British Empire in a 1000 years
Discussion
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.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.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.
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.
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'.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.
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.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 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'.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.
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'.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.
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'.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.
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'.
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'.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.
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'.
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.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'.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'?
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'.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'?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff