The British Empire -- Vindicated

Townhall.com ^ | November 4, 2011 | David Limbaugh

[reg45]

Korea was a Japanese colony for many years.

[naturalman1975]

"It has struck some that if an empire had to be broken against an enemy, Nazi Germany was a worthy cause. All the countries in the Empire sent men back for that conflict. They came from America, India, Canada, Nepal, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa - everywhere, in fact, where the people could claim a bond with Britain - to give their lives against a dark and terrible enemy. Perhaps that was the purpose of the British Empire - to be there at that time, when the future could have gone another way. As a legacy, perhaps that will do."
- Conn and Hal Iggulden. The Dangerous Book for Boys

"When the British governed a country - even when they only influenced its government by flexing their military and financial muscles - there were certain distinctive features of their own society that they tended to disseminate. A list of the the more important of these would run:

1. The English language.
2. English forms of land tenure.
3. Scottish and English banking.
4. The Common Law.
5. Protestantism.
6. Team sports.
7. The limited or 'Nightwatchman' state.
8. Representative assemblies.
9. The idea of liberty.

The last of these is perhaps the most important because it remains the most distinctive feature of the Empire, the thing that sets it apart from its continental European rivals. I do not mean to claim that all British Imperialists were liberals: some were very far from it. But what is striking about the history of the Empire is that whenever the British were behaving despotically, there was almost always a liberal critique of that behaviour from within British society.
- Niall Ferguson. Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World

[Flag_This]

"That IS true -- the English (specifically) punched way above their weight from the late 1700s onwards."

They defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, so they were throwing serious punches before the 1700's.

[Tailgunner Joe]

if not for the British command of the high seas and its fierce resistance to French imperialism....Napoleon Bonaparte might have completed his world conquest and we could be speaking French today

That is true, but no thanks to us. Thomas Jefferson's pro-French RAT party sided with Napoleon in 1812.

[Jack Hydrazine]

I’m as white as sour cream but after seeing the British Empire/UK push collectivism around the world for the last 400 or so years now we have seen the fruits that has left world bankrupt in more ways than one.

And the sad thing about it is that they keep on pushing it even in the midst of the collapse of Western civilization.

Effing idiots in my opinion.

That is why I think it would be wise for every Western nation to break ranks with them and completely shun them to save their own skins and let the UK plunge into the darkness of collectivism, multiculturalism, Islam, egalitarianism, gun control, irresponsible spending, chaos, violence, and anarchy that they seem to love soooooo much.

Better to nuke them from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

[Tribune7]

The Brits have generally been the good guys.

[Carry_Okie]

It was unintentional, and when the full horror of the camps became known in Britain, there was a huge press, political and public outcry.

Who could forget Emily Hobhouse?

The victors write the history books and yours represents the official story (and yes, I have a copy of Doyle's account). The problem with the claim that the debacle at Doornbult etc. was unintentional is that it is plainly untrue upon the most cursory inspection.

Army officers spend more time and energy managing logistics and supplies than they issuing orders for battle. Every army that has ever conquered a city of any kind has dealt with refugees. In both cases, the officers MUST know exactly how much much food, water, and medical supplies a person needs and must obsess about how to supply it. So the claim that within an entire army there would not be one officer capable of figuring out how to care for the people displaced by a scorched earth program or that the entire staff would be unaware that the need would arise is simply silly.

Imagine yourself a British general. You've spent years chasing those nasty Boers. Your superiors are leaning all over because of the cost. You know that the reason the Boers survive is that they can live off the land. The answer is simple: destroy all crop production and their entire logistical support infrastructure would be gone.

For the disaster of the camps to be unintentional, would require that NOT ONE officer ever asked the question, "What would the people eat?" QED.

The deaths happened because the military made a terrible balls-up of running the camps

The deaths "happened" because they military did not make preserving life a top priority before even beginning the operation. They didn't care.

Now, here is where you blew it.

And your point about responsibility can be made just as much by me about YOUR treatment of the Native American (which makes the British treatment of the Boers look benevolent). Or are the Limeys only sinners?.

This is a thread about the British. Why would I have brought up American Indians? Indeed, British care for aboriginal tribes was far superior to that found in the American interior. So what? How does that exculpate the British in South Africa?

Moreover, you are projecting a blindness upon me that my post #21 above shows simply isn't there:

No. If you like a country and are willing to abide by the rules to which you agree upon entry, fine. That deal includes respect for that nation as sovereign. If they change the rules and you don't like it, tough, you accepted said sovereignty upon entry; you are free to leave. If you won't keep the deal you made to gain entry get the hell out. But don't go into a country at their forbearance and then try calling the shots.

Does this post look like I am unaware of such considerations?

Believe it or not, but on my desk at this very moment is my reading for the last week on the history of the California missions. The manner in which the Americans took over the State from Mexico is EXACTLY analogous to the way the British took South Africa from the Dutch. It is not the same as the American genocide against the aboriginal tribes, nor was the Dutch colonization of South Africa to which you steam later. Yours is a false analogy.

When the Dutch settled South Africa, it was very sparsely populated with Bantu speaking peoples who had been there only 1,200 years. Given that the region has had hominid populations for 3 million years, one would think that the Bantus had taken it from somebody prior. So?

Instead, the Dutch treatment of South Afircan Bantus, Zulus, Khoikhois etc. is quite similar to when the Spanish came to California, where there were only 130,000 Indians living in the most appalling conditions (for reasons I will not discuss here) yet the bulk of them died from diseases the "perpetrators" hardly understood. The remainder of Indian deaths came when the Mexican government forced their release from the missions and they died of syphilis.

Yet even if the American treatment of the Indians was analogous to Britain in South Africa, its existence does not exculpate the British. Callous disregard for human life should be excoriated. Period.

Hence, it is completely lacking in integrity for you to fault the 17th Century Dutch for what were primarily the tragic consequences of diseases they did not understand as equal to the 19th Century British crime of failing to supply FOOD, something even many animals understand. They can be faulted for the way they fomented inter-tribal war, but on that front the tribes themselves were free to make the choices they made or not. What was done to the Dutch in South Africa was a crime perpetrated against not only a cultural equal, but a nation to whom Britain owed her survival. What was the motive? Was it really "protecting our citizens" or was it gold, diamonds, or a strategic port with which to extend an empire?

I don't buy the excuses.