Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] A genuine question - what did the UK gain from Indian occupation?



Comrade Sam

Comrade Sam
Jan 31, 2013
1,691
Walthamstow
The history of the British Empire is now taught with a far better understanding than when I was at school. As for the 'but others had empires as well!' guff, yes all Imperialism is bad. When one country controls another it is unfair for the inhabitants. Yes all societies are divided on class lines. But the British Empire was the biggest and not very nice. Throughout the British Empire all uprisings, whether peaceful or violent, where met with the brutality of an occupying army. In the closing decades of the empire alone there was mass uprisings in Malaysia, Kenya, Egypt, India (and what is now Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) the Yemen, Iraq etc. At least many ended with the withdrawal of the British Empire. The power of British trade and influence led to many joining the Commonwealth, not for nostalgia for the Empire. The countries of the Commonwealth are adorned with statues of resistance fighters not Queen Victoria and Cecil Rhodes. And yes the Roman Empire was bad as well. Even at the height of the Empire, many in Britain were aware of it's evils. Trade unionists in the Edwardian era would say 'The Sun never sets on the British Empire because God doesn't trust it with the lights off!' and ' The Sun never set and the blood never dried!' So still sticking with the British Empire bad.
 






GREASED WEASEL

New member
Dec 10, 2017
2,893
The history of the British Empire is now taught with a far better understanding than when I was at school. As for the 'but others had empires as well!' guff, yes all Imperialism is bad. When one country controls another it is unfair for the inhabitants. Yes all societies are divided on class lines. But the British Empire was the biggest and not very nice. Throughout the British Empire all uprisings, whether peaceful or violent, where met with the brutality of an occupying army. In the closing decades of the empire alone there was mass uprisings in Malaysia, Kenya, Egypt, India (and what is now Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) the Yemen, Iraq etc. At least many ended with the withdrawal of the British Empire. The power of British trade and influence led to many joining the Commonwealth, not for nostalgia for the Empire. The countries of the Commonwealth are adorned with statues of resistance fighters not Queen Victoria and Cecil Rhodes. And yes the Roman Empire was bad as well. Even at the height of the Empire, many in Britain were aware of it's evils. Trade unionists in the Edwardian era would say 'The Sun never sets on the British Empire because God doesn't trust it with the lights off!' and ' The Sun never set and the blood never dried!' So still sticking with the British Empire bad.

I think you need a Robin Williams type hug 'it's not your fault'

Or mine or anybody else's that are alive today
 




Comrade Sam

Comrade Sam
Jan 31, 2013
1,691
Walthamstow
I think you need a Robin Williams type hug 'it's not your fault'

Or mine or anybody else's that are alive today
Whilst my ancestors were scrabbling for
spare change in Whitechapel at the height of Empire, many of those who made a fortune from slavery and empire have descendants that still thrive today. It is remarkable how many Etonians great grand parents lorded it over the subject peoples of the Empire. So whilst we still await justice, some still think the British ran a benevolent Empire as a mission to bring light to the far reaches of the uncivilised world. I don't need a hug, just people to have a basic grasp of history.
 




dangull

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2013
5,137
The Queen had nothing to do with all of this, and I thought she was a thoroughly decent person.
She was born into this job.
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,275
Burgess Hill
Whilst my ancestors were scrabbling for
spare change in Whitechapel at the height of Empire, many of those who made a fortune from slavery and empire have descendants that still thrive today. It is remarkable how many Etonians great grand parents lorded it over the subject peoples of the Empire. So whilst we still await justice, some still think the British ran a benevolent Empire as a mission to bring light to the far reaches of the uncivilised world. I don't need a hug, just people to have a basic grasp of history.

Bollox. No one here as far as I can see is claiming the empire was a benevolent program.
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,275
Burgess Hill
So we should stop talking about history because people are dead?

Probably not going to happen. Lots of people are interested in history.

Nobodies saying that. History is a great learning tool, it has to be otherwise the mistakes of the past will get repeated. I think what most get fed up with is this constant judging of history through the eyes of the 21st century rather than through the eyes of the time the events were happening.
 




