The British Empire......LIVES!!!

[Darkling]

So you agree we are similarly biased?

No you have a reason to biased in favour of the CFS and Leopold, I have no such reason to biased against him, in fact I should be more sympathetic since I don't suffer form post colonial guilt and can see many advantages brought about by the colonial age.

I know I am a bit chauvinistic, and readily acknowledge that contrary to some people on this board. But I swear you, I am really a-typical in this respect for an average Belgian.

Maybe so but you stated Belgians were the least “nation proud” (if you will) in Europe but that is about as provable as the British Empire being the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind.

I would hope you are now convinced how Hochschild could at time completely twist his sources. There were lots of other fantasy population calculations in other geographies at the time, a fact to which a professional historian would have been attuned to.

I have no doubt Hochschild could be wrong, after all I didn’t agree with him myself but I am far more willing to lean towards his (or more accurately Pakenhams) idea of Leopold being a rather bad fellow than the idea of a somewhat misguided but generally ok chap that you were putting forward earlier.

The conspiracy I was referring to was about the Belgian archives. And as far as Leopold was concerned, he did indeed maintain a network as any reasonable government ought to do.

He wasn’t acting in his capacity as a government at first though; he was acting as a private business man.

I start having some reassurance. By the way, which among all the people who scrambled for Africa was stupid and scrupulous?

Was the most stupid you mean?

Hmm the French made some rather large errors but that was more due to the government changing every week and the army/navy deciding to to create their own empire in West Africa without listening to them, certainly the French risking war at Fashoda was stupid in the extreme.

The British were probably too laid back and should have taken earlier action to keep more of Africa for themselves (although they never really wanted it so it was a failure by design).

Gladstone getting sucked into Egypt against all his efforts was pretty funny.

Leopold was rather clever and achieved his goals against tough odds.

Bismarck getting led down the garden path for probably the first and only time was probably the greatest misstep of any leader during the scramble.

Another one on Leopold, he signed on his deathbed, the day before he was taken, the bill instituting the draft in Belgium. He had been fighting for that measure for almost 5 years, in parallel with launching an ambitious program to modernize the Belgian forts. By that act alone, I am ready to argue that he saved the Entente in 1914.

You seem to be out to defend Leopold’s character which is an obvious agenda outside of the truth, Leopold may have been good for Belgium but it doesn’t change what he got up to in the Congo.

I beg to disagree. If the people killed in Rwanda had had white skins, the intervention would have been a matter of days, not of months. Look at what happened in Kolwezi in the 1970's. And possibly my greatest shame for my country is that we pulled out our paratroopers so quickly when the massacres started.

Not if they had been white people in Africa, Mugabe has got away with running an ethnic cleansing campaign against the white skinned in Zimbabwe (although nowhere as bad as Rwanda which was full on genocide) with barely an eye lid being raised.

Africa just can’t be fixed in most peoples minds, the Americans had just been in Somalia and from their viewpoint they tried to help the people and just got their soldier’s corpses dragged though he streets in return.

Most people just regard genocide and death as the usual thing in Africa and see little point in getting involved.

Look at Mugabe today or Dafur, people just aren’t bothered because it is Africa.

 

[Tyr]

Don't bicker about present tense. Russia has trouble in Chechnya, it has recently lost Ukraine, and some other will follow at some point. It is in the process of shrinking even if not at this very second. And the fact that some of those areas were or are formally independent countries does not mean they were/are not part of a Russian Empire.

Russia lost Ukraine over a decade ago...
I do know of Checnya, that whole general region is a bit iffy. They could loose the whole of that area though and still be a long way from loosing most of their empire.

Are you really stupid or do you only pretend?

Your having to stoop to petty insults proves which of us is the stupid one.
Why exactly do you signal this part out for being worthy of insulting then?

 

[Wendell]

Russia lost Ukraine over a decade ago...
I do know of Checnya, that whole general region is a bit iffy. They could loose the whole of that area though and still be a long way from loosing most of their empire.



Your having to stoop to petty insults proves which of us is the stupid one.
Why exactly do you signal this part out for being worthy of insulting then?

By "Losing Ukraine," he means as a puppet state, I think.

 

[Wozza]

Well, there is an interesting little book that was issued a few years ago on the German occupation in the Channel Islands, and the reaction of the population. Can't remember the title, but I'm sure you could find it easily through a Google search or on Amazon. Well, the point of the book was to show that the authorities and inhabitants of those charming islands found some pretty good accomodation with their German occupiers. IIRC, and please forgive me if some details are wrong - that was a while ago, the local authorities developed a rather warm and fuzzy relationship with the Germans, the local administration participated in the identification, if not the round-up, of the local Jewish families (fortunately not many), hardly any act of resistance was recorded contrary to what was happening on the Continent, etc.
You are probably referring to a Model Occupation by Madeleine Bunting. I will confess to never having read it but it is famously bad. It is history written with an explicitly political purpose - which is always a bad start. It was written to prode that Britain is a normal European country and therefore embrace European integration.
Bunting is a Guardian journalist and this is their sort of agenda.

