Forum Chat Bar & Grill

[Growltiger]

Renegade,

Beleive me, I have no objection to the former British colonies, and especially those that are still part of the happy commonwealth family.

I have been to Canada several times, and along with New Zealand, it rates as one of the places I really try not to visit on holiday cos I know I am just going to have to emigrate there (if they let me in).

Nice countries the pair of them, and I dont think the English have any problem with Canadians or Kiwis (or Aussies for that matter), although given Saturday's performance, I am boring ever Kiwi I know with remarks about how lucky they were to beat England at the rugby.

[Renegade 13]

Post deleted...it was rather stupid. Blame it on lack of sleep.

[El_Phil]

Of course the problem with "Former British colonies" is narrowing it down. That one phrase encompasses 1/4 of the globe so isn't especially helpfull.

Hell even "Former British colonies that are still part of the Commonwealth" is still pretty wide. Antigua for instance is a wonderfull sun kissed democratic paradise. Zimbabwe isn't. Not even a little bit.

[Growltiger]

El Phil,

They are a couple of good points. My ancestors imperialistic tendencies certainly have resulted in the "Empire" covering a large proportion of the globe, and still I believe being the largest imperial dominion the world has ever seen.

That being said, can I make it clear that it is not something I am proud of as an Englishman. Colonisation is all very well, but effectively subjugating native peoples in the name of progress is not a antecedent I particularly like, nor is our military history where plucky group of British soldiers armed with rifles and cannon and sometimes machine guns defeated vast armies of brave spear wielding natives (oh Isandhlwana is still taken as a measure of huge respect for the bravery of the Zulus).

It is certainly true that there were benefits for many peoples and countries of our imperial largesse. The Pax Anglica and general rise in living standards, education and healthcare for the colonies was impressive. However, not sure myself that gave us the right to act the way we did.

Personally, I have always wondered what would have become of the African continent and its peoples if us Westerners (and I include most European nations in this) had left well alone. Given that there were African nations with highly developed cultures, artwork, smelting techniques etc etc, one can only wonder what the continent would have now become if the colonial led deforestation procedures had not caused famine in a chunk of the land.

Now the commonewealth I do have more respect for, albeit its teeth are not very sharp, and we seem to be unable to do anything about Zimbabwe.

[El_Phil]

The entire colonial period was far less than perfect it is true, but you really can't judge what happen by modern standards. Compared to what the other colonial powers were doing (Spain instantly springs to mind, but there were others) England was one of the nicer ones relatively speaking.

By the standards of the time colonising and 'civilising' the rest of the globe wasn't a right, it was a duty, even a holy command if you listened to the Popes of the time. Different times, different values is my main point I suppose.

Given nothing especially technical had developed in sub-Saharan Africa before Europeans I do wonder why anything would suddenly happen given more time. That is a bit of a sweeping generalisation I admit, but it's solid. The artwork, cultural, etc was around. The smelting metalurgy or anything similar I hadn't heard of it and would seriously doubt.

North Africa is a different kettle of fish however, but I'll hold my hands up and say I'm a bit shaky about that part of the world. However I do remember that Ethiopia had a very advanced civilisation that never really recovered from Italian gas attacks.

[Renegade 13]

From what I've heard and read, Ethiopia today would be a large agricultural producer if the country wasn't corrupt and mismanaged. You can't blame historical mistakes for all the problems in Sub-Saharan African or Ethiopia or all those other not-so-nice countries. Sure, blame past mistakes for some of it, but blame the barbaric warlords who took power after the colonial period was finished for a lot of the probems today.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Renegade 13 said:
***Ducks behind something large***

"My lad, ducking behind me isn't going to do you any good." *takes out a plasma launcher and primes it*

You think the English have a terrible colonial history?!? Just look up Dutch colonialism and I'm sure you'll find we were a lot worse, trust me.

[El_Phil]

Ethiopia, home of the Kingdom of Prestor John amongst others, had most of it's smart elite shot/killed by the Italian invasion. Then had it's post ww2 border with Eritea drawn so spectacularly badly that war was inevitable. Hence the warlords and general instability. Neither side has any money so no-one can land a knock out blow, so the war rumbles on for decades.

Dutch colonial history? Isn't that being fairly inept before being beaten up by Spanish/English/Anyone else who was passing?

And no Surinam and Seff Afrika don't count!

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

Well, for starters we founded New York. Traded it to the English for Surinam later, so that sucked, but still. Some of the names in NY are still reminiscent of their Dutch names (for example, Staten Island, Brooklyn (Breukelen), Wall Street (Walstraat) etc.).

Look at Indonesia. In the 19th/early 20th century we began to completely exploit and submit it. The conquest of Aceh around 1900 was bloody to be sure, the so-called "Police" Actions in response to Sukarno's declaration of independence wiped out entire kampongs, Vietnam-style, oh and did I mention the Dutch were avid slave-traders before the Portuguese acquired their virtual monopoly?

I could also post this map, but I decided against it.

Oh and Phil, I was mainly talking about the 17th century (called the "Golden Century" here), in which time we were NOT beaten up by the English/Spanish/whoever, but when we practically ruled the oceans, with no-one matching our navy. Sure, later we got kicked about, but especially in the early 17th century we could dish out some serious punishment. Also Note the fact that in the 16th/17th century we (a tiny tiny agrarian nation) managed to gain full independence from the might of the Spanish. So much for being beaten up, eh?

[El_Phil]

Traded? There was me thinking it was the Duke of York's warships (hence the name) that forced you out!

The dutch never ruled the oceans, not even close. Merchant trade yes, naval might no. Independence from Spain, well you did get a lot of help with that from both England and France. It was still a big achievement, took you 80 years admitedly, but then you can't rush these things can you?