meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Finally, before one even tries to blame Americans for their 'beliefs,' I would point out with more than enough historic proof, that the British Empire had one of the best records in the world for using up the natural resources of a colony and granting independance only after there was nothing left. Case in point, India. When the British granted India independance, there was absolutely nothing left that the Indian government could build an economy on. I completely agree with you that the British Empire was exploitative, I would say for awhile when it was the possession of the merchant adventurers it was 100% exploitative. Once it was nationalized it became less exploitative and the idea of duty to empire was created and many admirable people did their best in a Victorian patronizing way to improve the lives of the people in their power. It was the British Empire that fought a war (alone) against slavery. It was to Britain a slave could escape to freedom. As for your claim that Britain granted India independence when there was nothing left, that is totally rediculous, Britain mainly used India as a market, forcing them to buy British products which was why Ghandi said it was every Indian's patriotic duty to weave cloth. The British left India after WWII because the socialists came to power in Britain and wanted to get rid of the Empire, apart from that, Britain asked the British Indian Imperial Army to fight for freedom, it then couldn't turn round and say they (Indians) couldn't have freedom. In fact most of the infrastructure in use in India today, was actually built and designed by the British. The idea of India being a political entity (as opposed to a cultural one which it was already recognized by the Indians as such) was actually a British idea so without the British Empire, India wouldn't exist today and neither would Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. The British Empire was a mixed bag, and as I have already pointed out, when the corruption of the capitalists got too much, the British government stepped in, nationalized it and took over governance of the Empire and did what was seen in Victorian times as the right thing. Of course, from where we stand, the Victorian right thing doesn't look to good but in Victorian times honour and duty (as well as a good dose of hypocrisy) was there for all to see. Many Indian historians have given a lot of credit to the British after the nationalization of the Empire, the Indian Empire being one as much of cooperation. Britain only had 40,000 troops and 40,000 civil servants in India at the height of the empire, not enough to hold down an hostile country the size of india, of course, a little divide and rule came into play.
< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 6/18/2008 12:44:09 AM >
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|