It also ignores certain key facts - such as there were Germans per square foot in the Channel Islands than in Germany. Also all the men of military age were removed and the islanders were ordered not to resist. so extrapolating from the Royal Duchy of Normandy to the United Kingdom (technically a separate country please note) is a tad tricky.

 

[benedict XVII]

By "Losing Ukraine," he means as a puppet state, I think.

I admire your patience at explaining those kinds of things. I lost mine...

 

[benedict XVII]

Well, there is an interesting little book that was issued a few years ago on the German occupation in the Channel Islands, and the reaction of the population. Can't remember the title, but I'm sure you could find it easily through a Google search or on Amazon. Well, the point of the book was to show that the authorities and inhabitants of those charming islands found some pretty good accomodation with their German occupiers. IIRC, and please forgive me if some details are wrong - that was a while ago, the local authorities developed a rather warm and fuzzy relationship with the Germans, the local administration participated in the identification, if not the round-up, of the local Jewish families (fortunately not many), hardly any act of resistance was recorded contrary to what was happening on the Continent, etc.
You are probably referring to a Model Occupation by Madeleine Bunting. I will confess to never having read it but it is famously bad. It is history written with an explicitly political purpose - which is always a bad start. It was written to prode that Britain is a normal European country and therefore embrace European integration.
Bunting is a Guardian journalist and this is their sort of agenda.

It also ignores certain key facts - such as there were Germans per square foot in the Channel Islands than in Germany. Also all the men of military age were removed and the islanders were ordered not to resist. so extrapolating from the Royal Duchy of Normandy to the United Kingdom (technically a separate country please note) is a tad tricky.

Thank you for the information. Don't really see the relationship between European integration and the occupation of the Channel Islands, but very little surprises me still coming from Britain.

Btw, I was not trying to extrapolate whatever behavior there may have been in the Channel Islands to Britain, just making a point about the fact that populations collaborating with an occupier / colonizer does not mean they view the situation positively. I wanted to choose an example close to home, but maybe it was wrongly picked. But we could find a few dozens in other situations easily. In pccupied Europe for instance.

And I fully agree on your point about writing history with an explicit political purpose. That's exactly what Marchal or Hochschild were doing...

 

[paladine]

if you eliminate both world wars, or even just make it so the british didnt tell the germans (or anyone else for that matter) how to make machine guns, then the british empire would be the undisputed leader of of world events. it was the most powerful entity by far even right after world war 2, it just didnt have enough cash left to keep up its infrastructure up. in both world wars the other side tried prety hard (at least in comparison) not to bring the empire into the war.

 

[benedict XVII]

No you first eluded to channel islanders taking a neutral stance because they didn't want to get killed and linked it to Indians not having a choice but to help the British, they did have such a choice and they were quite happy to side with the British.

Many Soldiers kept pictures of the Queen Empress around for pities sake.

The first meeting of Congress was chaired by a Scotsman’s and they referred to the Queen Empress as mother, even that ludite zealot Ghandi credited Britain with making India possible.

I alluded, not eluded. Geez... See my response to Wozza for the meaning of the analogy I wanted to draw.

As for the Indians, I am sure they did have a choice, but there were so many advantages to siding with the power in place.

By the way, many collaborators in Europe had pictures of Hitler at home as well. And please, don't say I compared Victoria to Hitler, I just mean the "picture-at-home" argument does not fly.

However eh British weren't being as oppressive as the CFS an there was much better infrastructure to allow rebellion in India, we aren't talking about some cannibals being paid to eat people we are talking about loyal soldiers going about soldiering and civil servants doing their jobs.

But that existed in the CFS as well. The Force Publique was disciplined and quite an effective fighting force, look at the victories they won against Lettow-Vorbeck a few years later. Using the demeaning qualifier of "cannibal" does not do justice to them. Also, the Congolese employees of the administration were also doing their job, though they were on average less skilled than Indians, I concede. The starting situations, as you pointed out, were different.

Oh, and about rebellion in India, didn't something happen with the Cipayes at some point? Oh yes, you'll tell me they were manipulated about the pork / cow fat. But you know, anthropologists know better why such stories (and I guess there was probably little truth in that specific fat story) take hold and trigger revolts.

As for the British behaving well, I didn't make that claim although they did behave a damn sight better than the CFS did.


My claim is that the Indians were more than happy to work with the British and they weren't forced into it.

Sure, some Indians were happy.

Once again I must point out the difference between a few tens of thousands of people deciding not to risk getting killed by an occupying army and people from amongst 250 million joining up with you and helping you to conquer more land and police the land already held.

That's the story of most colonizations, when they did not include massive settlement. As for the Channel Islands, I refer to my previous answer.

The fact that the Indians didn't have a liberal tradition is exactly the point, they were quite used to switching to the more powerful side and they did so once Britain became such.

Yes, but not all so readily if I recall my history well...

The French government concluded a treaty with the Germans, they were willing to cooperate in order to keep their government alive and it was only when they failed to maintain control that the Germans finally put the boot in and took over the whole shebang.

