A Conversation for Miscellaneous Chat

The British Cover Up.

Post 1

buckskins

Hi one and all, this is my first post here so I hope I don't get banned for asking this rather provocative question.
The British military invaded and occupied the following countries.
Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; The Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Cameroon; Canada; Cyprus; Dominica; Fiji Islands; The Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya; Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; United Republic of Tanzania; USA; Vanuatu; Zambia.

These were not Roman type invasions where roads and buildings were created by the legions of Rome. The British occupied these countries in order to loot and tax the populace. They stole who knows how many trillions, from the poor of the world. They murdered and tortured their way into all they could steal. They were the biggest drug runners the world has ever known.

I am aware that every country has its skeletons in and out the closet, but the British talk about The Empire as if it were something to be proud of. How did they manage to put so much spin on one of the biggest assaults on human rights in world history?


Thread Moved

Post 2

h2g2 auto-messages

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Entry FAQs' to 'Miscellaneous Chat'.


Thread Moved

Post 3

Mr. X ---> "Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!"

"He who controls information, controls the world."


Anyway, I don't think it's fair to say that "These were not Roman type invasions where roads and buildings were created by the legions of Rome." Not meaning to defend the (admittedly prevalent) imperialism, but they did invest heavily in infrastructure, and they did introduce new technologies and new socio-political concepts all around the world. More by accident, sure, but it still happened.

It would be impossible to predict how the world might be different today without British influence. smiley - erm

smiley - pirate


Thread Moved

Post 4

Mr. X ---> "Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!"

I mean, I might be speaking french now!

If rampant pillaging, looting, and slavery are the price we pay to have a sensible language like english, then it was worth it. smiley - tongueincheek

smiley - pirate


Thread Moved

Post 5

Gingersnapper+Keeper of the Cookie Jar and Stuff and Nonsense

~ ~ smiley - bubbly ~ ~


Thread Moved

Post 6

Bluebottle

Your list is a bit short.

For Christmas you could ask for a copy of 'All the Countries We've Ever Invaded (And the Few We Never Got Round To) which describes how out of the 193 UN member state countries in the world, Britain has invaded or fought conflicts in 171.

<BB<


Thread Moved

Post 7

Bluebottle

Or, alternatively, its new companion book: 'All the Countries the Americans Have Ever Invaded: Making Friends and Influencing People?'

But it looks like you've smiley - elvised, which is a shame as I would have enjoyed a discussion.

'These were not Roman type invasions where roads and buildings were created by the legions of Rome. The British occupied these countries in order to loot and tax the populace.'
This is, of course, clearly different from how Rome invaded countries that had silver and gold mines (as Italy didn't have any), such as Gaul, Britain and especially Dacia, where they slaughtered much of the native population and renamed it after the Roman Empire, with it still known as 'Romania' today. And then taxed the native populace – or at least, the ones that they did not enslave.

I'm also pretty sure that the British Empire did build buildings in the countries they invaded – as well as roads, and many of the first countries to get a national railway network were British colonies.

The Roman and British Empires weren't perhaps as different as you might think.

<BB<


Thread Moved

Post 8

You can call me TC

Why was this moved to Misc Chat when quite clearly a question is being asked, and a very serious one at that (with question marks and everything). Why wasn't it moved to "Ask".?


Thread Moved

Post 9

Deek

Shouldn't the Isle of Wight be on that list?


Thread Moved

Post 10

Mr. X ---> "Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!"

Did it have people in it before Britain?

smiley - pirate


The British Cover Up?

Post 11

Bluebottle

Do you mean how the Isle of Wight was invaded to become part of England and Britain? If so, that happened in 686 AD, which is described by the Venerable Bede by saying,
'Cædwalla, a young and vigorous prince of [Wessex].. came with an army and... with fierce slaughter and devastation... captured the Isle of Wight, which until then had been entirely given up to idolatry, and endeavoured to wipe out all the natives by merciless slaughter and to replace them by inhabitants from his own Kingdom. ...In this way after all the kingdoms of Britain had received the faith, the Isle of Wight received it too... suffering under the affliction of alien rule.'

For killing the inhabitants of the Island, Caedwalla was beatified by Pope Sergius and is now a recognised saint. (Which is a step down from when humble general Vespasian captured the Island during Claudius' conquest of Britain; he later survived a poetry reading by Emperor Nero, became Emperor himself and, on his death, was declared a god).

I could write a book called 'All the Countries that have Attempted to Invade the Isle of Wight'. That would include Jutes, Saxons, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Normans (William the Bastard had planned to sail to the Isle of Wight but the weather wasn't right, so he ended up near Hastings instead), the French (lots), the Spanish Armada, Americans (disputed) and the first draft of Hitler's Invasion Plan.

'Why was this moved to Misc Chat… Why wasn't it moved to "Ask".?'smiley - huh Dunnosmiley - shrug I think they hope to promote Misc Chat and have more chatting here.

<BB<


The British Cover Up?

Post 12

You can call me TC

They could have chosen a less weighty topic. I can think of plenty of threads in ask which are really just misc chat.

Sorry for derailing the thread. To make a general point on the subject, without wanting to defend or accuse anyone:

Since the beginning of time, all great leaders have walked over people and their rights to produce sometimes quite lasting and beneficial results.

The ends (unification of countries, standardisation of language, structuring of administration, road-building and other infrastructure) obviously do not justify the means (genocides, destruction of heritage) but, centuries later, are often still intact and giving the conquered and suppressed something to build on.

I suppose I am thinking mainly of the early Chinese emperors - and look at the size and strength of China even to this day.


The British Cover Up?

Post 13

Bluebottle

Was the British Empire 'one of the biggest assaults on human rights in world history'?

There can be no denying that 17th and 18th Century Britain profited on a massive scale from the unthinkable and horrific slave trade. Then in 1807 the noble thing was done and the slave trade was made illegal throughout the empire. Not only did Britain end its own slavery, the Royal Navy enforced the end of slavery around the world, risking diplomatic incident by detaining and boarding French, American, Spanish, Brazilian and Portuguese ships, as well as British ships owned by those still trying to illegally profit. Many forts owned by slavers were attacked and slaves set free.

The Royal Navy's role in ending the international slave trade can only be seen as a force for good, even if the gunboat diplomacy methods were heavy handed.

<BB<


The British Cover Up?

Post 14

tone-controller

I was just going to be boring and say "History Is Written By The Winners" followed by "Don't assume that an entire nation is proud of something for which a small selection of its forebears was responsible" but since the OP appears to have done a runner, he was clearly a Colonial Troll and not even worthy of those obvious statements.


The British Cover Up?

Post 15

broelan

He's a troll because he smiley - elvised?

I'd have considered him a troll for the provocative structure of the post and the confrontational title.

Fascinating discussion tho. As an American we don't get nearly enough European history in schools. (Actually, it's quite obvious most of us don't get enough American history either, but that's another discussion).

Carry on.

smiley - tea


The British Cover Up?

Post 16

Bluebottle

You could say that he may be a troll as this is his only post, the tone of which seems deliberately confrontational.

There is a difference between saying 'They were the biggest drug runners the world has ever known' and 'Was the British Empire involved in drug running on an unprecedented scale?'

I assume that this is a reference to opium and specifically the Opium Wars. In the 19th Century, opium was legal in Britain (although more and more regulations to control its distribution and use) and much of the world. In the early and mid-19th Century, the heavily isolationist China wouldn't trade with the rest of the world except for a black market trade in opium. China's emperor then moved to make the opium trade illegal, began seizing British ships in Chinese waters that they felt might be carrying opium and imprisoned their crews. This led to the Opium Wars, in the first of which (1839-42) Britain forced China to accept trade with Britain, including opium, and gave Britain Hong Kong. The second of which (1856-1860) included France and America fighting with Britain (China had executed French missionaries and attacked an American vessel), resulting in increased trade rights with China.
To what extent, though, was the opium trade just an excuse for the war? It should also be remembered that the Opium Wars were a very divisive subject in Britain at the time, with many politicians firmly opposed.

A question to ask is, if people are trading a legal substance, does it count as drug running? Will people a few centuries from now look back and condemn us for not having banned tobacco and alcohol, and actually exporting it to other countries? There are over a dozen countries in the world where alcohol is illegal and one where all forms of tobacco are illegal today, so by their standards selling tobacco or alcohol is surely drug running.

<BB<


The British Cover Up?

Post 17

Gingersnapper+Keeper of the Cookie Jar and Stuff and Nonsense

A point well taken. BB, . . . smiley - bubbly . .. ...


Key: Complain about this post