The Indian example is probably the worst of all possible excuses to use. The policy of divide and rule; the tragedy of the Partition; the way the Indian empire distorted British policy for long decades; how it led to the British involvement in Egypt to protect the Suez; it’s role in securing the Horn of Africa, once the sealane to India and that in turn possible to the Scramble for Africa and other catastrophes too numerous to mention. Iraq is one example that comes to mind. It was an Anglo-French Frankenstein created under Sykes-Picot. Whatever the Archbishop’s theology is like, I think his history is suspect.
But I don’t think his understanding will get better. Certain points of view are proof against facts. But such lead to consequences which none of us can escape.
Bingo!
Pompous English twit!
Agreed. I think the Archbishop and his courtiers are immune to facts. At their core is self-loathing and guilt for western civilization.
We need to think what India would be like if the British hadn’t taken it over. The subcontinent would have remained Moslem-dominated, and in the fullness of time the process of brutal Islamification seen elsewhere would have been repeated. Hindu Kush II, III and IV, in fact.
Instead of which India is part of the english-speaking world and a growing economic powerhouse.
And South Africa/Zimbabwe are disasters only to the extent that they have thrown off the lessons of the British Empire: protection of property and equality under the law. Mugabe is a particularly edifying example of what happens when you mess with the rights of property.
There’s a terrific restaurant in our area (SE Michigan) called Priya, which serves a daily buffet.
Its food is so good I prefer it to Italian food! But this must be why the Brits stayed in India so long. Can you imagine going from South Indian food back to English food?
Whatever its flaws, British imperial policy was demonstrably productive for its supposed subjects.
Essentially, the third world can be split into four parts: British colonial regions, French colonial regions, other European colonial regions, plus uncolonized.
Of these, the colonial regions are, in general, far better off economically and politically than the uncolonized category. And the British colonial regions have displayed by far the greatest ability to govern themselves.
In my view, the British have nothing to apologize for when it comes to their imperialist policies. They ran a largely benign imperium.