Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 7th, 2012, 04:33 PM   #401
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammer View Post
Thank you Sylla...

"2 a) & b) :So under such nicely relativistic standards if any weirdo may have arguably performed any horrendous crime anywhere all around this Planet all along History, it would be perfectly legitimate to perform the same action as long as it may be arguably a bit less horrendous, right?"


No. It is as much an error of logic to assume you can behave today by older standards as judge their behavior by today's standards...

I merely pointed out the 16th century was a pretty horrible place in almost all societies, because concepts we take for granted, such as human rights, individual dignity, etc. were not even CONCEPTS yet.
At least not for anyone except those strong enough and dangerous enough to claim and enforce them.

As for expecting a "thank you", a colonizer would need to smoke some of that opium they were shipping to China to believe that. For a small population to Lord it over a large population they need to act, behave, and always comport themselves as the superior man. Any failure of this edifice might prove fatal. The underdog spends generations wanting to BE that person, and when the day comes they cam assume that seat any colonizer who expects anything less than a boot in the rear and expectorant following them out the door is a dreamer.

Jammer
My pleasure, Jammer.

Again, why any "error of logic"???

You are yet to present any even remote justification for such categorical but still bare assertion.

Guess you are not pretending that plunder, rape and murder were not identified as such long, long before any Universal Declaration of Human Rights, huh?

Were let say the Viking raiders in England not plundering, raping and murdering just because it happened in the past?



As for expecting a "thank you", such attitude has explicitly been stated by several posters of diverse nationalities in this and other threads all along Historum.
sylla1 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 7th, 2012, 05:10 PM   #402

Crystal Rainbow's Avatar
The Good Knight
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Cumbernauld Scotland
Posts: 9,990
Blog Entries: 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
Yes I am very much aware of that fact. I have been to Britain and despite the cold weather people were very warm.

Btw codemning British raj doesn't mean condemning British people if thats what people think. British raj as a whole wasn't good for India. But the same statement can't be made for the British people (especially the middle and lower class). Indian history isn't complete withour mentioning the contribution of many individual british people. Madeleine Slade (aka Miraben) was popularly called Gandhi's british daughter. When Gandhi went to England in 1931 he received very warm welcome from the middle class despite the fact that his campaign against the British goods was prooving detrimental to the workers who worked in cotton mills in England. So the ordinary british people weren't bad but the British raj certainly was.

Some photographs and Videos from Gandhi's visit of England for the round table conferance in 1931.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.


Gandhi visits the poor people of England in 1931 - Gandhi Video Footage - YouTube

Footage - Gandhi - 1931 September 12 - YouTube
I have always been interested in Gandhi, he was one of those greatest men who had the best intentions for his country. The country that I was born in plays down our heroes of the working classes.
Crystal Rainbow is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 05:11 PM   #403
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelica View Post
I am horrible at history however I am open to learn.....

You seem to be very good with research.....I am curious to explore the good aspect of the British rule....Can provide a view on what you consider to be a good aspect of colonization????

Anyone???
Frankly, you don't seem to be so "horrible".

You should excuse me if I'm currently trying to be as careful as possible regarding any single statement, just to avoid as much as possible any misunderstanding.


Infrastructure and Order have always been typical traits associated with the conquest of nations, in fact virtually inevitably inherent to any conquest, even the German conquest in eastern Europe during WW2 or the Mongol conquests of the XIII century.

In fact (empirically so) the more brutal the conquest the more ordered its aftermath will be.

Regarding infrastructure (e.g. transportation) it is easy to understand why is it so useful for the colonial exploitation of any conquered territory; that's exactly why such infrastructure was the main target of both partisan movements and strategic bombing against the occupied Europe in WW2.

The expected and virtually inevitable political effect of any conquest (even by democratic powers) is the promotion of local authoritarianism; for any conqueror it will always be exponentially easier to deal with any single head that with a plurality; my local ruler might be a b*st**d, but it would still be my b*st**d.

The search for the economic benefit of the conquerors naturally tends to promote the better exploitation of the natural resources under any conqueror, even in Poland under Hans Frank; but naturally that fact doesn't imply per se that the local native population must be benefited from such improved exploitation.

Any conqueror's military presence (especially when it is quantitatively scarce, as it was almost systematically the case for the British Empire) virtually inevitably tends to follow some Divide et Impera strategy, i.e. making local collaborators by relatively favoring some local groups against each other.
This strategy makes exponentially easier the administration of large conquered territories (especially if densely populated) but at the expense of the inevitable (in fact, regularly deliberate) Balkanization of the conquered nations and the proliferation of local inter-ethnic conflicts, especially post-colonial conflicts.
Regarding specifically the British Empire, the cases of Palestine / Israel & India / Pakistan couldn't be more paradigmatic, even if hardly unique.

Even leaving aside the exploitation of the conquered nations, most (if not all) of the conquerors have at one time or the other genuinely worried for the general welfare of the conquered populations, at the very least because no nation of this Planet is made up from pure sadists.
Even so, it is easy to verify in this same thread the effects of even the objectively well-intentioned but discriminatory practices imposed over the conquered Australian Aboriginal Nations, objectively resulting in nothing less than genocide.

Another eloquent example; the harsh Japanese rule over conquered populations (including the indisputable modernization of Korea & Taiwan) was actually their own twisted version of the Golden Rule, according to their own Bushido code. The treatment of the own Japanese recruits was not any less brutal.

Plainly, the famous proverb on the road to Hell paved by good intentions couldn't apply any more here.



That's exactly why in spite of all the aforementioned blessings of essentially any colonial conquest, virtually no native nation all around this Planet all along History has ever genuinely willingly asked for being conquered.

The very case of the proud British people themselves all along the XX century would be paradigmatic.
Just ask Mr. Winston Spencer Churchill

Hope this long boring post may be helpful in some way.

Last edited by sylla1; November 7th, 2012 at 05:27 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 06:42 PM   #404
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Back to the OP, here's a curious even if rather tricky corollary of a journalist of The Atlantic Wire on Mr. Laycock's book
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 10:10 AM   #405

Angelica's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Angel City
Posts: 2,104

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Frankly, you don't seem to be so "horrible".

You should excuse me if I'm currently trying to be as careful as possible regarding any single statement, just to avoid as much as possible any misunderstanding.


Infrastructure and Order have always been typical traits associated with the conquest of nations, in fact virtually inevitably inherent to any conquest, even the German conquest in eastern Europe during WW2 or the Mongol conquests of the XIII century.

In fact (empirically so) the more brutal the conquest the more ordered its aftermath will be.

Regarding infrastructure (e.g. transportation) it is easy to understand why is it so useful for the colonial exploitation of any conquered territory; that's exactly why such infrastructure was the main target of both partisan movements and strategic bombing against the occupied Europe in WW2.

The expected and virtually inevitable political effect of any conquest (even by democratic powers) is the promotion of local authoritarianism; for any conqueror it will always be exponentially easier to deal with any single head that with a plurality; my local ruler might be a b*st**d, but it would still be my b*st**d.

The search for the economic benefit of the conquerors naturally tends to promote the better exploitation of the natural resources under any conqueror, even in Poland under Hans Frank; but naturally that fact doesn't imply per se that the local native population must be benefited from such improved exploitation.

Any conqueror's military presence (especially when it is quantitatively scarce, as it was almost systematically the case for the British Empire) virtually inevitably tends to follow some Divide et Impera strategy, i.e. making local collaborators by relatively favoring some local groups against each other.
This strategy makes exponentially easier the administration of large conquered territories (especially if densely populated) but at the expense of the inevitable (in fact, regularly deliberate) Balkanization of the conquered nations and the proliferation of local inter-ethnic conflicts, especially post-colonial conflicts.
Regarding specifically the British Empire, the cases of Palestine / Israel & India / Pakistan couldn't be more paradigmatic, even if hardly unique.

Even leaving aside the exploitation of the conquered nations, most (if not all) of the conquerors have at one time or the other genuinely worried for the general welfare of the conquered populations, at the very least because no nation of this Planet is made up from pure sadists.
Even so, it is easy to verify in this same thread the effects of even the objectively well-intentioned but discriminatory practices imposed over the conquered Australian Aboriginal Nations, objectively resulting in nothing less than genocide.

Another eloquent example; the harsh Japanese rule over conquered populations (including the indisputable modernization of Korea & Taiwan) was actually their own twisted version of the Golden Rule, according to their own Bushido code. The treatment of the own Japanese recruits was not any less brutal.

Plainly, the famous proverb on the road to Hell paved by good intentions couldn't apply any more here.



That's exactly why in spite of all the aforementioned blessings of essentially any colonial conquest, virtually no native nation all around this Planet all along History has ever genuinely willingly asked for being conquered.

The very case of the proud British people themselves all along the XX century would be paradigmatic.
Just ask Mr. Winston Spencer Churchill

Hope this long boring post may be helpful in some way.
Thank you
Angelica is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 01:36 PM   #406

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,545
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelica View Post
I am horrible at history however I am open to learn.....

You seem to be very good with research.....I am curious to explore the good aspect of the British rule....Can provide a view on what you consider to be a good aspect of colonization????

Anyone???
http://www.historum.com/general-hist...ml#post1140424

http://www.historum.com/general-hist...ml#post1140473

http://www.historum.com/general-hist...ml#post1168363

http://www.historum.com/general-hist...ml#post1168480

http://www.historum.com/general-hist...ml#post1168488

http://www.historum.com/general-hist...ml#post1168494

http://www.historum.com/general-hist...ml#post1168685
Jinit is online now  
Old November 8th, 2012, 01:38 PM   #407

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,545
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelica View Post
Wow....this is beautiful....Gandhi is so iconic...if it was at all possible to travel in the past.... my wish would be to meet him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal Rainbow View Post
I have always been interested in Gandhi, he was one of those greatest men who had the best intentions for his country. The country that I was born in plays down our heroes of the working classes.

Gandhi was indeed an iconic man. If only we had 100 more Gandhis in the world there wouldn't have been any war.
Jinit is online now  
Old November 8th, 2012, 02:18 PM   #408

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 8,355

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
Gandhi was indeed an iconic man. If only we had 100 more Gandhis in the world there wouldn't have been any war.
And how exactly do you think Gandhi would have done with Adolf Hitler?

I believe he commented on it himself
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 02:23 PM   #409

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,545
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
And how exactly do you think Gandhi would have done with Adolf Hitler?

I believe he commented on it himself

If there would have been a man like Gandhi in germany , may be there wouldn't have been rise of Nazism at all.
Jinit is online now  
Old November 8th, 2012, 02:27 PM   #410

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 8,355

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
If there would have been a man like Gandhi in germany , may be there wouldn't have been rise of Nazism at all.
Really and how do you think the SS would have dealt with passive resistence?

He would have been in a concentration camp in 5 minutes
Kevinmeath is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
britain, countries, invaded


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If Germany had invaded Britain 1940? Celticguy Speculative History 41 July 19th, 2014 07:17 AM
Canada/Australia in the event Britain was invaded by Germany? Mitchell Hundred European History 31 January 5th, 2013 07:15 PM
If Britain had been invaded in 1940 Bish Speculative History 40 January 19th, 2012 04:36 PM
WWII_Could Japan navy invaded Britain? Perix Speculative History 16 October 6th, 2010 01:02 AM
Last century the Great Britain invaded Latvia Lauma European History 3 August 20th, 2010 01:32 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.