Yes, and what makes you think that Indians weren't making the same kind of compromise with the British? And this does not take away the fact that the overwhelming majority of the French still wished the Germans were not there!

You also completely failed to address by point, you have whined about there being reasons for people to collaborate with an occupying force (and I wouldn't count the British in India as such anymore than the previous owners) but you haven't counted on the points I raised about the difference between the CFS and the Raj, either address my points or don't waste time pretending to reply to them.

But I did acknowledge some of the differences. I simply think they were more in terms of degree than in terms of nature. And still, since the two histories did not run in parallel, comparisons are not so straightforward. The conquest of India was essentially completed by the middle of the 19th century, while Congo was not even explored yet. And the longer your rule, the better you pervade native spirits and make them docile, that is, until new ideologies arise.

There is a difference between deporting them and murdering them wholesale, there is a difference between leading Germany back to being a great power and trying to conquer all of Europe.

It is classical for people to overlook what they don't want to see. But the hate was there, and firmly so.

Mein Kampf was available yes but you will note that the Russians didn't take those ravings seriously and neither did the British or French or even the Jews who decided they could stay in Germany and live things down, I find it hardly suspiring that the average German didn't expect him to abide by his ramblings.

Sorry, the French were very concerned. They lacked the resolve to act, especially since their ally, for lack of lucidity, was not exactly very supportive at the time. As for Jews, they started leaving as soon as Hitler came into power.

Ah but we set the tone, if we hadn't led the way would the French of Belgians have felt as much pressure to follow?

Sure. Did I not praise you for that?

It may have been morally wrong but it still doesn’t rate as a major problem until the Irish were let into the Union.

1. Catholic disenfranchisement was only one aspect of the bad treatment inflicted on Ireland.
2. If we're talking about "major problems" beyong morality issues, what's then your gripe about the CFS?

Not at all, annexing Ireland and creating a unified government isn't something I am particularly unhappy with.

Why did I not expect anything different from you?

But of course you would however I don't see your proof.

Proof is everywhere to be read. The entire colonial ideology of the second half of the 19th century is filled with references to races, the superiority of the white race over the others, its duty to rule the world to make it better, and there was an even more stupid competition between the white races to see what their characteristics were and which was best... All this against th background of the gaudy nationalism that would consume Europe in WWI. Racism was simply the standard ideology by which international policy was read and justified. It does not preclude that some enlightened individuals knew better, but how few they were, even amongst Socialist leaders! And about the fact that some non-Whites reached a high status and could be held with some regard, this was all justified by the fact that they were somehow exceptional specimens of their own race.

And, mind you, I can still have sympathy for my forefathers, but that does not make me blind to their shortcomings. I know our generation has its own.

Instead we got to see a lovely parade of red herrings, post colonial hand wringing and Leopold apologia.

Yes much better.

If you call analogies red herrings...
I saw a lot of post colonial nostalgia here...
As for Leopold apologia, see my comments on the next post...

 

[Darkling]

Oh, and about rebellion in India, didn't something happen with the Cipayes at some point? Oh yes, you'll tell me they were manipulated about the pork / cow fat. But you know, anthropologists know better why such stories (and I guess there was probably little truth in that specific fat story) take hold and trigger revolts.

Sepoys Geez.

And the reason why the mutiny occurred was because some Indians became convinced the British were out to convert them to Christianity en masse, utter nonsense of course but there it was.

Yes, and what makes you think that Indians weren't making the same kind of compromise with the British? And this does not take away the fact that the overwhelming majority of the French still wished the Germans were not there!

Because for a start the Indians didn't exist as a unified entity when the British arrived so they could hardly agree to let the British have part of India, they had no control outside of their part of India.

It is classical for people to overlook what they don't want to see. But the hate was there, and firmly so.

You are evading my point, people knew Hitler didn’t like Jews and wanted to restore Germany but that doesn’t translate to industrial slaughter and attacking most other nations in sight.

Sorry, the French were very concerned. They lacked the resolve to act, especially since their ally, for lack of lucidity, was not exactly very supportive at the time.

Why be concerned if they knew what Hitler was going to do?

If as you believe they knew what was coming they would have invaded Germany the moment Hitler came to power and the international community which also supposedly knew exactly what was coming should have applauded the action.

Of course since you theory is idiotic that doesn't hold up.

As for Jews, they started leaving as soon as Hitler came into power.

Some did, the Nazi's even helped facilitate it however many Jew stayed because Germany was their home and they thought it would blow over.

Of course you believe they knew they were about to get murdered en masse and stayed for fun.

Sure. Did I not praise you for that?

Your praise is neither here nor there, you said Britain couldn't hold back the tide (you used a rather more crude metaphor but that was the jist) and I pointed out that Britain set the tide.

If you agree then you earlier comment makes no sense.

1. Catholic disenfranchisement was only one aspect of the bad treatment inflicted on Ireland.

No doubt, but that was the main problem with integrating the Irish into the UK although eventually they calmed down.

