4 ms·

> Let's not forget the long-term effects of British rule in places as far-flung as Ireland, Cyprus and - of course - Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. A pol

> Let's not forget the long-term effects of British rule in places as far-flung as Ireland, Cyprus and - of course - Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. A policy of divide-and-rule led to pretty awful consequences. If you're citing divide-and-rule don't quote Iraq. It has 5 races in it, 2 very dominant religions and several suppressed ones (it did once have a history of Christianity and Buddhism). The recent problem of Iraq is that it wasn't divided and the only thing keeping it from all-out civil war was one of the most fascist dictators in recent history who had a policy of if you get out of line you, your family and your friends die or disappear. Cyprus is another bad example of 'dividing' it was a country that was held together by geographical location not by national identity. When the problems occurred, Turkey tried to intervene, but had to pull out because they were under threat of Soviet invasion (who had interest in Cyprus) and the US clearly stated they wouldn't help in a military invasion of the Turkish homeland. Where decentralized British rule worked was where it was used. India and Hong Kong are the two countries you purposely failed to mention who have been doing fantastically after British rule. To mention that HSBC was the only bank operating in the UK that survived the global recession was in no way due to the rules the British established in Hong Kong where HSBC started.

crpatino 16y ago
> If you're citing divide-and-rule don't quote Iraq. It has 5 races in it, 2 very dominant religions and several suppressed ones. This is precisely the legacy of divide-and-conquer British policy! The way the borders where set during the expansion of the British Empire was to put 2 or 3 different neighboring nations under the rule of a single governor. More over, if a nation was specially strong, it would be split into 2 different neighboring states. This way, it was possible for the Empire to play the natives against each other. Favoring one of such groups above the rest provided the rank and file for the local law enforcement, public service, business administration and all other institutions needed to keep Empire dominion over the territory. England is simply too small a country to provide enough soldiers to populate garrisons around the world. When the Empire imploded, the infrastructure for dictatorships was already set in place, but the checks and balances dissappeared overnight.
zeemonkee 16y ago
India is doing better now, but let's not forget the human cost of the partition of the subcontinent, and the decades of poverty that followed. Much of which could be attributed to failures of India, but recent success can hardly be attributed to British rule.

crpatino 16y ago

> If you're citing divide-and-rule don't quote Iraq. It has 5 races in it, 2 very dominant religions and several suppressed ones. This is precisely the legacy of divide-and-conquer British policy! The way the borders where set during the expansion of the British Empire was to put 2 or 3 different neighboring nations under the rule of a single governor. More over, if a nation was specially strong, it would be split into 2 different neighboring states. This way, it was possible for the Empire to play the natives against each other. Favoring one of such groups above the rest provided the rank and file for the local law enforcement, public service, business administration and all other institutions needed to keep Empire dominion over the territory. England is simply too small a country to provide enough soldiers to populate garrisons around the world. When the Empire imploded, the infrastructure for dictatorships was already set in place, but the checks and balances dissappeared overnight.

zeemonkee 16y ago

India is doing better now, but let's not forget the human cost of the partition of the subcontinent, and the decades of poverty that followed. Much of which could be attributed to failures of India, but recent success can hardly be attributed to British rule.