Posted on 11/04/2011 6:50:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
As many Americans no longer believe in American exceptionalism and others believe America's greatness is guaranteed to extend perpetually, we could all benefit by reviewing the history of the British Empire, the realm from which we sprung and acquired so much.
By the time most baby boomers were born, the British Empire had declined. The Nazis and Japanese had been defeated in World War II, and two major military powers -- the United States and the Soviet Union -- were faced off at the beginning of a nearly half-century-long struggle we call the Cold War.
The great British Empire, which dominated the world mere decades before, was rarely in our current events radar, and it got little better treatment in our history courses, except as the villain we had to defeat in two wars to attain our independence and as the waning world power whose chestnuts we had saved from Adolf Hitler's fire. Oh, how much we missed, not just of British history but of our own, because we can't fully appreciate our greatness without understanding much more about our immediate ancestor.
But there's an easy way to make up for all that lost time, a way to fill in the gaps and much more. My friend Harry Crocker's "Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire" has just been released, and it's a one-stop shop for telling us all we should have learned about that empire and precisely how much we owe it.
We remain in awe of the enormity and dominance of the Roman Empire -- and rightly so -- but did you realize that at its height, the British Empire was the largest empire ever, covering a quarter of the world -- even half, if you consider its control of the oceans -- and governing a quarter of the people on the planet?
Though it is de rigueur today to condemn British colonialism, Harry not only defends the Brits' colonial achievements but also unashamedly champions them. "The empire," he writes, "was incontestably a good thing. The fact that it is controversial to say so is why this book had to be written. In the groves of academe, colonialism and imperialism are dirty words, the fons et origo of Western expansion with all its alleged sins of racism, capitalism, and ignorant, judgmental, hypocritical Christian moralism."
In keeping with the book's title, Harry rejects this politically correct view. To him, "to hate the British Empire is to hate ourselves, for the United States would not exist if not for the British Empire." Harry means that the British not only established our chartered colonies but also largely populated those settlements and gave us our language, culture, government and, most importantly, our ideas of liberty and the rule of law, including our critically important common law heritage.
The empire has far from a perfect record, and Harry doesn't hide the blemishes, but he also gives us the other side -- finally -- and that other side is impressive.
Long before continental Europe went through its turbulent revolutionary period, which ultimately led to republican government, the British had firmly established the roots of free institutions, limited government and impartial justice. And if not for the British command of the high seas and its fierce resistance to French imperialism -- a wholly different kind of imperialism from the British variety -- Napoleon Bonaparte might have completed his world conquest and we could be speaking French today -- a circumstance that many of our liberal elites would undoubtedly welcome.
Moreover, despite America's essential intervention in World War II, there was a point in that war in which Britain, led by the extraordinary statesman Winston Churchill, stood alone against Hitler's Third Reich, which was backed by the Soviet Union, Benito Mussolini's Italy and Imperial Japan. Had Britain lacked just a little bit of resolve, the war might have been over before we entered. I shudder to think what might have happened, how different our own history would have been.
There is also no question that Britain did more to abolish the slave trade (1807) and slavery itself (1833) than any other nation or empire. It also led the pack in the Industrial Revolution, which did more to accelerate the advance to modernity than the advent of democracy in continental Europe.
We read a lot about the evils of British colonialism, but it's time to look at the other side of the coin. There's no doubt that in their colonial expansion, the British were partially (and justifiably) guided by their self-interest -- pride, profit and patriotism -- but the ultimate justification for retaining the empire was the benefits it brought to the governed.
This book is thorough -- covering all periods and all territories of the empire -- and it's refreshing. And, as is the case with all of Harry's books, it is eminently fascinating and highly readable.
Korea was a Japanese colony for many years.
"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
They defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, so they were throwing serious punches before the 1700's.
That is true, but no thanks to us. Thomas Jefferson's pro-French RAT party sided with Napoleon in 1812.
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.
The Brits have generally been the good guys.
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:
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.