2. If we're talking about "major problems" beyong morality issues, what's then your gripe about the CFS?

Doing dubious things (their is a line however, stripping a few blokes of their right to vote is a long way from wife kidnapping and murder) which result in a better situation over the long term may be justified however the CFS actions only resulted in making Leopold a rich man and making a lot of Congolese dead.

Why did I not expect anything different from you?

Because I am an evil misguided idiot in your viewpoint who is obviously deluded for disagreeing with you.

In your estimation at least.

Proof is everywhere to be read.

Everything you cite after this speaks to policies and ideology, you made the claim that on a personal level the bulk of the people were racist.

This "proof" is a red herring.

White mans burden was more culturalist than racist, you will often find that the people who disliked Indian nationalists were less concerned with their race than they were with their class and politics (they are cast in the same light as socialists and liberals not as half clothed savages).

If the majority of people were so racist then why were people back in Britain able to elect Indians as MPs?

Would not their racism force them to vote the other way?

 

[benedict XVII]

Sepoys Geez.

Used French spelling, sorry. But I can't wait for you to correct my French, as I had to correct your English.

And the reason why the mutiny occurred was because some Indians became convinced the British were out to convert them to Christianity en masse, utter nonsense of course but there it was.

See comments I was making on anthropologists. I can write it, and you still don't see it.

Because for a start the Indians didn't exist as a unified entity when the British arrived so they could hardly agree to let the British have part of India, they had no control outside of their part of India.

So what?

You are evading my point, people knew Hitler didn’t like Jews and wanted to restore Germany but that doesn’t translate to industrial slaughter and attacking most other nations in sight.



Why be concerned if they knew what Hitler was going to do?

If as you believe they knew what was coming they would have invaded Germany the moment Hitler came to power and the international community which also supposedly knew exactly what was coming should have applauded the action.

Of course since you theory is idiotic that doesn't hold up.

There is a difference between having the intellectual understanding somebody is dangerous, and having mustered the conviction and courage to act against that person.

Some did, the Nazi's even helped facilitate it however many Jew stayed because Germany was their home and they thought it would blow over.

Of course you believe they knew they were about to get murdered en masse and stayed for fun.

I just meant the signs were clearly there for whoever was ready to see them, but it is a fact of human nature that people don't like change and won't act until confronted with imminent danger. I am seeing that in my profession every day.

Your praise is neither here nor there, you said Britain couldn't hold back the tide (you used a rather more crude metaphor but that was the jist) and I pointed out that Britain set the tide.

If you agree then you earlier comment makes no sense.

Replying to your post where you said decolonization of Africa came in too early in your view, I praised the British for still having the lucidity of doing so. To which you replied it had been convenient for Britain but maybe not right for the Africans. And that's when I used my colourful metaphor, not against Britain but against people who may not have understood the situation properly. So, praise there was, go back to your archives.

Doing dubious things (their is a line however, stripping a few blokes of their right to vote is a long way from wife kidnapping and murder) which result in a better situation over the long term may be justified however the CFS actions only resulted in making Leopold a rich man and making a lot of Congolese dead.

One, stripping a few blokes of their right to vote is not the only thing you did to the Irish. Two, murder and wife kidnapping is not the only thing that happened in the CFS.

And by the way, many Congolese intellectuals have mixed feelings reagarding Leopold: they hold him responsible for the abuse that happened during his rule, but they also acknowledge he was the founder of their nation. Similar to - where again? - oh yes, India!

Do you know how Leopold got the support of the Americans at the start of his enterprise? I just found out today he had edited a brochure listing all the abuse perpetrated by the British (and accessorily, Portuguese) in their Empire. How ironic can history be, isn't it? I'll try to find the brochure back.

Oh, and I also found out that Cecil Rhodes, amongst other things, had attended human sacrifices in honor of the signing of a treaty with an African lord. I assume that's the flip side of governing through existing insititutions. And Rhodes, as everybody knows, was purely motivated by the high mission of spreading the lights of British civilization.

Because I am an evil misguided idiot in your viewpoint who is obviously deluded for disagreeing with you.

In your estimation at least.

Evil, no, you must be quite innocuous. Misguided, at times, but with the best of intentions. Idiot, not quite, you know your subject but could broaden your horizon a bit. Deluded, I must confess I'm puzzled by your seeming inability to see the non-British point of view in all this.

Everything you cite after this speaks to policies and ideology, you made the claim that on a personal level the bulk of the people were racist.

This "proof" is a red herring.

White mans burden was more culturalist than racist, you will often find that the people who disliked Indian nationalists were less concerned with their race than they were with their class and politics (they are cast in the same light as socialists and liberals not as half clothed savages).

If the majority of people were so racist then why were people back in Britain able to elect Indians as MPs?

Would not their racism force them to vote the other way?

Curious to see how many Indians were elected as MPs, and by which burroughs.

I was not talking about people who disliked Indain nationalists. I was thinking how people in general in Europe at that time would see people that were not white. Open any popular newspaper of that time and you'll find out.

 

[benedict XVII]

if you eliminate both world wars,

Euh, yes, and how do you do that?

or even just make it so the british didnt tell the germans (or anyone else for that matter) how to make machine guns,

Do you think that without British genius, they would never have been able to find out by themselves?

then the british empire would be the undisputed leader of of world events.

I think the country that lost most from the two World Wars was Germany, not Britain. Britain getting concerned by Germany's ascension is one of the factors to consider in the events leading to WWI.

it was the most powerful entity by far even right after world war 2,

More than the US?

in both world wars the other side tried prety hard (at least in comparison) not to bring the empire into the war

I would not call violating Belgian neutrality in WWI trying pretty hard... Nor rejecting the ultimatum about the invasion of Poland in WWII...

 

[benedict XVII]

No you have a reason to biased in favour of the CFS and Leopold, I have no such reason to biased against him, in fact I should be more sympathetic since I don't suffer form post colonial guilt and can see many advantages brought about by the colonial age.

I was not talking about your potential bias against the CFS and Leopold, bt about your very obvious bias in favor of the BE.

Maybe so but you stated Belgians were the least “nation proud” (if you will) in Europe but that is about as provable as the British Empire being the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind.

This is perfectly provable. The European Commission runs regular serveys throughout Europe to rate feelings of belongings to various entities (World, Europe, nation, region, city, etc.) Belgians quite systematically come in last as for feeling of belonging to their country. Not that I'm particularly proud of this, but I've learnt to live with it. You should be able to get access to hose surveys through a direct Google search, I think.

I have no doubt Hochschild could be wrong, after all I didn’t agree with him myself but I am far more willing to lean towards his (or more accurately Pakenhams) idea of Leopold being a rather bad fellow than the idea of a somewhat misguided but generally ok chap that you were putting forward earlier.

Go back to what I wrote, and you'll see some of the attributes I used about Leopold are not minced, and anyway stronger that any qualifier you may have used about the BE. What I did is bring some context and nuance to the caricature he is often made of in Anglo-Saxon historiography.

This said, I think that when you want to judge Leopold as a man, you need to go beyond what he did in Congo, which after all, represented maybe only 20% of his action. You may understandably not be interested in this, but his action extended to developing the first social legislation in Belgium, restoring equality between the Dutch and French languages, making education compulsory, keeping a balance between Catholic and liberal extremists, steering a spectacular economic development of the country, enforcing Belgian neutrality during the 1870 war (with help from Britain, sure), preparing the country's defence and army in view of WWI, etc. If you want to understand and judge the man, you need to factor all this. And you should also factor the positive things he did in Congo, such as the successful campaign against slaveholders. I trust you know where to pick the negative elements.

And again, I am not trying to justify Leopold's action blindly in Congo, I've made it clear what I think about colonialism. But I say you need to judge the man in context.

He wasn’t acting in his capacity as a government at first though; he was acting as a private business man.

Yes, and PR is part of running a business. He could not rely on the extensive diplomatic corps of HM, and maneuvered pretty adroitly considering this.

You seem to be out to defend Leopold’s character which is an obvious agenda outside of the truth, Leopold may have been good for Belgium but it doesn’t change what he got up to in the Congo.

See my response above.

Not if they had been white people in Africa, Mugabe has got away with running an ethnic cleansing campaign against the white skinned in Zimbabwe (although nowhere as bad as Rwanda which was full on genocide) with barely an eye lid being raised.

Africa just can’t be fixed in most peoples minds, the Americans had just been in Somalia and from their viewpoint they tried to help the people and just got their soldier’s corpses dragged though he streets in return.

Most people just regard genocide and death as the usual thing in Africa and see little point in getting involved.

Look at Mugabe today or Dafur, people just aren’t bothered because it is Africa.

Sorry, you can't compare what happened in Rwanda or in Darfur with the issues in Zimbabwe, be it in terms of scope, intensity or cruelty. Not that I condone Mugabe, on the contrary, and I also realize the role post colonial guilt is probably playing in retaining Western powers from intervening more forcefully.

When Whites were massively threatened with violence in Africa, there has always been a forceful intervention by Western powers (Kolwezi in 1978, Ivory Coast last year, even in Rwanda in 1994, etc.) Many people are indeed not sensitive to genocide and death in Africa, because they have made of Africans the ultimate "other". It may not be the most crude form of racism, but it is there, subtly.

 

[Darkling]

Used French spelling, sorry. But I can't wait for you to correct my French, as I had to correct your English.

No problem, I suppose when you completely failed to make any other corret points stooping to being a spelling nazi is only to be expected.

See comments I was making on anthropologists. I can write it, and you still don't see it.

The problem is it was all localised to one branch of the army, indicating it is less a cultural phenomena and more mischief making.

It isn’t like Indian peasants weren’t rather susceptible to superstitious and rumour (most proper peasants were).

Of course continue with your "I have the evidence in my let hand pocket, no you can't see it".

So what?

Go back and read what I responding to, if you still don't get it then give up.

There is a difference between having the intellectual understanding somebody is dangerous, and having mustered the conviction and courage to act against that person.

Except Stalin was utterly convinced Hitler wouldn't come after him to the point of not believing the reports it was happening at first.

Try again.

If you really think everybody knew what was going to happen you are completely deluded.

I just meant the signs were clearly there for whoever was ready to see them, but it is a fact of human nature that people don't like change and won't act until confronted with imminent danger. I am seeing that in my profession every day.

Therefore the people didn't know what they were getting, thank you for finally conceding.

So, praise there was, go back to your archives.

"Neither here or there" doesn't mean it didn't exist, it means it isn't relevant, I won't make a snide comment about having to educate you in English phrases.

One, stripping a few blokes of their right to vote is not the only thing you did to the Irish. Two, murder and wife kidnapping is not the only thing that happened in the CFS.

No you also did that things where you grabbed their entire families and threatened to torch them unless the quota wasn’t met.

And by the way, many Congolese intellectuals have mixed feelings reagarding Leopold: they hold him responsible for the abuse that happened during his rule, but they also acknowledge he was the founder of their nation. Similar to - where again? - oh yes, India!

He did found their nation but he did far less for it than Britain did for India even given a similar time span and goal (early Company rule in India).

Do you know how Leopold got the support of the Americans at the start of his enterprise? I just found out today he had edited a brochure listing all the abuse perpetrated by the British (and accessorily, Portuguese) in their Empire. How ironic can history be, isn't it? I'll try to find the brochure back.

I think his paid lackeys and the Belgian ambassador to the US probably played a greater part.

Oh, and I also found out that Cecil Rhodes, amongst other things, had attended human sacrifices in honor of the signing of a treaty with an African lord. I assume that's the flip side of governing through existing insititutions. And Rhodes, as everybody knows, was purely motivated by the high mission of spreading the lights of British civilization.

No Rhodes was out for his own pocket although he did foster some rather grand dreams.

I however am not defending Rhodes, I'm not really a fan.

Deluded, I must confess I'm puzzled by your seeming inability to see the non-British point of view in all this.

What non-British viewpoint?

My viewpoint is primarily concerned with seeing the fairer side of colonialism, many British people hold the opposite view and many non British people hold the same view as I do.

Curious to see how many Indians were elected as MPs, and by which burroughs.

At least one each for the big three parties, I believe they were elected in London.

I was not talking about people who disliked Indain nationalists. I was thinking how people in general in Europe at that time would see people that were not white. Open any popular newspaper of that time and you'll find out.

Yet they were able to elect non white people then when later they would have great difficultly electing them, judging by the electoral fortunes Britain was more racist 1925 -1970 than it was before then.

 

[Darkling]

This is perfectly provable. The European Commission runs regular serveys throughout Europe to rate feelings of belongings to various entities (World, Europe, nation, region, city, etc.) Belgians quite systematically come in last as for feeling of belonging to their country. Not that I'm particularly proud of this, but I've learnt to live with it. You should be able to get access to hose surveys through a direct Google search, I think.

Wrong, I take regular note of Eurobarometer polls and Luxembourg always comes out ahead.

But lets look at feelings of belonging to Europe (results for EU 15), Belgium comes in 7th after Lux, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Italy and Finland.


41% of Belgians consider themselves Belgian only, which is forth after Lux, Italy and Spain.

Belgian comes in 2nd in nations that see themselves as European only with 7% which is just over a third of Lux’s 20%.

You claim would seem to be in error just out of the EU 15 members, let alone the EU 25 or Europe in general.

You going to retract the statement and admit you were wrong?

Yes, and PR is part of running a business. He could not rely on the extensive diplomatic corps of HM, and maneuvered pretty adroitly considering this.

Hiring private agents to influence governments is a little beyond PR and you again changed your position from “all governments do this” to “its PR” pick a position instead of being so blatant in doing anything to justify you eventual aim.

When Whites were massively threatened with violence in Africa, there has always been a forceful intervention by Western powers (Kolwezi in 1978, Ivory Coast last year, even in Rwanda in 1994, etc.)

When the intervention was for “our” whites, that is citizens of western powers yes it has but otherwise no.

In general interest in Africa just isn’t there (although Britain did Sierra Leone a few years back, where coincidently more than the odd British soldier reported people asking for the Empire to take over again and the Yanks had a crack at Somalia).

Many people are indeed not sensitive to genocide and death in Africa, because they have made of Africans the ultimate "other". It may not be the most crude form of racism, but it is there, subtly.

I would agree except it isn’t based on race but on the fact that they are Africans, if Dafur was the other way around with black Africans killing Arabs, peoples position would still be “its Africa”.

The place is a giant mess and is getting worse and has been for the last three decades.

 

[benedict XVII]

No problem, I suppose when you completely failed to make any other corret points stooping to being a spelling nazi is only to be expected.

I made my point, and all you seem to be able to answer is what I consider a grave insult to what was only a little tease.

The problem is it was all localised to one branch of the army, indicating it is less a cultural phenomena and more mischief making.

It isn’t like Indian peasants weren’t rather susceptible to superstitious and rumour (most proper peasants were).

Your argument would be perfectly OK for a senior thesis minoring in history, but quite frankly, it does not make the cut for grad school. Saying Indian peasants were susceptible to superstitious rumour (and I think this was a baseless rumor - don't get me wrong) does not explain why they believed that one and not another one. That's where anthropology can help you.

And the fact that it was localized would be receivable, if only it had been the only sign of unrest or dissatisfaction in India...

Of course continue with your "I have the evidence in my let hand pocket, no you can't see it".

I've told you to look at maps of Africa, to search the minutes of the Belgian Parliament or extracts from the Belgian press, to look for reports by Thysse or Renkin (I could even add Cassier), to get acquainted with the laws of the CFS, to examine Leopold's private correspondance, to listen to the interview of Kurgan and Vellut, I mentioned Stengers, I could add the recent reedition of the Casement reports by Vellut, the book by Daniël Vangroenweghe (quite critical of Leopold, but making a serious effort to scope the abuse in time and space), the catalogue of the recent exhibition of the Royal Museum for Central Africa about Congo (with multiple international contributions), multiple books by French historians, etc. etc. The truth is, you are expecting to be spoonfed, with the service of a free translator at that. And you spit in the spoon if you don't like the color, dismissing as biased anything that's Belgian (unless it agrees with your own preconceived opinion). I can't help it if most primary and secondary sources on the CFS are in French or Dutch. Educate yourself!

You read essentially one book which was not written by a historian (who, in his own word, wanted to describe what was happening in the CFS as a fight between good and evil, and who glorified an obsessive amateur as the foremost authority on Congo) and one chapter of another book (other references you took were most likely relying only on the classical Anglo-Saxon secundary sources).

You keep repeating your mantra about the BE being on balance a good thing for mankind without bringing much evidence but high-level generalities and sniping at the arguments of people who think otherwise, you have the naivete of stating that subdued people collaborate out of love for their lords, you are discounting the serious wrongdoing done by Britain to other people like the Irish, you reject the BE's responsibility for creating a mess in many places it went to (Northern Ireland, Palestine, India/Pakistan, Kenya, Zimbabwe, etc.) while you're happy to take the positive impact on the balance sheet (and I'm certainly not of the school that would deny there was some positive impact),

And you tell me I'm not proving my points nor disclosing my sources ?!?!?!?

Except Stalin was utterly convinced Hitler wouldn't come after him to the point of not believing the reports it was happening at first.

Try again.

If you really think everybody knew what was going to happen you are completely deluded.


Therefore the people didn't know what they were getting, thank you for finally conceding.

I did not say Stalin or anybody knew exactly what was going to happen. I did imply the elements were there for reasonably informed people to realize Hitler was a very dangerous individual, especially for Jews. And quite some did realize that, though much fewer had the courage to draw the conclusions. As for France, whose elite was probably the most lucid regarding Hitler, do you think they would have invested in modernizing the Maginot line or rearmed as of 1936 (under Léon Blum's Front Populaire, any coincidence with the fact that Blum was a Jew?) if they had not smelled a rat? No, they did not have a crystall ball and could not know what exactly was going to fall upon them. You can argue their reaction was not very forceful, and I'd have to agree with this. But they did not share Chamberlain's cecity.

And again, people in Germany knew Hitler would be bad for the Jews, even if they didn't know how bad. And many didn't care, and many even approved. It is symptomatic that the Germans managed to force Hitler to stop the gassing of handicapped people, but hardly raised a finger for Jews (with the notable exception of the Aryan spouses in Berlin in 1943).

I don't remember how this sub-thread started, but, if you don't mind, I'll consider it closed for now.

"Neither here or there" doesn't mean it didn't exist, it means it isn't relevant, I won't make a snide comment about having to educate you in English phrases.

Oh, but I'm quite eager to perfect my English. It's only my third language, you know. There is definitely room for improvement. Not as much as for your French, I guess...

No you also did that things where you grabbed their entire families and threatened to torch them unless the quota wasn’t met.

Do you really want to start a mud-slinging contest? The British Empire was vast and lasted for a long time... I think you will run out of ammunition faster than me! I'm only now trying to learn more about Rhodes (see hereunder).

He did found their nation but he did far less for it than Britain did for India even given a similar time span and goal (early Company rule in India).

His rule was twenty-two years, and as you said, the starting situation was different. Not a relevant comparison, I'm afraid. But if you want, we could compare with early British rule in Banjul or in the Guinea.

I think his paid lackeys and the Belgian ambassador to the US probably played a greater part.

Proof?

I think you missed the irony of the situation

No Rhodes was out for his own pocket although he did foster some rather grand dreams.

Really? And, despite his lack of idealism, he still managed to achieve such a prominent position in the benevolent BE?

I however am not defending Rhodes, I'm not really a fan.

I recently read a book by a French historian (let's say a neutral nation if you wish) - Jean Duché, otherwise you'll accuse me of keeping my sources in my pocket. He puts Leopold amongst the very bad, but in his view, Rhodes comes even ahead. He was also part of the British Empire, and prominently so. Not that I care about those rankings - I've already expressed my opinion on this, but I thought it was revealing.

At least one each for the big three parties, I believe they were elected in London.

