British and Spanish Empires = bad, French and Portuguese Empires = good...?

The criticism of the British Concentration Camps, and they being referred to as ‘Death Camps’ started in the European Press while the Boer War was still ongoing. Since the Strategy was to clear the Veldt of the entire Boer population, with complete indifference to the fate of the Boer civilians in their custody, it would be very difficult for it in modern terms to avoid being classed as genocidal.

IMHO the politicians never thought in genocidal terms, or rather they were well aware that if they ever did anything that was DIRECTLY genocidal there would be hell to pay at home, so avoided doing it

But often those on the ground had different ways of looking at things. Take the removal of the Tasmanian aboriginal people for instance - the British politicians thought of it as moving them to a reservation, opening the land up for settlement and removing the danger of constant low-level conflict. The people involved in doing it by and large thought of it as a grouse shoot or a herding operation, tho it failed spectacularly and they needed an evangelical madman to tempt the natives out with promises that proved to be lies, and they all ended up dying of misery, alcoholism etc. It LOOKS LIKE genocide, and tastes like genocide, but it wasn't how it was perceived by those who had the political responsibility, and it wasn't an immediate genocide, since the remains of the aborigines carried on living, just more of a living death until there were none left

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The criticism of the British Concentration Camps, and they being referred to as ‘Death Camps’ started in the European Press while the Boer War was still ongoing. Since the Strategy was to clear the Veldt of the entire Boer population, with complete indifference to the fate of the Boer civilians in their custody, it would be very difficult for it in modern terms to avoid being classed as genocidal.
What? No.
If they were indifferent to the fate of the civilians they wouldn't have bothered with the camps. They would have just burned the farms and either attacked or ignored the civilians to let them die wandering in the wilds. 30 years war style.

Uhh, the Congo? I've seen figures for 10 million dead there (admittedly under the free state, but still). That is almost as much as the Holocaust, assuming that the 12 million figure I have in my head is actually right.
The Congo Free State was not the Belgian Congo.
 
The Congo Free State was not the Belgian Congo.

No, but it was attached to Belgium through its monarch, and administered by Belgians. If the BEIC counts as British colonialism, I think the Free State counts as Belgian colonialism.
 
Hi all,
Could I put in another nominee?

Tsarist Russia: Particularly the Aleutian and Alaskan expansions.

Where would you fellows put Imperial Russia on this list?
 
Also, I read that despite the lack of millions dead in the Congo when administered by Belgium itself (as opposed to being the free state) wasn't exactly a place that would make up for the horrors that took place before. Apparently, when the Belgians left, there were a handful of people with a university degree. 3 Doctors were left, I think. Doesn't sound like they were preparing the country for independence.
Hi all,
Could I put in another nominee?

Tsarist Russia: Particularly the Aleutian and Alaskan expansions.

Where would you fellows put Imperial Russia on this list?
Im not exactly an expert, but I remember AHP saying a while back that at least in Central Asia, the Russians were probebly actually the best colonial power. Surprising, seeing as they had the worst domestic situation.
 
Actually British Empire was pretty bad. Their economy and hegemony depended actually on reducing urban workers to slave-like conditions. The situation in which the human element was as a factory worker or a miner was not too distinguishable from the (other country's) slave,except that the said slave would be valuable property, and the factory worker would not.
Belgian
 
Typically, the death rate under constant harsh conditions does fall. It does because the weakest in the population die off.
Given that this death rate fell lower than that of Glasgow, and in the light of other evidence (such as the fact that more children were being educated in the Orange River colony during the war than before it, 8,910 to 12,123), I think we can safely park this particular explanation.

What? No.
If they were indifferent to the fate of the civilians they wouldn't have bothered with the camps. They would have just burned the farms and either attacked or ignored the civilians to let them die wandering in the wilds. 30 years war style.
As the Boers recognised- Botha commented that:
"When the war began we had plenty of provisions, and a commando could remain for weeks in one spot without the local food supply running out. Our families, too, were then well provided for. But all this is now changed. One is only too thankful nowadays to know that our wives are under English protection."
 
degrees of evilness

All colonialism basically means taking other people's ressources because you can. There is no nice way a small number of europeans could take over large countries and exploit them. The portuguese did what they had to do, for practical reasons that they tried to justify later under a moral white coat of paint. The portuguese started to bring african slaves to work in their brasilian plantacions because the locals would die at a rather uneconomic rate for example...
All colonialism is evil. Some of it as better PR...
 
(such as the fact that more children were being educated in the Orange River colony during the war than before it, 8,910 to 12,123), I think we can safely park this particular explanation.
Propaganda. It is better PR to say you are "educating children"
than to say you have them effectively imprisoned. It was like that with the Nazi and their "bathing installations"....
 
But the Portuguese had a great deal many more slave plantations in Brazil, and plantation slavery was probably the worse thing colonialism did after the Congo. .
I'd put the opium trade
inflicted in China as just as bad if not worse (more recent). Besides, the portuguese were a client state of the British for much of that time. They
extracted their quote of the profits of slavery from the Portuguese, as interest on loans and as profit on the manufactured articles sold to Portugal... Articles produced in conditions worse than the worst of today's sweatshops...
 
Actually British Empire was pretty bad. Their economy and hegemony depended actually on reducing urban workers to slave-like conditions. The situation in which the human element was as a factory worker or a miner was not too distinguishable from the (other country's) slave,except that the said slave would be valuable property, and the factory worker would not.
Belgian

I'm not sure British industrialisation was any worse than anyone else. It just happened first, so it was noticed more. Plus, the British political system did genuinely try to address the situation with various laws. Unlike the slavery they put up with in the Americas.

Besides, an industrial work day, as bad as it was, is still better than staving on the streets, as happened in much of the world for much of history. This is demonstrated by the fact most British workers chose to work in the factories rather than not work.
 
I'm not sure British industrialisation was any worse than anyone else. It just happened first,
Yes, it came first and was was the worst. There simply wasn't any structure, legal or social , to address the differences of power and conflicts of interest.


. Plus, the British political system did genuinely try to address the situation with various laws. Unlike the slavery they put up with in the Americas.
No, laws regulating slavery were indeed issued.
and slavery, as mentioned was also of british responsibility. Had they wanted to do more than put up a show, the british could have arm-twisted Portugal into abandoning slavery. Portugal was up to the neck indebted
the British, and depended on them to supply a lot of things. The British chose to collect interest on slavery's profits instead. Blatant hypocrisy.

Besides, an industrial work day, as bad as it was, is still better than staving on the streets, as happened in much of the world for much of history
And happened in in the industrial city more than ever. What must be seen is that industrialization changed the socioeconomic conditions of the whole society. Those without money had no option bt the industries.
This is demonstrated by the fact most British workers chose to work in the factories rather than not work.
Oh,yeah, and people chose to climb to ceilings in an inundation. Only industrialization was its own water.
 
Industrialization did cause the standard of living to rise over time, but not at a pretty cost in monetary terms as part of the process.

Though saying the alternatives are better...I'm not altogether sure. Farming at just barely above the subsistence level isn't much of a way to make a living either.
 
Top