Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: My my, that says a lot... | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:40:09 11/25/04 Thu In reply to: Owain (UK) 's message, "King Leopold?" on 17:26:30 11/25/04 Thu I am sorry if my analysis was too advanced for you to understand. Leopold allowed the most barbaric louts to rule over primitive people with absolute power to inflict any punishment they chose upon anybody - even if innocent. My point is that there was no exportation of ideas or rule of law. It was not imperialist. The term "imperialism" came into being around the time of the Scramble for Africa. Before that the conquest of another country was the natural result of wars. By the late 19th century many Europeans (including the USA which is a European power) through their interactions with other races & cultures began to see their relatively advanced systems of government and way of life were superior to the savage, non-europeanised peoples. It therefore became for many people a moral quest to go out and give civilization to people. Of course, trade concessions/advantages were there two. Imperialism is a blend of the two. The following quotation is from a speech by Lord Curzon after he had returned as Viceroy of India and summarises well the imperialist feelings of the age. "Wherever the Empire has extended its borders ... there misery and oppression, anarchy and destitution, superstition and bigotry, have tended to disappear, and have been replaced by peace, justice, prosperity, humanity, and freedom of thought, speech, and action...... But there also has sprung, what I believe to be unique in the history of Empires, a passion of loyalty and enthusiasm which makes the heart of the remotest British citizen thrill at the thought of the destiny which he shares, and causes him to revere a particular piece of coloured bunting as the symbol of all that is noblest in his own nature and of best import for the good of the world" Imperialism was a belief that the world deserved to get British values. The example that you give, Cecil Rhodes, is in fact one that backs up my argument entirely. He saw British Influence as a civilizing force for good. He decided to finance the railway after he had made himself the controller of the world diamond market. Yes, he hoped to make a profit, but without the territory open to the British it was harder to do buisiness. Cecil Rhodes initially paid his workers in advance to show them that he trusted them. He did not have his overseers chop off the legs and gouge out the eyes of a worker suspected of swallowing a diamond. That is the point. Does anybody else disagree? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Bravo | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:20:34 11/26/04 Fri No, I don't disagree. In fact, I couldn't agree more. Curzon was an absolute dude, and one of the most enlightened men ever to rule with no democratic mandate. He was practically forced out of India by the British community there because he refused to allow a regiment to hush-up the murder of an Indian servant; he encouraged Indians to keep their national dress and customs and not just ape the British; he spent millions on restoring the Taj Mahal and other irreplaceable bits of Indian heritage which were about to be lost forever; he provided funds to irrigate the deserts of the North West; and he resigned when Kitchener tried to turn India into a military dictatorship. As for Rhodes - a man demonised by African successor governments and in particular by Mugabe - he was the first person ever, anywhere, black or white, to campaign, as PM of Cape Colony, to give black people the vote. He opened up new territory to agriculture and exploration. As the first train to roll into Salisbury (now Harare) said on the front, "Rhodes, Railways, and Imperial Expansion"! I don't know if you've visited his grave up in the rocky Matopo Hills, overlooking the country which he created and which was named after him - awaiting, one feels, not the Last Trump but the next regime - but that says it all. Such men as these are unparalleled in other empires. These men were imperialists, Leopold was a thief, a slaver and a despot. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Leopold was a brilliant (if distasteful) man | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:44:23 11/26/04 Fri "I am sorry if my analysis was too advanced for you to understand." I understood your analysis Paddy, I merely disagreed with it. Why cant we debate without patronisation? Why do you feel I have to take everything you say for granted? My only knowledge of this subject comes from Thomas Pakenham's "Scramble for Africa", a book I thoroughly enjoyed. I couldnt help admire Leopold after reading that book, he beat everyone. By the time he did have the congo taken from him he made loads of money. In short I admire his succsess and skills and a polatician. Did the Germna Imperialists beleive the world deserved British values? Did they even belive it deserved German values? These were a bunch or pretty nasty empire builders. They are reffered to as imperialists in the book "Scramble for Africa". Ed, if Leopold was a thief, then so were we, but I suppose at least we werent despots or slavers (on the whole). You make it sound like Britain was the only imperialist nations. Yet so often I hear about "European" imperialism in the 19th century. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Owain, I am sorry if I have offended you and will attempt not to patronise you again... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:11:08 11/26/04 Fri "Did the Germna Imperialists beleive the world deserved British values?" I was speaking specifically about British Imperialists. No, the Germans believed that the natives in their territories would best be served by giving them German-style authority. They thought that the British were decadent. The difference is that the British had evidence that everywhere they had established control things had got better for the average man compared with what had gone before. The Germans had no such experience and were only there to impose their values on their Empire as an attempt to counter the British Empire. They only knew that they had better weapons than the savages, and principle had nothing to do with it. The same goes for the Belgians. The British did make a lot of money out of the slave trade in its day, but Britain outlawed slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833 and sent the Navy to intercept any slavers attempting to engage in the trade. By 1833 the idea that all within the Empire had the protection of law was established. The USA did not abolish it until a generation later after the civil war. The Spanish outlawed it even later (due to foreign pressure) around 1880 but never made any serious efforts to stamp it out in the 19th century. Leopold had supreme authority over the Congo. He was not the first European ruler to rule over a non-European race and there were plenty of examples such as the British in India and North America for him to observe and subsequently devise a just, prosperous system from the start. This is what he manifestly failed to do. In the Dark Ages in Europe there was a good reason for people not to have advanced levels of civilisation. The old order had crumbled and knowledge was lost. Nowadays, for somebody in Britain to say that we would actually be better off under a NAZI-model dictatorship against all of the historical evidence to the contrary would really have to be considered loony or deeply stupid or very wicked. Leopold ignored some already long-established basic rules of humanity in order to maximise financial profits. To quote Walter Sobchak from "The Big Lebowski": "Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos" He authorised the atrocities in the Congo only to make money, not for any reason of spreading "European" civilisation. All this in an age where the British authorities were giving the natives protection under law AGAINST colonial settlers. The New Zealand Maories are loyal to the Crown because of these assurances given more than one hundred and forty years ago. Leopold knew what was going on in the Congo and for this he cannot be considered to be a good King, and he has to be considered a bad person - especially within the context of the age. Yes, he got into the Congo and established a Belgian presence there thus preventing a more civilised power fron establishing its rule over the Congo - but in what way was that a good thing? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I never said he was a nice kinda guy | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:28:00 11/26/04 Fri Now I think your missunderstanding what I am trying to say. I know Britain was in the words of a politician whose name I cannot remember "the greatest empire of good the world had ever known". I am only questioning the meaning of the word Imperialism and defending my admiration for Leopold. Timur was a very nasty chap. He liked to build mountains of heads for one thing. But he never lost a battle in his life and for that I admire him. Thats not to say I am applauding mountain building with heads. My History teacher said "Hitler was a political genious" to say so does not mean my teacher is a nazi. Napoleon is admired for his military skill by many people, these people dont neccesarily like the idea pof europe being united under a an upstart despot. And with Leopold I merely admire his political skill, its not like I wish to use him as a role model for how I shall live my life. I am aware of what he did in the congo (Thomas Pakenhams book, monstous in size, is very detailed) and I am also aware of the British Empires good deeds, including the abolition of slavery (something made even more noble when you consider how much money we were making out of it and how much we would have made when Empire was even larger later in the century). "Yes, he got into the Congo and established a Belgian presence there thus preventing a more civilised power fron establishing its rule over the Congo - but in what way was that a good thing?" Didnt say it was a good thing, nothing he did was good as such. But I dont admire him as a philanthropist (as people at first believed him to be), but as a very clever man. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Owain: | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:40:33 11/26/04 Fri Go to Muscat. There is a plaque in the grounds of the old British residency where the flagpole used to be. It describes how run-away slaves from all over the Middle East, East Africa and beyond would risk everything to get to Muscat, through the town, to the British residency, and throw their arms around the flag-pole, knowing that they would be brought before the Governor and set free, and that those who captured and sold them would be punished, if possible, in whatsoever country they lived. If you can tell me that any other Empire in history has been worthy of such a plaque, then I will accept your point. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: and the typing errors in the above too! | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:14:48 11/26/04 Fri Sorry, I will be more careful in future. When I read spelling mistakes I feel it lowers the quality of the debate. :0) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |