British Empire in a 1000 years

[Yertis]

In a 1000 years time the world will be run by giant ants who travel in flying cars. They won't care about the British Empire.

[BruceV8]

The British Empire will - or at least should - be remembered for the way it came to an end: More or less voluntarily after the home country bankrupted itself fighting probably the most evil empire in history.

[s2art]

BruceV8 said:

The British Empire will - or at least should - be remembered for the way it came to an end: More or less voluntarily after the home country bankrupted itself fighting probably the most evil empire in history.

Better than that. It was already dismantling itself to give home rule long before that.

[BruceV8]

s2art said:

BruceV8 said:

The British Empire will - or at least should - be remembered for the way it came to an end: More or less voluntarily after the home country bankrupted itself fighting probably the most evil empire in history.

Better than that. It was already dismantling itself to give home rule long before that.

True. Most of the nationalist politicians who took power after independence were educated in or by Britain for that very purpose.

[bosscerbera]

It's always struck me that the Greek/Roman efforts were more organised (even if they spanned less territory).

I think the main significance of the British Empire was its spanning of the globe. Britain was a late starter: Portugal, Spain, Holland and France all had a go before. A strategic alliance with Holland over Indian trade, and the adoption of a Dutch-style financial system, led to the means of funding the biggest naval fleet in the world. The navy largely did for the French. Odd things like the British settlers traveling as couples made a big difference to the colonizing effort - Spaniards were less interested in settling than trade, and shacked up with local women. European diseases (and some African diseases from slaves) cleared out a lot of indigenous people. There was not much of a masterplan, the first 'explorers' were essentially licensed pirates.

Once Britain felt it was quite good at the settlement mularkey, it got a bit big for its boots with its chauvinistic attempts to Anglicize ("civilize") the colonies with English customs for their own good. It kind of went downhill from there. "Got too big for its boots" sums it up; I think it began to fail when it moved away from live-and-let-live, particularly in India. The Empire made Britain rich then became a drain when ideology became more important than trade.

The Americans don't appear to have learned much from the "too big for own boots" lesson. I'm not entirely convinced the Yanks will rule the next phase, they're rapidly going skint forcing democracy on people - who don't want it anymore than Asians wanted to be Christians 150 years ago. China looks set to make a comeback though.

[Bushmaster]

I would put William III and Marlborough's victories as the start of what became the British Empire.

The Armada is a ridiculous start - for a start England did not even control the British Isles at that time, let alone anywhere else, and was practically bankrupt.

[s2art]

bosscerbera said:

.

Once Britain felt it was quite good at the settlement mularkey, it got a bit big for its boots with its chauvinistic attempts to Anglicize ("civilize") the colonies with English customs for their own good. It kind of went downhill from there. "Got too big for its boots" sums it up; I think it began to fail when it moved away from live-and-let-live, particularly in India. The Empire made Britain rich then became a drain when ideology became more important than trade.

But that was exactly what made the B.E. special. It tried to do 'the right thing'.

[s2art]

Bushmaster said:

I would put William III and Marlborough's victories as the start of what became the British Empire.

The Armada is a ridiculous start - for a start England did not even control the British Isles at that time, let alone anywhere else, and was practically bankrupt.

It had already colonised Newfoundland in 1497.

[Bushmaster]

s2art said:

bosscerbera said:

.

Once Britain felt it was quite good at the settlement mularkey, it got a bit big for its boots with its chauvinistic attempts to Anglicize ("civilize") the colonies with English customs for their own good. It kind of went downhill from there. "Got too big for its boots" sums it up; I think it began to fail when it moved away from live-and-let-live, particularly in India. The Empire made Britain rich then became a drain when ideology became more important than trade.

But that was exactly what made the B.E. special. It tried to do 'the right thing'.

You mean like Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden'? Problem is, who decides what 'the right thing is'.

[s2art]

Bushmaster said:

s2art said:

bosscerbera said:

.

Once Britain felt it was quite good at the settlement mularkey, it got a bit big for its boots with its chauvinistic attempts to Anglicize ("civilize") the colonies with English customs for their own good. It kind of went downhill from there. "Got too big for its boots" sums it up; I think it began to fail when it moved away from live-and-let-live, particularly in India. The Empire made Britain rich then became a drain when ideology became more important than trade.

But that was exactly what made the B.E. special. It tried to do 'the right thing'.

You mean like Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden'? Problem is, who decides what 'the right thing is'.

You mean like educating the natives? Introducing democracy etc?

[tinman0]

Bushmaster said:

You mean like Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden'? Problem is, who decides what 'the right thing is'.

Ah, the which way is up argument. Seems to me that that argument is somewhat overused nowadays. And look where its got us.

[JonRB]

V8mate said:

Looks very much like a promo pic for the game Fallout3

(but I digress)

[Bushmaster]

s2art said:

Bushmaster said:

s2art said:

bosscerbera said:

.

Once Britain felt it was quite good at the settlement mularkey, it got a bit big for its boots with its chauvinistic attempts to Anglicize ("civilize") the colonies with English customs for their own good. It kind of went downhill from there. "Got too big for its boots" sums it up; I think it began to fail when it moved away from live-and-let-live, particularly in India. The Empire made Britain rich then became a drain when ideology became more important than trade.

But that was exactly what made the B.E. special. It tried to do 'the right thing'.

You mean like Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden'? Problem is, who decides what 'the right thing is'.

You mean like educating the natives? Introducing democracy etc?

Educate the natives and they don't want to work on the land anymore, so they starve and resent you.

Introduce democracy and the most 'populist' ruler gets elected, so the people starve and resent you.

As someone clever once said - 'for every complex problem there is a simple solution. And it is wrong'.

[s2art]

Bushmaster said:

s2art said:

Bushmaster said:

s2art said:

bosscerbera said:

.

Once Britain felt it was quite good at the settlement mularkey, it got a bit big for its boots with its chauvinistic attempts to Anglicize ("civilize") the colonies with English customs for their own good. It kind of went downhill from there. "Got too big for its boots" sums it up; I think it began to fail when it moved away from live-and-let-live, particularly in India. The Empire made Britain rich then became a drain when ideology became more important than trade.

But that was exactly what made the B.E. special. It tried to do 'the right thing'.

You mean like Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden'? Problem is, who decides what 'the right thing is'.

You mean like educating the natives? Introducing democracy etc?

Educate the natives and they don't want to work on the land anymore, so they starve and resent you.

Introduce democracy and the most 'populist' ruler gets elected, so the people starve and resent you.

As someone clever once said - 'for every complex problem there is a simple solution. And it is wrong'.

Wrong for who? How was educating the natives wrong for them?

[350GT]

Of course if you treat them like st, and keep them in the fields, you'll be seen as oppressive. It's a lose/lose situation.

[Mark.H]

JonRB said:

V8mate said:

Looks very much like Washington if the Mancs had been there to see a Ricky Hatton fightquote]

EFA

[Bushmaster]

350GT said:

Of course if you treat them like st, and keep them in the fields, you'll be seen as oppressive. It's a lose/lose situation.

Somebody's got to grow the cotton, sugarcane, etc. Can't have them all off singing hymns and st.

[350GT]

Bushmaster said:

350GT said:

Of course if you treat them like st, and keep them in the fields, you'll be seen as oppressive. It's a lose/lose situation.

Somebody's got to grow the cotton, sugarcane, etc. Can't have them all off singing hymns and st.

So you are saying educating the locals was a bad thing?

[bosscerbera]

s2art said:

Bushmaster said:

s2art said:

bosscerbera said:

Once Britain felt it was quite good at the settlement mularkey, it got a bit big for its boots with its chauvinistic attempts to Anglicize ("civilize") the colonies with English customs for their own good. It kind of went downhill from there. "Got too big for its boots" sums it up; I think it began to fail when it moved away from live-and-let-live, particularly in India. The Empire made Britain rich then became a drain when ideology became more important than trade.

But that was exactly what made the B.E. special. It tried to do 'the right thing'.

You mean like Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden'? Problem is, who decides what 'the right thing is'.

You mean like educating the natives? Introducing democracy etc?

The old adage 'sell not tell' might have been a better way. Then equip to choose, rather than ram it down people's throats. Lots of Indians did choose to adopt some English customs, and fought for the English in the Indian Mutiny. There were English settlers in India who were quite taken with Indian customs too.

The chauvinism of the West persists. Our own dogma, for instance, led us in more recent times to be horrified by the USSR determining the future professions of people at birth. We think choice is great, the best thing ever. Ordinary Russians suddenly presented with "choice" saw it as a loss of certainty, rather than any kind of gain. Our culture is different to others, we're inclined to defend it. Why would any other culture be any different? Who has the right to rank differences? Why are we so surprised/horrified when, after hurling jet fighters at foreign lands, they respond with 'atrocities'? WTF does a low flying bomber look like to an Iraqi/Afghan if not an 'atrocity'?

[s2art]

bosscerbera said:

s2art said:

Bushmaster said:

s2art said:

bosscerbera said:

Once Britain felt it was quite good at the settlement mularkey, it got a bit big for its boots with its chauvinistic attempts to Anglicize ("civilize") the colonies with English customs for their own good. It kind of went downhill from there. "Got too big for its boots" sums it up; I think it began to fail when it moved away from live-and-let-live, particularly in India. The Empire made Britain rich then became a drain when ideology became more important than trade.

But that was exactly what made the B.E. special. It tried to do 'the right thing'.

You mean like Kipling's 'The White Man's Burden'? Problem is, who decides what 'the right thing is'.

You mean like educating the natives? Introducing democracy etc?

The old adage 'sell not tell' might have been a better way. Then equip to choose, rather than ram it down people's throats. Lots of Indians did choose to adopt some English customs, and fought for the English in the Indian Mutiny. There were English settlers in India who were quite taken with Indian customs too.

The chauvinism of the West persists. Our own dogma, for instance, led us in more recent times to be horrified by the USSR determining the future professions of people at birth. We think choice is great, the best thing ever. Ordinary Russians suddenly presented with "choice" saw it as a loss of certainty, rather than any kind of gain. Our culture is different to others, we're inclined to defend it. Why would any other culture be any different? Who has the right to rank differences? Why are we so surprised/horrified when, after hurling jet fighters at foreign lands, they respond with 'atrocities'? WTF does a low flying bomber look like to an Iraqi/Afghan if not an 'atrocity'?

And that is what we did. Educate the natives to allow them to make their own choices.