they did, but somehow the Empire is different because it happened in Africa and Asia.

rjsterry

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

blazing_saddles said:

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.

blazing_saddles said:

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.

Half a dozen farmers in North America had no impact on our defeat of the Spanish Armada

Perhaps not, but that was not exactly the main point.
Our colonial period started in the 16th century, not much later as you claimed.
Thanks for the example.

The RAC was founded (just) within living memory of the Armada, so it didn't take long to go from a handful of settlers to full blown slave plantations.

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

blazing_saddles said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

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?

It's a take that colonisation didn't exist until the Europeans started doing it in the 15th century is clearly nonsense.

Not in the form readily understood by the term.

Since I am not sure everybody follows, could you explain the differences in say Roman Empire and what is "readily understood by the term," to the uninitiated?

Well the Romans had a very different approach to running their empire. Read up on it if you’re interested. But there was much more listening to subjects and incorporating them and their cultures - taking on their pagan festivals and incorporating them into Roman Christianity for example.

The word colony or colonialism its current usage did t really come into existence until the 15th-16th century and is synonymous with the European empties from 16th-20th C.

It’s quite different in that the way in which Europeans ran their empire destroying entire social structures, from power structure to culture to language to faith.

They obliterated the local way of doing things to the point that when the locals finally got freedom, they knew only how to live within the structure the Europeans left.

That was not how the Romans operated; the technological means were not available.

For sure, countries invading other countries and being nasty to the locals has gone on forever - it’s still horrendous it happens. I don’t really understand why it gets brought up when people defend the empire.

I’ve made the point here that Nazi Germany took the logic of colonialism and imported it into Europe. I don’t think anyone here would defend what they did, but somehow the Empire is different because it happened in Africa and Asia.

Much appreciated, Rick.
I certainly consider some, if not all of your points, valid.
Thanks.

Pross

rjsterry said:

blazing_saddles said:

surrey_commuter said:

blazing_saddles said:

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.

blazing_saddles said:

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.

Half a dozen farmers in North America had no impact on our defeat of the Spanish Armada

Perhaps not, but that was not exactly the main point.
Our colonial period started in the 16th century, not much later as you claimed.
Thanks for the example.

The RAC was founded (just) within living memory of the Armada, so it didn't take long to go from a handful of settlers to full blown slave plantations.

That was foresight with it taking another 300 years for cars to be invented!

rjsterry

😏

The one Colston was involved in, not the more recent version.

rjsterry

ilovegrace said:

Just found the thread so have not been involved in what can only be described as an "interesting thread"
What I would like everyone to consider is this ,
Given that Bikeradar is a fairly wide representation of Britain , each one of us has to ask our self "am I a racist " yes or no.
I would guess the "yes" answer would be very very rare ,if at all .
So we have to ask ourselves (or at least the people who do not believe the report) ,
If we are a racist country ,"where/who are these racists "?

To he who only has a hammer everything is a nail.

From surveys 20-25% of the population openly admit to being racist. Bikeradar is not remotely representative of the country on many measures. We all ride bikes for a start.

Pross

rjsterry said:

😏

The one Colston was involved in, not the more recent version.

rjsterry said:

😏

The one Colston was involved in, not the more recent version.

Sorry, couldn't resist the low hanging fruit.

Stevo_666

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

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?

Wealth of the nation would be a lot better now if we'd taken a more socialist view and nationalised North sea oil rather than selling drilling rights.

Not sure how that's relevant here bit would depend on a few things, including what would have been paid to nationalise it.

Also hindsight is wonderful as usual.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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?

Yes that has its legacy as well. It's also a fact that most of our immigration policy originates from the country not wanting too many of the people we used to refer to as British subjects coming over here and trying to take advantage of that prosperity.

Not sure how that is directly relevant to the point. Although I thought that most of the recent debates about managing numbers centred on countries in the EU.