Publius Ovidius

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
46,334
at home
We teamed up with the Maharajas to take the wealth and then Lord Mountbatten's partition plan was all over the place much like himself years later in Mullaghmore.


Classy
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,252
Whilst my ancestors were scrabbling for
spare change in Whitechapel at the height of Empire, many of those who made a fortune from slavery and empire have descendants that still thrive today. It is remarkable how many Etonians great grand parents lorded it over the subject peoples of the Empire. So whilst we still await justice, some still think the British ran a benevolent Empire as a mission to bring light to the far reaches of the uncivilised world. I don't need a hug, just people to have a basic grasp of history.

India was a subcontinent where there were very rich rulers keeping their people in slavery and/or servitude before the British got there.
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,465
Turkey, iraq and Palestine were never part of the British Empire, so totally irrelevant.

The strange thing about the British Empire which anti-imperialists (such as the USA, who are a bit hypocritical when it comes to identifying with anti-imperialsm!) can't grasp is the fact that when the British Empire voluntarily dissolved, almost every country freed from Empire (including India and Pakistan) signed up to join in the Commonwealth of Nations which Britain instituted as a friendship among nations and the successor to Empire.

No other Empire has ever done that. Yes, there was good and bad about the British Empire - and I understand Empires are vilified today and that many people think it is cool to judge historical events by modern mores, ridiculous though that is - but there was obviously enough good for newly independent nations to voluntarily opt to join the Commonwealth and stay in it.

Difficult one for the haters of their own country's history too argue against, really .............. though doubtless some will try

That is an interesting measure but it really does beg a question about who made the decision to join the commonwealth? Without the detail of that decision making process it is hard to know why the decision was made and on behalf of whom.

One thing that always confuses me about post such as yours is why you feel the need to assume people's motives if they dare to dig a little deeper into the history of the empire. It smacks of a refusal to listen to anything but the chosen party line. As others have said this is a hugely complex part of history and yet for many an attempt to understand the situation fully equates to hating ones country. Surely this attitude suggests an appetite for nothing but pro Britain propaganda?

Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk
 






GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
47,532
Gloucester
That is an interesting measure but it really does beg a question about who made the decision to join the commonwealth? Without the detail of that decision making process it is hard to know why the decision was made and on behalf of whom.

One thing that always confuses me about post such as yours is why you feel the need to assume people's motives if they dare to dig a little deeper into the history of the empire. It smacks of a refusal to listen to anything but the chosen party line. As others have said this is a hugely complex part of history and yet for many an attempt to understand the situation fully equates to hating ones country. Surely this attitude suggests an appetite for nothing but pro Britain propaganda?

No, it's a statement of facts. Remarkably - and uniquely - at the end of an Empire the former countries of the Empire elected to join a wonderful international multicultural organisation vomuntaty and freely, along with the previous rulers of said Empire. It happened. It's fact. I have assumed no motives - though it appears to suit your bias to assume that I must have, because that's how you think it should be. It is just a fact - the countries of the Empire flocked to join the Commonwealth. You'd look stupid trying to deny that that's a fact.

The history of the Empire is complex; actually history is complex, period. In all complexities though, there are some facts. Sadly for some, some facts don't suit their agenda. Your post is much more about your agenda, not the one you think you perceive I have.
 


Comrade Sam

Comrade Sam
Jan 31, 2013
1,691
Walthamstow
Nobodies saying that. History is a great learning tool, it has to be otherwise the mistakes of the past will get repeated. I think what most get fed up with is this constant judging of history through the eyes of the 21st century rather than through the eyes of the time the events were happening.
Why can't we judge the obscene behaviours of the past with 21st century eyes? Because there was plenty of 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century eyes, both home and abroad that thought it obscene at the time. I assume we can't judge the slave trade, the Holocaust and Jack the Ripper because we weren't there. To understand history we have to understand it in its context and the motivation of those that participated. And by and large those that run the British Empire were nasty, greedy gits that we should condemn. As were Mughal rulers, Conquistadors and Aztec Kings. You just seem to be very touchy when British figures from the past are judged as the bad guys.
 




BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,465
No, it's a statement of facts. Remarkably - and uniquely - at the end of an Empire the former countries of the Empire elected to join a wonderful international multicultural organisation vomuntaty and freely, along with the previous rulers of said Empire. It happened. It's fact. I have assumed no motives - though it appears to suit your bias to assume that I must have, because that's how you think it should be. It is just a fact - the countries of the Empire flocked to join the Commonwealth. You'd look stupid trying to deny that that's a fact.

The history of the Empire is complex; actually history is complex, period. In all complexities though, there are some facts. Sadly for some, some facts don't suit their agenda. Your post is much more about your agenda, not the one you think you perceive I have.

So even asking a question based on the motivation of those involved in your fact (I think you mentioned it was a fact) means that I have an agenda and presumable 'hate my country'?

My response to your post was not denying your fact, it was more asking for more detail to see if it proved what you say it does.

I can see any discussion on this will go nowhere though, I will remain unenlightened. Have a good day.
 
Last edited:


pastafarian

Well-known member
Sep 4, 2011
11,902
Sussex
Why can't we judge the obscene behaviours of the past with 21st century eyes? Because there was plenty of 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century eyes, both home and abroad that thought it obscene at the time. I assume we can't judge the slave trade, the Holocaust and Jack the Ripper because we weren't there. To understand history we have to understand it in its context and the motivation of those that participated. And by and large those that run the British Empire were nasty, greedy gits that we should condemn. As were Mughal rulers, Conquistadors and Aztec Kings. You just seem to be very touchy when British figures from the past are judged as the bad guys.

You have to be grateful though the British empire wasnt communist.
That shit butchers millions j- no different from Adolph really
 




BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
17,465
Why can't we judge the obscene behaviours of the past with 21st century eyes? Because there was plenty of 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century eyes, both home and abroad that thought it obscene at the time. I assume we can't judge the slave trade, the Holocaust and Jack the Ripper because we weren't there. To understand history we have to understand it in its context and the motivation of those that participated. And by and large those that run the British Empire were nasty, greedy gits that we should condemn. As were Mughal rulers, Conquistadors and Aztec Kings. You just seem to be very touchy when British figures from the past are judged as the bad guys.

Yeah, I agree I don't think the 'it all happened a long time ago' thing carries much weight. The effects of it are still felt today. I live in Australia and the reverberations from colonial rule here are still felt strongly to this day. Things are slowly improving and people are seeing and hearing more but there are still a lot of people who blame the 'poms' and 'Europeans' for all the ills perpetrated by their forefathers in the creation of Australia.

If we can't recognize and accept the parts of history where we ****ed up we are more likely to repeat it.

or (more eloquently)

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” George Santayana
 




Blue3

Well-known member
Jan 27, 2014
5,686
Lancing
the trouble with this is its more than the GDP of India over those years. works out about 260bn on average, while typical GDP was 90-200bn in that period. in fact its more than UK GDP for half the period. some interesting re-indexing of $ being applied.

We applied taxes with that revenue we purchased Indian goods which we then sold thus more than doubling the revenue
 


Happy Exile

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 19, 2018
1,990
No, it's a statement of facts. Remarkably - and uniquely - at the end of an Empire the former countries of the Empire elected to join a wonderful international multicultural organisation vomuntaty and freely, along with the previous rulers of said Empire. It happened. It's fact. I have assumed no motives - though it appears to suit your bias to assume that I must have, because that's how you think it should be. It is just a fact - the countries of the Empire flocked to join the Commonwealth. You'd look stupid trying to deny that that's a fact.

The history of the Empire is complex; actually history is complex, period. In all complexities though, there are some facts. Sadly for some, some facts don't suit their agenda. Your post is much more about your agenda, not the one you think you perceive I have.

It's worth reflecting that a significant proportion of Indian politicians (including Nehru) wanted nothing to do with the Commonwealth and only agreed to join when it no longer required acceptance of the monarch as Head of State. To say they "flocked" is over stating it a bit. They saw the benefits in a body of mutual cooperation and interest based off existing ties in trade etc that had been built in the empire, but they explicitly didn't want to retain any sense of that being connected to Britain as a 'mother nation'.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here