4 ms·

how the british justified their empire, in the 1930s. that last bit is important. Like most things, the justification changed over time. In the 16th century, i

how the british justified their empire, in the 1930s. that last bit is important. Like most things, the justification changed over time. In the 16th century, it was all about the king trying to finance his massive spending habit. Then it was about trade. Then it was about re-enforcing that trade. Then the east india company fucked up, and india because a colonial possession. Then the missions tried to convert the heathens. after that I'm not sure. We don't teach empire at all. The problem is that nowadays its difficult to find readable history that isn't there to either totally damn or justify the empire. Even less so ones that draw on first party sources from the british and locals.

mutatio 5y ago
I think you're missing the main reason, competing empires on Britain's doorstep. The British Empire didn't exist in a vacuum. Much like American Imperialism vs. Soviet Russia.
rovek 5y ago
I feel this about anything I read about empire in the last few years. I enjoyed Paxman's book Empire for the very reason that he mocks the self-righteousness of the "heroes of Empire", their "divine mission", the way the country at home responded (or didn't care at all anymore) but doesn't shy away from giving the same critical eye to the colonised people.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >but doesn't shy away from giving the same critical eye to the colonised people. That's a common approach in certain academic and popular works about colonialism and Empires. And it's not much different to "giving the same critical eye" to the the rapist and the rape victim.
  - rovek 5y ago
    Analogies tend to remove any meaningful detail from a situation, as in this case
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Actually they tend to highlight the meaningful details - and remove the unimportant ones. That, like in the analogy mentioned, it's not the place of an author to cricially see both the abused and the perpetrator, and that colonization was an abuse. More "subtlely" excuses this abuse, and there's no excuse, even if the subjects of colonization where "bad people", "uncultivated", "underdeveloped" or whatever, there's no excuse to invade their sovereignity, and it's not up to the colonizer to judge them or fix them.
      - 411111111111111 5y ago
        > More "subtlely" excuses this abuse, and there's no excuse, even if the subjects of colonization where "bad people", "uncultivated", "underdeveloped" or whatever, there's no excuse to invade their sovereignity, and it's not up to the colonizer to judge them or fix them. I don't disagree, but it's kinda hard to talk like that on historical contexts. Might-makes-right has always been the truth until pretty recently, though you could make a case that it's true even now. I don't think judging the people living that way when everyone else around them did that too (albeit less successfully) is useful. Do remember that most of misery in the colonies came from collaborators. Yes, they were paid by the colonial oppressors, but they just wanted to profit too, damning their fellow people.
        coldtea 5y ago
        >Might-makes-right has always been the truth until pretty recently, Sure, it is the truth even now and will be forever. It's just that it's popular for might, after Christianity and Englightenment changed the public perception, to want to dress its actions in a moral disguise (from the Crusades to "bringing democracy to Iraq"). But the case being "might makes right" doesn't preclude people telling it for what it is - and even less so it should preclude historians and pundits. People knew what it is in Thucilides time, and they know it now. So I don't take particularly well to historians etc being "equally critical" of the opressed too.
  - deertick1 5y ago
    Did you have to take it there? What a silly and flippant comparison. Chill out.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Sorry, not everybody believes in taboo comparisons or belongs to a culture that paralyzes them lest they say something off and hurt someone's feelings. And if you feel like "something like rape is so much hurtful/important to just use in a comparison" well, be assured that colonization, our subject here, among other abuses, also resulted in an untold number of rapes and sex abuses of its subjects. So it's not just some "lighter" subject unfit to compare with it, but a superset of abuse.
      - deertick1 5y ago
        Dude you are so off in left field I can't even respond to this. Nothing to do with the taboo of rape you gotta try a lot harder than that to offend me. Its more like you went from A to D without anything in between because D is a hip cultural reference ("victim blaming")
hrh 5y ago
https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Niall-Ferguson/dp/0465023282 https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Niall-Ferguson/dp/0465023282 Solid author, genuine attempt objective history, the causes, the justifications, the sins, the benefits.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  I have issue with niall. He makes an engaging argument, but a good number of times they fail to hold water. The big one for me was the assertion that Britain could have avoided WWI if they had not declared war on germany. THis is a shame because he is an engaging author and presenter, its just I'm never sure if he's peddling dogshit, or something that is plausible.
hhs 5y ago
> how the british justified their empire, in the 1930s. that last bit is important. > after that I’m not sure. This review covers some contemporary themes by discussing a book, “Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination”, which may be useful.
mbrodersen 5y ago
The book “Sapiens” does a good job of balancing the two views. In other words, like most things in this world, empires had good and bad consequences. You choose how much you value/dislike the good/bad.

mutatio 5y ago

I think you're missing the main reason, competing empires on Britain's doorstep. The British Empire didn't exist in a vacuum. Much like American Imperialism vs. Soviet Russia.

rovek 5y ago

I feel this about anything I read about empire in the last few years. I enjoyed Paxman's book Empire for the very reason that he mocks the self-righteousness of the "heroes of Empire", their "divine mission", the way the country at home responded (or didn't care at all anymore) but doesn't shy away from giving the same critical eye to the colonised people.

coldtea 5y ago
>but doesn't shy away from giving the same critical eye to the colonised people. That's a common approach in certain academic and popular works about colonialism and Empires. And it's not much different to "giving the same critical eye" to the the rapist and the rape victim.
- rovek 5y ago
  Analogies tend to remove any meaningful detail from a situation, as in this case
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Actually they tend to highlight the meaningful details - and remove the unimportant ones. That, like in the analogy mentioned, it's not the place of an author to cricially see both the abused and the perpetrator, and that colonization was an abuse. More "subtlely" excuses this abuse, and there's no excuse, even if the subjects of colonization where "bad people", "uncultivated", "underdeveloped" or whatever, there's no excuse to invade their sovereignity, and it's not up to the colonizer to judge them or fix them.
    - 411111111111111 5y ago
      > More "subtlely" excuses this abuse, and there's no excuse, even if the subjects of colonization where "bad people", "uncultivated", "underdeveloped" or whatever, there's no excuse to invade their sovereignity, and it's not up to the colonizer to judge them or fix them. I don't disagree, but it's kinda hard to talk like that on historical contexts. Might-makes-right has always been the truth until pretty recently, though you could make a case that it's true even now. I don't think judging the people living that way when everyone else around them did that too (albeit less successfully) is useful. Do remember that most of misery in the colonies came from collaborators. Yes, they were paid by the colonial oppressors, but they just wanted to profit too, damning their fellow people.
      - coldtea 5y ago
        >Might-makes-right has always been the truth until pretty recently, Sure, it is the truth even now and will be forever. It's just that it's popular for might, after Christianity and Englightenment changed the public perception, to want to dress its actions in a moral disguise (from the Crusades to "bringing democracy to Iraq"). But the case being "might makes right" doesn't preclude people telling it for what it is - and even less so it should preclude historians and pundits. People knew what it is in Thucilides time, and they know it now. So I don't take particularly well to historians etc being "equally critical" of the opressed too.
- deertick1 5y ago
  Did you have to take it there? What a silly and flippant comparison. Chill out.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Sorry, not everybody believes in taboo comparisons or belongs to a culture that paralyzes them lest they say something off and hurt someone's feelings. And if you feel like "something like rape is so much hurtful/important to just use in a comparison" well, be assured that colonization, our subject here, among other abuses, also resulted in an untold number of rapes and sex abuses of its subjects. So it's not just some "lighter" subject unfit to compare with it, but a superset of abuse.
    - deertick1 5y ago
      Dude you are so off in left field I can't even respond to this. Nothing to do with the taboo of rape you gotta try a lot harder than that to offend me. Its more like you went from A to D without anything in between because D is a hip cultural reference ("victim blaming")

hrh 5y ago

https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Niall-Ferguson/dp/0465023282 https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Niall-Ferguson/dp/0465023282 Solid author, genuine attempt objective history, the causes, the justifications, the sins, the benefits.

KaiserPro 5y ago
I have issue with niall. He makes an engaging argument, but a good number of times they fail to hold water. The big one for me was the assertion that Britain could have avoided WWI if they had not declared war on germany. THis is a shame because he is an engaging author and presenter, its just I'm never sure if he's peddling dogshit, or something that is plausible.

hhs 5y ago

> how the british justified their empire, in the 1930s. that last bit is important. > after that I’m not sure. This review covers some contemporary themes by discussing a book, “Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination”, which may be useful.

mbrodersen 5y ago

The book “Sapiens” does a good job of balancing the two views. In other words, like most things in this world, empires had good and bad consequences. You choose how much you value/dislike the good/bad.