And under which electoral system? If there were only three - out of how many? - will you allow me to say that in the grand scheme of things, this evidence is a bit flimsy? You even said in a previous post that there was quite crude racism in the British colonies at the time.

 

[Darkling]

Your argument would be perfectly OK for a senior thesis minoring in history, but quite frankly, it does not make the cut for grad school. Saying Indian peasants were susceptible to superstitious rumour (and I think this was a baseless rumor - don't get me wrong) does not explain why they believed that one and not another one. That's where anthropology can help you.

They didn't just believe one, red die in flour was taken to be cow’s blood (or pigs blood depending upon the religion) rumours that ground up cow bones were being put into flour was also spread.

There are quite a few instances of untouchables spreading the idea as a sort of "bite me, you soon won't have a caste" retort.

Then you have the other silly stuff like religious leaders on the Northwest frontier claiming they can make people immune to bullets or turn bombs into paper and people believing them.

Not the brightest of sparks just like your average 12th century European peasant.

And the fact that it was localized would be receivable, if only it had been the only sign of unrest or dissatisfaction in India...

Don't just say that present the evidence, it saves me having to ask for it.

The truth is, you are expecting to be spoonfed,

Not at all, but when I have something to say I backup in up with something from a primary source, I don't just say "India wasn't like that go read a book" I explain what is wrong with you argument.

You read essentially one book which was not written by a historian (who, in his own word, wanted to describe what was happening in the CFS as a fight between good and evil, and who glorified an obsessive amateur as the foremost authority on Congo) and one chapter of another book (other references you took were most likely relying only on the classical Anglo-Saxon secundary sources).

One chapter of another book?

I wonder how much you have read about the British Empire considering you are only just finding out about Rhodes, yet I don’t attack your ability to talk about it I criticise your reasoning and show why.

You keep repeating your mantra about the BE being on balance a good thing for mankind without bringing much evidence but high-level generalities and sniping at the arguments of people who think otherwise, you have the naivete of stating that subdued people collaborate out of love for their lords,

No I said most of them did it because the standard tradition was to go where the power was, that however doesn't mean some didn't appreciate their "lords", you just can't believe it because of you Imperialism - bad mindset (expect when its Belgian imperialism when we have to look closely to understand it).

you are discounting the serious wrongdoing done by Britain to other people like the Irish, you reject the BE's responsibility for creating a mess in many places it went to (Northern Ireland, Palestine, India/Pakistan, Kenya, Zimbabwe, etc.) while you're happy to take the positive impact on the balance sheet (and I'm certainly not of the school that would deny there was some positive impact),

When did I deny these things?

Zimbabwe is a mess because they didn't slowly expand the franchise, India/Pakistan is a mess because the Hindu and Muslims couldn't get along with one another (one of the main reasons the British touted for needing to be in India was only an impartial umpire could keep the peace and the Indians did a rather good job of proving the point) and Northern Ireland is a mess because of the Easter rising and the stubbornness of the Orangemen.

No, they did not have a crystall ball and could not know what exactly was going to fall upon them.

Thank you, concession accepted on that point.

And again, people in Germany knew Hitler would be bad for the Jews, even if they didn't know how bad.

Thank you again, concession accepted on that point.

But if you want, we could compare with early British rule in Banjul

Benjul was founded as an anti slavery outpost and it lasted a long time with a multi party democracy after we left (longest in all of Africa).
Not to bad.

Proof?

I don't have my copy o Pakenham to hand but he was rather explicit about the King having several paid men influencing the US government for him and the Belgian ambassador was also aiding the king.

Really? And, despite his lack of idealism, he still managed to achieve such a prominent position in the benevolent BE?

Actually the Colonies offices tried to prevent him founding Rhodesia, they set their own army up there to try and claim it as a protectorate but Rhodes beat them too it and secured it for himself and then got a royal charter.

With that said it should be no surprise people with a lack of idealism were about, they are people after all.

And under which electoral system?

FPTP of course in the late 1880-1920 (thus universal manhood suffrage, or close enough anyway).

If there were only three - out of how many? - will you allow me to say that in the grand scheme of things, this evidence is a bit flimsy?

How so, if the British public was so avidly racist how could Indians be elected

You even said in a previous post that there was quite crude racism in the British colonies at the time.

Indeed but colonies are a different matter and there the racism was usually down to the planter classes and the memsahib in India.

The officials usually weren't that racist and the Soldiers usually got on with their fellow soldiers (of whatever colour).

 

[Tyr]

By "Losing Ukraine," he means as a puppet state, I think.

Me too.
Ukraine was lost as a Russian puppet with the break up of the soviet union.
The situation that existed before the orange election mess was not as a puppet state. Ukraine was well under the Russian sphere of influence but certainly not at all being in its empire.
I can't think of any instances in the modern world where there are actual puppet states that are not just regions of the parent country with more local autonomy.

 

[Tielhard]

I do worry about the continued independence of Russian vassal states. I wonder what can be done about the situation?

 

[Civilizer]

bump, awesome thread topic

 

[Wendell]

I think this would make an interesting modern-day British Empire of sorts: