British Empire
Nemesis
Should it be taught more in schools ?
Where can I get more info ?
Richy
Mekon
"Nemesis" <nem...@enigma.com> wrote in message
news:7a546.42313$Ig.161315@news1-hme0...
> What is the modern view of the empire ?
I don't think there is such a thing as a " *the* modern view". As with most
things, your view depends upon where you stand.
> Should it be taught more in schools ?
*ALL* history should be taught more in schools.
> Where can I get more info ?
About what in particular?
Paul
Nemesis
Richy
Mekon <me...@removeme.mailroom.com> wrote in message
news:AZ546.40952$xW4.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Arbub
Mekon wrote in message ...
<snip>
>*ALL* history should be taught more in schools.
Amen to that.
GT
Larry G
> What is the modern view of the empire ?
> Should it be taught more in schools ?
> Where can I get more info ?
I found an interesting paper online from the President of York University in
Canada about his perspective on the Empire from the point of view of a
Canadian.
It was a very good indepth view of how the history of the British Empire is
taught in British schools today.
I'll post the URL if I find it again.
Larry
Larry G
> It was a very good indepth view of how the history of the British Empire
is
> taught in British schools today.
> I'll post the URL if I find it again.
http://www.yorku.ca/research/cha/html/bilingue/addresses/1993.htm
Here ya go. A very interesting paper on the perspective of the Empire from
both sides of the pond.
Larry
surr...@my-deja.com
Briefly, the 'Empire' is hardly mentioned in UK school history. It has
become totally non-PC. When it cannot be avoided it is portrayed as
something we should all be ashamed of.
As I have noted before, my two boys (in their 20's), both with an
otherwise very good education, hardly realised which of the world's
modern countries had or had not once been in the Empire - just one
generation!
If you are interested, there is a wealth of material, putting it
mildly, which I have barely even touched in some 50 years of
fascination! Latch onto a period/subject and many in the ng will help
or direct you towards whatever. There are also many books giving
excellent overall coverage for starters.
Best of luck!
Surreyman
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Nightjar
> the empire
>
......
> >
> > > Where can I get more info ?
> >
> > About what in particular?
> >
The British Empire lasted about three and a half centuries and, at its
height, included more than one quarter of the world's land surface area. It
would help if you could narrow your area of interest down a bit more.
Colin Bignell
Stan Spade
because the establishment don't want the people to know what were the
real objectives of empire.
empires do not come about by accident. they are deliberately organised,
financed and maintained to achieve set objectives.
once the objectives are met, empires are systematically run down and another
one created e.g. american empire.
a modern view of empire is misleading because it tries to explain empire in
terms of economics, trade and secular reference frame. when empire began,
the
world was not secular and non-secular goals were the primary driving force
behind
empire.
anyway, if you taught history properly, you would also have to explain the
nasty sides to empire e.g. slavery, racism and other politically incorrect
things but if you looked at these horrors and motivations for them from a
15th century
perspective, then the reasons behind them would be more apparent, though no
less justifiable.
surr...@my-deja.com
Some of this is very weird.
The Brit Empire did largely come about by accident. There was indeed
intent in some areas, but very often (due to a lack of any policy, and
slow communcations) even a lack of knowledge of what we had at any one
time! We refused several applicants who wished to join the Empire,
reluctantly adopted others (often gained by our own colonies), refused
to positively go into many 'empty' areas, traded our bits of land for
other bits of land left right & centre and, at times, heartily wished
we did not have much of it!
Once empires are built, for whatever reasons, they are not
then 'systematically run down'! Usually, desperate efforts are made to
hang onto them far beyond any economic or practical reality. There just
appears to be an inevitable 'rise & fall' scenario.
Non-secular reasons were very rarely the driving force of the British
Empire. They were often made the excuse, and even more often
missionaries etc. got in the way of the 'real' empire builders.
Of course there are 'nasty sides' to empire, and I agree totally that
this is why the Brit. Empire is hardly these days recognised as having
existed in education (yet I am not that old, and was occasionally
engaged by HM in trying to hang onto bits of it!).
History is history and should be factiually taught. The warts shouldn't
be ignored, but recognised, and maybe we would then learn more from it.
The Empire is crucial to the UK's present position in the world, and
the direct cause of many of our continuing foreign policies.
One reason why our policies seem incomprehensible to much of today's
younger UK population is because they have no knowledge of the reasons.
But, yet again, I seem to be flogging a dead horse.
As I said in the eariler post, I am not going to get embroiled in this
one :-)
Stan Spade
<surr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9344du$493$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
STARTING IN REVERSE ORDER:
> One reason why our policies seem incomprehensible to much of today's
> younger UK population is because they have no knowledge of the reasons.
reply
this is because most of what passes for 'history' is focused on explaining
*what* happened, *when* it happened, rather than *WHY* it happened.
> The Brit Empire did largely come about by accident. There was indeed
> intent in some areas, but very often (due to a lack of any policy, and
> slow communcations) ...
reply
IF global enterprises came about by accident then I ould be extremely
worried just in case Britain suddenly became part of
somebody elses empire, by accident!
Moreover, as Michael Parenti points out in one of his books about the
realities of the US empire, empires are not a natural phenomena either.
"In fact, imperialism is highly unnatural because it relies upon armed
coercion and repression. Empires do not emerge naturally and innocently.
They are welded together with deliberate deceit, greed and ruthless
violence. They are built upon the sword, the whip, and the gun. The history
of imperialism is about the enslavement and oppression of millions of
innocents, a history no less dreadful for remaining conveniently untaught in
most schools."
britain was not the only country to build a global empire, so did spain and
portugal,
france, holland ? but why only a handful of countries from north-west europe
and at
about the same time ? why not others ? why did an african country not build
ag loab
> The Empire is crucial to the UK's present position in the world, and
> the direct cause of many of our continuing foreign policies.
reply
Aah foreign policy and *continuing* foreign policies. now we're talking the
language
of objectives of the british empire :-)
i would argue that the british empire arose from the foreign policy concerns
of the day, and those concerns are a reflection of today's *continuing*
foreign policies.
i would further argue that in the modern age of secularism, the religious
dimension to history (and foreign policy*) have been separated and as a
result the
real objectives of empire have become obscured, leading people including
academics to assume that empire was accidental.
to give an example, take the East India Company (31st december, 2000 marked
the 400 year anniversary when the east india company received its royal
charter from elizabeth 1st). what was the *background* to its foundation and
its mission?
as mentioned in a previous posting, '1066 : the norman crusade of britain',
the norman conquest of 1066 was a crusade backed by the papacy, to extract
Britain's wealth to finance that great conflict called the Crusades, 3
decades later, beginning with the 1st crusade of 1095, to capture palestine.
the crusades also marked the beginnings of England's military campaigns
overseas.
however, there were subsequent crusades, which tends to be forgotten because
history is not holistic / broad enough:
1147-9 : Second Crusade
1172 : Irish Crusade - pope authorises england to
invade ireland for its wealth to finance the 3rd crusade
1189-92 : Third Crusade
1202-4 : Fourth Crusade - ok, not a single muslim was killed, and
the victims were orthodox christians
1210-13 : Spanish Crusade
1212 : Children's Crusade
1217-21 : Fifth Crusade
1228-29 : Sixth Crusade
1231 : Inquisitions
1248-50 : Seventh Crusade
1258 : Mongol Crusade - papal-backed Mongol sacking of Baghdad
1270 : Eighth Crusade
etc
At the end of these land-based crusades, christian europe had failed to
secure a sustainable foothold in palestine, so a new strategy was devised
based on the decentralisation of christian europe (nationalism) whereby
competing nation-states of europe would use oceanic routes to contain the
spread of Islam - 'Voyages of Discovery / Naval Crusade'; attack Muslims fro
m the rear; colonise their lands; destroy their empires, and eventually
capture Palestine.
what is the evidence for this ?
check out the map of the world on the eve of the european voyages of
discovery in 'Atlas of the British Empire' by
Christopher Bayly. (1989), Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd / Amazon Ltd. ISBN:
0-600-56831-8; to see the competing expansionist forces from the Islamic and
Christian worlds to appreciate the geo-politics of the time.
In 1456, a papal bull granted a religious and military society called the
'Order of Christ', jurisdiction to go all the way to India to enter into a
relationship with those Indians who worshipped Christ, and to incite them to
aid Christians against the Saracens and other enemies of the faith
[Pg. 118, 141]
Eight months after the fall of the last Muslim stronghold in Spain (Granada)
in 1492, Christopher Columbus, sailed from Spain to the West, to combat the
religion of 'Mahomet', to go to 'India' to gain enough wealth for
Christendom to fight Muslims and capture Jerusalem [12].
Columbus was
convinced that he had been chosen by God to recover Jerusalem [pg. 366,
132]. The conquest of Jerusalem was also the aim of the Spanish monarchs,
Ferdinand and Isabella, who styled themselves as king and queen of Jerusalem
[pg. 65, 34]. In later voyages Columbus tried to convince his crew of
circumnavigating the whole world and return home to Spain via Jerusalem [pg.
129, 34]. Columbus failed and was brought back in chains naked.
By an Act of the 10th February 1486, king Henry 7th of England had taken
Venetian mariners under his care, among them Giovanni Caboto (1450-99), who
afterwards became known as the English explorer, John Cabot [pg. 309, 196].
On 5th March 1496, Henry 7th who had considered enlisting Columbus at one
point, granted a licence to John Cabot to travel north-westwards to the
Orient to seeke out, discover and finde isles, countries, regions or
provinces of the heathens and infidels [pg. 116-7, 202].
With a crew of 18 men, Cabot sailed from Bristol on 2nd May 1497 in a small
ship called the Mathew. Two months later, he had reached what became to be
known as North America. His expedition secured a large part of North
America for England e.g. Newfoundland, New England coasts, etc. Believing
that he had reached north-eastern Asia, Cabot formally claimed the region
for Henry 7th, planting a royal standard and a crucifix [pg. 116, 202].
Cabot then sailed for home having made a remarkably quick return journey to
Bristol in 15 days [pg. 116, 202].
In 1497, Vasco da Gama sailed from Portugal to the East around Africa. With
the assistance of a local navigator Ahmad Ibn Majid, Da Gama found his way
to India in search of Christians and Spices. On his second voyage he carried
out a frenzied attack burning alive 700 pilgrims returning from Mecca and
spearing the survivors in the water [163]. On his third and final voyage he
died in Cochin, India. In 1542, Vasco's son, Cristobal was captured and
killed by Muslims in Ethiopia [pg. 159, 153]. Other Catholics like
Ferdinand Magellan hardly fared better - somehow he managed to sail past
South America, having survived several attempted mutinies and a diet of
putrid yellow water, leather from ship sails and rats! In 1521, he was
killed by Muslims versed in martial art skills in the Philippines.
Almost one hundred years after Da Gama's arrival in South Asia, the East
India Company was inaugurated in London [pg. 26, 303].
The following year, on 31st December 1600, Elizabeth granted a royal charter
to twenty-four entrepreneurs of the East India Company, giving it the
exclusive right to trade with all the countries beyond the Cape of Good Hope
for fifteen years [pg. 17, 214]. The mandate also charged them to buy or
seize and rule whatever territories that did NOT belong to a Christian king
[pg. 18, 215]. This is how a trading company acquired an empire [pg. 201,
170].
Note that economic objectives were SECONDARY to religious motivation.
Of all the British colonial possessions, India was the most valuable and the
most highly prized [pg. 189, 285] because of its massive population and its
inexhaustible natural wealth. It was India's wealth that financed the
British Empire and the Industrial Revolution (or industrial slavery, as i
call it).
In addition, the Empire grew at the expense of the Islamic Empire. Indeed
the Empire ended up with more muslim subjects than christians. The Islamic
Empire in South Asia was destroyed, and so were the ones in Africa. Indeed,
religion was the primary motivating force behind the slavery of Africans,
the colonisation of Africa and racism against coloured people. The British
Empire became the largest slave-dealing institute in the history of the
world :-(
In his book, 'Reconstructing the Black Image', Gordon de la Mothe explains
the origins of 'racism': "as the conflict [Crusades] progressed, black
people became increasingly identified with the Moslem world. Added to the
established belief that Prophet Mohammed was black, black people became
identified with the 'enemy'. We can see this in European paintings of the
early Renaissance." [Pg. 62, 215].
(this is probably because the many of the Muslims living in Europe (Iberian
Peninsula / Spain for 8 centuries) originated from North-West Africa - the
Moors).
In his book, 'Triumph of the West', J.M. Roberts writes: 'In 1441, a
Portuguese ship brought back black men, who were described as prisoners of
war and taken to be Muslims. Three years later, the first sale of slaves in
Portugal took place. The African slave trade had begun and justified in the
name of Christianity'. [Pg. 181-184, 41].
In the bull Illius Qui, pope Eugenius 4th sanctioned Prince Henry of
Portugal to struggle against the Moors and anyone who died on Henry's
voyages to Africa [pg. 64, 177] would be regarded as having died on a
Crusade [pg. 181, 41].
Nicholas followed the bull with Romanus Pontifex on 8th January 1454, which
approved what Prince Henry and the Portuguese had done up till then, hoped t
hat the native West African population might soon be converted to
Christianity - not just the region of Ceuta (a Muslim stronghold) but all
the territory south of Cape Bojador (opposite the Canary Islands).
In 1455 pope Nicholas 5th put out a papal bull authorising Roman Catholics
to reduce to servitude all infidel people [pg. xix, 3]. The bull instructed
Christians to 'attack, subject, and reduce to perpetual slavery the
Saracens, Pagans and other enemies of Christ, southward from Cape Bojador
(opposite the Canary Islands) and including all the coast of Guinea' [pg.
31, 56].
A summary of the Bull quoted by Lilyan Kesteloop appears below
[184]:
We after scrupulous reflection, are granting by our Bull full and entire
freedom to King Alphonso (of Portugal) to conquer, besiege, submit all the
Sarances (Muslims) Pagans, and other enemies of Christ, wherever they may
be; to seize their kingdoms, dukedoms, princedoms, the lordship, personal
properties, and all the wealth they possess. [THIS IS THE BLUEPRINT FOR
EUROPEAN COLONIALISM].
In 1457, the Council of Cardinals met in Holland where they sanctioned, as a
righteous and progressive idea, the enslavement of Africans for the purpose
of their conversion to Christianity and exploitation in the labour market as
chattel property. This devilish scheme speedily gained the sanctimonious
blessing of the Pope and became a standard policy of the Vatican, and later
of Protestant churches, enduring for three centuries. The ghastly traffic
in human misery was given the cloak of respectability and anointed with the
oil of pontifical righteousness in Jesus' name. [Pg. xix-xx, 3].
In July 1596 and in 1601, queen Elizabeth 1st tried unsuccessfully to order
the lord mayor of London to deport her African subjects, one reason being
that most of them were *infidels*, having no understanding of Christ or his
Gospel. [Pg. 8-12, 191 & pg. 122, 226].
In those days, people were judged by their religious beliefs - not by their
colour nor racial origins. Colour or racial origins did not matter - what
mattered was religious beliefs.
Also check out the painting of Queen Victoria by Thomas Jones Baker (c.1863)
at the National Portrait Gallery - 'The secret of England's greatness'. I
would say that the painting has very strong religious undertones as the
christian monarch of the British Empire bestows a bible to an african leader
kneeling down before her, in sheer gratitude.
Anyway, during the Great European War which conveniently expanded from
Europe and into the Middle East (or Ottoman Empire as it was then called),
the British Empire colonised one of its last colonies Palestine.
General Allenby followed by T.E. Lawrence of Arabia entered Jerusalem in
1917 declaring: 'Today the Crusades have ended' [pg. 7, 48]. Palestine was
the real 'Jewel in the Crown' and India was really the 'Engine of Empire'.
Indeed some history books describe the war on the Eastern Front as 'The Last
Crusade'.
Thus the objective of the British Empire was as follows:
"to combat the religion of 'Mahomet', to go to 'India' to gain enough wealth
for Christendom to fight Muslims and capture Jerusalem [12]. "
because that was exactly what was achieved over four centuries.
> Once empires are built, for whatever reasons, they are not
> then 'systematically run down'! Usually, desperate efforts are made to
> hang onto them far beyond any economic or practical reality. There just
> appears to be an inevitable 'rise & fall' scenario.
reply
The Second World War resulted in complete loss of Empire for Britain. A war
intended to save the Empire actually led to its dissolution [127]. No such
large empire ever sank so quickly [pg. xiv, 46]. Even the Ottoman and
Hapsburg Empires survived for centuries after their peaks [pg. 7, 46].
So within just 30 years of capturing Palestine, the Empire that once claimed
'the sun never set in its realm' had come to an abrupt end living on rations
(the only thing that was not rationed was air!); and open to
counter-colonialism by its once subject peoples.
> History is history and should be factiually taught. The warts shouldn't
> be ignored, but recognised, and maybe we would then learn more from it.
reply
history as it is taught today tries to interpret past events from today's
economic / secular perspective. i think history should be interpreted from
the perspective of prevailing geo-political and non-secular concerns of
the past. also, history should not be centred on one particular nation
either e.g.
england / britain because that gives a misleading picture. with history -
need to imagine one is standing outside, and looking in on the nation to see
what is really going on.
one reason why history is so boring to the vast majority of people is
because the religious, political and foreign policy concerns have been
separated out from history as isolated and unrelated disciplines :(
Regards
Stanley
Pat James
(in message <92t9gb$ckp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
> In article <7a546.42313$Ig.161315@news1-hme0>,
> "Nemesis" <nem...@enigma.com> wrote:
>> What is the modern view of the empire ?
>> Should it be taught more in schools ?
>> Where can I get more info ?
>>
>> Richy
>>
>>
> I wasn't even going to get drawn into this one ! But ...
>
> Briefly, the 'Empire' is hardly mentioned in UK school history. It has
> become totally non-PC. When it cannot be avoided it is portrayed as
> something we should all be ashamed of.
I take it that very little Kipling allowed near schools.
>
> As I have noted before, my two boys (in their 20's), both with an
> otherwise very good education, hardly realised which of the world's
> modern countries had or had not once been in the Empire - just one
> generation!
Interesting... The history of the British Empire is fairly well taught around
here (the Commonwealth Caribbean) though mostly as part of West Indian
history. It's damn difficult to teach WI history and _not_ go into detail
about the British Empire. (Of course, it helps that we're surrounded by
relics of empire; English Harbour, Rodney Bay, Fort Charles, Brimstone Hill,
just to name a few from the slave and sugar wars. And then there are schools
with names like 'Munroe' and 'Calabar', and the fact that the international
airports in most British Caribbean islands were expanded from WWII-era
airbases...) I'd have thought that it was difficult to teach English/British
history about any events after, oh, 1655, and omit the Empire, there being
Relics of Empire aplenty in London, Liverpool, Bristol, etc... In particular,
exactly where would a history course which omits the Empire say where the
money to start the Industrial Revolution came from?
Rabid Bee
> be ignored, but recognised, and maybe we would then learn more from it.
> The Empire is crucial to the UK's present position in the world, and
> the direct cause of many of our continuing foreign policies.
I still say you've had a bad experience. I haven't been presented an
overly negative picture of the Empire whenever I've been taught about
it, and I was taught about the Raj for a year by an Indian old enough to
(just) remember colonial India. These days, I'd say historical
education is more focused on teaching the various movements that create
the modern day. Therefore, if the Empire is shown as bad it's because
the only part recent enough to be considered relevant is the end, when
it was collapsing. For GCSEs our two year syllabus focused entirely on
post-1918 issues, whilst A-levels dealt more with domestic social
policies of the nineteenth century. If the Empire is passed over, I'd
say it's more because it's seen as no longer relevant to modern life,
rather than through shame. I suppose those aspects of Empire that do
still effect us are those aspects which might be easily portrayed as the
more negative side of the Empire (racial policies, immigration of
ex-colonials, etc.).
However, I reject that there is a deliberate and institutionalised
effort to paint the Empire as inherently evil. Individuals, on the
other hand, might well feel this way. After all, you can't help but be
a person of your time - the Empire collapsed more than half a century
ago, and in post-colonial Britain I'd say many would oppose the concept
of Empire now. Attitudes change, and society has to reflect this.
Shifting emphasis on Empire in schools needn't simply represent
PC-domination (your bugbear, Surreyman!), but it could well be in
response to many finding the old emphasis offensive in the modern day.
I personally feel that Empire is now portreyed in a more reasoned
manner, rather than the Biggles kind of approach that seems to have been
held in the past.
cheers, Alex
surr...@my-deja.com
> history about any events after, oh, 1655, and omit the Empire,
My thoughts exactly, but they manage it somehow!
Jim Voege
"Pat James" <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B67BC4410...@enews.newsguy.com...
and its subsequent ties to Britain has been almost entirely happy. Perhaps
that makes a difference.
Jim Voege
Rabid Bee
> > history about any events after, oh, 1655, and omit the Empire,
>
> My thoughts exactly, but they manage it somehow!
Actually, it's very possible to teach British modern history and not
mention the Empire. They're not particulalry pertinent to the study of
public health in the nineteenth century, nor the operation of the Poor
Law.
And they don't skip it per se. If your kids weren't taught it,
Surreyman, it's because the department(s) at their school(s) chose not
to teach that particular syllabus.
Cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
> *what* happened, *when* it happened, rather than *WHY* it happened.
Incorrect, IMO. Certainly from GCSE upwards, the emphasis is on
constructing arguments based on relevent infomation, answering the
question put in the essay. If the teachers leave the "why" less covered
than the "where" or "when", it's because nowadays the effort is to make
the pupils think for themselves, and construct their own arguments and
opinions based on the facts. We no longer learn in parrot-fashion, all
being taught a stock history.
> > The Brit Empire did largely come about by accident. There was indeed
> > intent in some areas, but very often (due to a lack of any policy, and
> > slow communcations) ...
>
> reply
>
> IF global enterprises came about by accident then I ould be extremely
> worried just in case Britain suddenly became part of
> somebody elses empire, by accident!
And there's no reason why we couldn't.
> Moreover, as Michael Parenti points out in one of his books about the
> realities of the US empire, empires are not a natural phenomena either.
>
> "In fact, imperialism is highly unnatural because it relies upon armed
> coercion and repression. Empires do not emerge naturally and innocently.
> They are welded together with deliberate deceit, greed and ruthless
> violence. They are built upon the sword, the whip, and the gun. The history
> of imperialism is about the enslavement and oppression of millions of
> innocents, a history no less dreadful for remaining conveniently untaught in
> most schools."
When it is said that the Empire happened by accident, it is meant that
England/Britain did not set out to carve out an Empire. It is, of
course, a flippant comment that should be read literally.
Each move, each acquisition or expansion of power, was not preplanned.
Often, in responding to local situations beyond their control, the
British moved to protect their threatened interests (either economic or
territorial). Often, IMO, the expansion of Empire was not part of a
global masterplan, but a measured response to other events.
> britain was not the only country to build a global empire, so did spain and
> portugal,
> france, holland ? but why only a handful of countries from north-west europe
> and at
> about the same time ? why not others ? why did an african country not build
> ag loab
You could say that they were slow - the Ottomans, Persians and Chinese
were way ahead of us.
As you point out, geography is important; it's very hard to build a
maritime Empire when you're land-bound. The Atlantic was the gateway to
the Americas and Asia for Europeans, at least in terms of
Empire-building. Therefore, it had to be the countries in the north and
west of the continent, those with easy access to the Atlantic, that
could build an Empire. In that sense, many of those countries with easy
access to the Atlantic built up Empires.
You actually forgot another European Empire, not from NW Europe, and not
based on sea-power - Russia.
> i would further argue that in the modern age of secularism, the religious
> dimension to history (and foreign policy*) have been separated and as a
> result the
> real objectives of empire have become obscured, leading people including
> academics to assume that empire was accidental.
As the period of Empire spanned the transition from deeply religious to
very secular world, it's not surprising that religion has been seen as
less important. Actually, I would suggest that religion became a more
important factor at a later stage in the Empire. Leaving aside the
Mayflower, which can hardly be portrayed as an Imperial taskforce, the
original impulse that led to Empire was purely economic. It wasn't
until the time of Dalhousie, IMO, that the EIC became interested in
social policies over economic policies. Missionaries became much more
common in the nineteenth century.
> to give an example, take the East India Company (31st december, 2000 marked
> the 400 year anniversary when the east india company received its royal
> charter from elizabeth 1st). what was the *background* to its foundation and
> its mission?
Spice.
> At the end of these land-based crusades, christian europe had failed to
> secure a sustainable foothold in palestine, so a new strategy was devised
> based on the decentralisation of christian europe (nationalism) whereby
> competing nation-states of europe would use oceanic routes to contain the
> spread of Islam - 'Voyages of Discovery / Naval Crusade'; attack Muslims fro
> m the rear; colonise their lands; destroy their empires, and eventually
> capture Palestine.
>
> what is the evidence for this ?
Incredibly scanty?
You are certainly given to determinist history, aren't you? Do you
seriously believe that the British Empire was created as an effort to
capture Jerusalem? I certainly agree that there was a missionary focus
to spread Christianity; however, you underestimate the conflict between
the different Christian creeds. The English/British weren't merely
trying to spread Christianity, they were trying to ensure that those
converted became Anglican, or at least Protestant, rather than be turned
Catholic.
And where does the bullshit about a deliberate strategy of nation-state
formation to compete with Islam come from? Incidentally, nationalism is
"extreme devotion to one's country", not the creation of nation-states.
THere was no European agreement to create nation-states; besides which
the process had been under way for centuries by the period you are
describing. And if Jerusalem was really still the overarching target,
why was no serious effort made to take it?
If Islam was to be destroyed, why did we repeatedly intervene,
diplomatically or militarily, to defend the Turks from Russian
expansion? Why did the Frecnh ally with the Ottoman Empire at the time
the Turks were at the gates of Vienna, threating to capture much of
Central Europe? I seem to recall that, in a war with Spain, they also
allied with Barbarosa's Islamic pirates sailing out of the Barbary
coast.
Has it occured to you that the reason the Empire ended up with such a
large proportion of Muslims was because we did actually tolerate other
religions? Compare this to the Empires of Spain and Portugal - how many
people still worship Quetzlcoatl?
> Note that economic objectives were SECONDARY to religious motivation.
Your evidence has shown that there was religious motives to European
expansion, but how original a thought is that? It is commonly
acknowledged that Henry the Navigator's explorations down the coast of
Africa were part of the reconquista, as was the expansion of Spain in
America (hence "Conquistadors"). But then, Christianity and Islam are
both converting religions, and seek to spread their particular faiths
wherever they can.
There is another religious factor that you have completely
overlooked/supressed. There was a genuine desire by the Portuguese to
discover Etheopia. It was known that the Etheopians were Christians,
and there was a sincere belief that Prestor John (the semi-mythical King
of the Etheopians, long believed by Europeans to rule the country) would
join with the Papacy to fight both Islam and Protestantism. Of course,
when it was discovered that the Etheopians were Coptic they cooled on
the idea. Christians tended to be intolerant of other sects of
Christianity as much as other faiths. The Portuguese were as intolerant
of the non-Roman native Christians in India (whose form of Christianity
differed from Catholicism) as much as they were the Muslims. Afterall,
a "heretique" is only another form of infidel.
However, I would still hold that the primary objective in Europe's
expansion was economic. You only have to look at the amount of silver
that poured in from Peru to understand its importance to the economy of
Europe, not just Spain. Also, the luxary goods, so highly prized, that
travelled from the east were controlled by first the Ottomans and then
the Venetians. No one likes dealing with middlemen, especially when
they have a monopoly. Again, consider the impact this trade had on
Europe's economy. Just think how much ground spice you could fit on a
boat. The cost of spice in Europe meant that huge profits could be made
on the trade, enough to make even the high risk of ship wreck seem
worthwhile. Profits drove everything; the trade was so important, it
justified fighting other Europeans for control of it and then
interefering in local politics to retain control.
> In his book, 'Reconstructing the Black Image', Gordon de la Mothe explains
> the origins of 'racism': "as the conflict [Crusades] progressed, black
> people became increasingly identified with the Moslem world. Added to the
> established belief that Prophet Mohammed was black, black people became
> identified with the 'enemy'. We can see this in European paintings of the
> early Renaissance." [Pg. 62, 215].
>
> (this is probably because the many of the Muslims living in Europe (Iberian
> Peninsula / Spain for 8 centuries) originated from North-West Africa - the
> Moors).
Although I doubt that they were much blacker than modern day Morrocans
are...
> In his book, 'Triumph of the West', J.M. Roberts writes: 'In 1441, a
> Portuguese ship brought back black men, who were described as prisoners of
> war and taken to be Muslims. Three years later, the first sale of slaves in
> Portugal took place. The African slave trade had begun and justified in the
> name of Christianity'. [Pg. 181-184, 41].
If you think that this was when the African slave trade began, you are
severely mistaken. A trade in black Africans had long been established,
and controled by the Muslim north of Africa. The European voyages of
discovery merely ensured they could cut out the Arab middlemen, reducing
the cost. It also meant that the Western Europeans could undermine the
Venetian's dominence, because they had always had close links with the
Ottomans. This is equally true for the Spice trade - it had previously
come overland via the Ottoman Empire, but Da Gama's voyage meant that
the Europeans now knew they could go around Africa and fetch the spice
themselves.
> A summary of the Bull quoted by Lilyan Kesteloop appears below
> [184]:
> We after scrupulous reflection, are granting by our Bull full and entire
> freedom to King Alphonso (of Portugal) to conquer, besiege, submit all the
> Sarances (Muslims) Pagans, and other enemies of Christ, wherever they may
> be; to seize their kingdoms, dukedoms, princedoms, the lordship, personal
> properties, and all the wealth they possess. [THIS IS THE BLUEPRINT FOR
> EUROPEAN COLONIALISM].
Although the British didn't dispossess the natives when they went to
India. Until 1857 the sub-continent was still ruled by the Shahs (if
only nominally from 1757).
> In 1457, the Council of Cardinals met in Holland where they sanctioned, as a
> righteous and progressive idea, the enslavement of Africans for the purpose
> of their conversion to Christianity and exploitation in the labour market as
> chattel property. This devilish scheme speedily gained the sanctimonious
> blessing of the Pope and became a standard policy of the Vatican, and later
> of Protestant churches, enduring for three centuries. The ghastly traffic
> in human misery was given the cloak of respectability and anointed with the
> oil of pontifical righteousness in Jesus' name. [Pg. xix-xx, 3].
Presumably the millenia old Muslim trade in black Africans as chattels
which the Europeans usurped was not in the least devilish?
> In July 1596 and in 1601, queen Elizabeth 1st tried unsuccessfully to order
> the lord mayor of London to deport her African subjects, one reason being
> that most of them were *infidels*, having no understanding of Christ or his
> Gospel. [Pg. 8-12, 191 & pg. 122, 226].
>
> In those days, people were judged by their religious beliefs - not by their
> colour nor racial origins. Colour or racial origins did not matter - what
> mattered was religious beliefs.
Absolutely, but that was as true for Europeans as it was "infidels".
Religious bigotry was as strong within Christianity as it was outwith
it. You only need to study the reformation for that. The Spanish
Inquisition happily burnt Protestants/heretics alongside any Jews,
Muslims or Conversos it convicted.
> Also check out the painting of Queen Victoria by Thomas Jones Baker (c.1863)
> at the National Portrait Gallery - 'The secret of England's greatness'. I
> would say that the painting has very strong religious undertones as the
> christian monarch of the British Empire bestows a bible to an african leader
> kneeling down before her, in sheer gratitude.
Although given the evidently pasionate Christian faith many Africans I
have met or seen on telly, I doubt many would complain. Anyway, since
when was all of Africa Muslim?
> Anyway, during the Great European War which conveniently expanded from
> Europe and into the Middle East (or Ottoman Empire as it was then called),
> the British Empire colonised one of its last colonies Palestine.
>
> General Allenby followed by T.E. Lawrence of Arabia entered Jerusalem in
> 1917 declaring: 'Today the Crusades have ended' [pg. 7, 48]. Palestine was
> the real 'Jewel in the Crown' and India was really the 'Engine of Empire'.
Of course, this is no way proves that Jerusalem had always been an
objective of the Empire, let alone the overriding principal of imperial
expansion.
> Indeed some history books describe the war on the Eastern Front as 'The Last
> Crusade'.
Although you conveniently forgot to cite any here...
> Thus the objective of the British Empire was as follows:
>
> "to combat the religion of 'Mahomet', to go to 'India' to gain enough wealth
> for Christendom to fight Muslims and capture Jerusalem [12]. "
>
> because that was exactly what was achieved over four centuries.
Bunk. Simply because something happened, it does not mean that it was
always intended to happen. Point 1: Yes, all the Christian Empires were
created partly in the desire to evangelise new peoples. However, the
BRitish spread the gospel through words rather military action. John
Company even limited missionary activity at times during the nineteenth
century, to reduce tension amongst native Indians. At no point did they
ban Islam, Islam was tolerated, Muslims rose to high positions within
India and, until 1857, the army was composed largely of Muslims. If
there had really been a strong and concerted effort to destroy Islam in
India, do you think after three centuries of subjection that Islam would
still be such a potent force on the sub-continent now? And why do you
only consider Islam? What about the Hindus and Sikhs, amongst others?
Why don't you make any mention of the fact the Sikhs largely stayed
loyal to the British in 1857, and fought against their Islamic
collegues?
Point 2: The EIC was always a trading company, and the wealth it gained
was to go back to its stockholders and the monarch. It funded a hell of
a lot more country mansions than it did crusades. And once more, you
misunderstand geopolitics by referring to Christendom as some kind of
homogenous and cooperative single entity.
Point 3: See above.
> history as it is taught today tries to interpret past events from today's
> economic / secular perspective. i think history should be interpreted from
> the perspective of prevailing geo-political and non-secular concerns of
> the past. also, history should not be centred on one particular nation
> either e.g.
> england / britain because that gives a misleading picture. with history -
> need to imagine one is standing outside, and looking in on the nation to see
> what is really going on.
Or "Empathy" as we historians would refer to it.
History is taught from the prevailing geo-political concerns of the
past; where appropriate, these are also the religious concerns of the
past. It is imposible to understand the politics of early modern Europe
without considering the religious aspects, for instance.
> one reason why history is so boring to the vast majority of people is
> because the religious, political and foreign policy concerns have been
> separated out from history as isolated and unrelated disciplines :(
You have clearly had bad teachers. How can you seperate political
history from foreign policy?
Cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
> *what* happened, *when* it happened, rather than *WHY* it happened.
Incorrect, IMO. Certainly from GCSE upwards, the emphasis is on
constructing arguments based on relevent infomation, answering the
question put in the essay. If the teachers leave the "why" less covered
than the "where" or "when", it's because nowadays the effort is to make
the pupils think for themselves, and construct their own arguments and
opinions based on the facts. We no longer learn in parrot-fashion, all
being taught a stock history.
> > The Brit Empire did largely come about by accident. There was indeed
> > intent in some areas, but very often (due to a lack of any policy, and
> > slow communcations) ...
>
> reply
>
> IF global enterprises came about by accident then I ould be extremely
> worried just in case Britain suddenly became part of
> somebody elses empire, by accident!
And there's no reason why we couldn't.
> Moreover, as Michael Parenti points out in one of his books about the
> realities of the US empire, empires are not a natural phenomena either.
>
> "In fact, imperialism is highly unnatural because it relies upon armed
> coercion and repression. Empires do not emerge naturally and innocently.
> They are welded together with deliberate deceit, greed and ruthless
> violence. They are built upon the sword, the whip, and the gun. The history
> of imperialism is about the enslavement and oppression of millions of
> innocents, a history no less dreadful for remaining conveniently untaught in
> most schools."
When it is said that the Empire happened by accident, it is meant that
England/Britain did not set out to carve out an Empire. It is, of
course, a flippant comment that should be read literally.
Each move, each acquisition or expansion of power, was not preplanned.
Often, in responding to local situations beyond their control, the
British moved to protect their threatened interests (either economic or
territorial). Often, IMO, the expansion of Empire was not part of a
global masterplan, but a measured response to other events.
> britain was not the only country to build a global empire, so did spain and
> portugal,
> france, holland ? but why only a handful of countries from north-west europe
> and at
> about the same time ? why not others ? why did an african country not build
> ag loab
You could say that they were slow - the Ottomans, Persians and Chinese
were way ahead of us.
As you point out, geography is important; it's very hard to build a
maritime Empire when you're land-bound. The Atlantic was the gateway to
the Americas and Asia for Europeans, at least in terms of
Empire-building. Therefore, it had to be the countries in the north and
west of the continent, those with easy access to the Atlantic, that
could build an Empire. In that sense, many of those countries with easy
access to the Atlantic built up Empires.
You actually forgot another European Empire, not from NW Europe, and not
based on sea-power - Russia.
> i would further argue that in the modern age of secularism, the religious
> dimension to history (and foreign policy*) have been separated and as a
> result the
> real objectives of empire have become obscured, leading people including
> academics to assume that empire was accidental.
As the period of Empire spanned the transition from deeply religious to
very secular world, it's not surprising that religion has been seen as
less important. Actually, I would suggest that religion became a more
important factor at a later stage in the Empire. Leaving aside the
Mayflower, which can hardly be portrayed as an Imperial taskforce, the
original impulse that led to Empire was purely economic. It wasn't
until the time of Dalhousie, IMO, that the EIC became interested in
social policies over economic policies. Missionaries became much more
common in the nineteenth century.
> to give an example, take the East India Company (31st december, 2000 marked
> the 400 year anniversary when the east india company received its royal
> charter from elizabeth 1st). what was the *background* to its foundation and
> its mission?
Spice.
> At the end of these land-based crusades, christian europe had failed to
> secure a sustainable foothold in palestine, so a new strategy was devised
> based on the decentralisation of christian europe (nationalism) whereby
> competing nation-states of europe would use oceanic routes to contain the
> spread of Islam - 'Voyages of Discovery / Naval Crusade'; attack Muslims fro
> m the rear; colonise their lands; destroy their empires, and eventually
> capture Palestine.
>
> what is the evidence for this ?
Incredibly scanty?
> Note that economic objectives were SECONDARY to religious motivation.
Your evidence has shown that there was religious motives to European
> In his book, 'Reconstructing the Black Image', Gordon de la Mothe explains
> the origins of 'racism': "as the conflict [Crusades] progressed, black
> people became increasingly identified with the Moslem world. Added to the
> established belief that Prophet Mohammed was black, black people became
> identified with the 'enemy'. We can see this in European paintings of the
> early Renaissance." [Pg. 62, 215].
>
> (this is probably because the many of the Muslims living in Europe (Iberian
> Peninsula / Spain for 8 centuries) originated from North-West Africa - the
> Moors).
Although I doubt that they were much blacker than modern day Morrocans
are...
> In his book, 'Triumph of the West', J.M. Roberts writes: 'In 1441, a
> Portuguese ship brought back black men, who were described as prisoners of
> war and taken to be Muslims. Three years later, the first sale of slaves in
> Portugal took place. The African slave trade had begun and justified in the
> name of Christianity'. [Pg. 181-184, 41].
If you think that this was when the African slave trade began, you are
severely mistaken. A trade in black Africans had long been established,
and controled by the Muslim north of Africa. The European voyages of
discovery merely ensured they could cut out the Arab middlemen, reducing
the cost. It also meant that the Western Europeans could undermine the
Venetian's dominence, because they had always had close links with the
Ottomans. This is equally true for the Spice trade - it had previously
come overland via the Ottoman Empire, but Da Gama's voyage meant that
the Europeans now knew they could go around Africa and fetch the spice
themselves.
> A summary of the Bull quoted by Lilyan Kesteloop appears below
> [184]:
> We after scrupulous reflection, are granting by our Bull full and entire
> freedom to King Alphonso (of Portugal) to conquer, besiege, submit all the
> Sarances (Muslims) Pagans, and other enemies of Christ, wherever they may
> be; to seize their kingdoms, dukedoms, princedoms, the lordship, personal
> properties, and all the wealth they possess. [THIS IS THE BLUEPRINT FOR
> EUROPEAN COLONIALISM].
Although the British didn't dispossess the natives when they went to
India. Until 1857 the sub-continent was still ruled by the Shahs (if
only nominally from 1757).
> In 1457, the Council of Cardinals met in Holland where they sanctioned, as a
> righteous and progressive idea, the enslavement of Africans for the purpose
> of their conversion to Christianity and exploitation in the labour market as
> chattel property. This devilish scheme speedily gained the sanctimonious
> blessing of the Pope and became a standard policy of the Vatican, and later
> of Protestant churches, enduring for three centuries. The ghastly traffic
> in human misery was given the cloak of respectability and anointed with the
> oil of pontifical righteousness in Jesus' name. [Pg. xix-xx, 3].
Presumably the millenia old Muslim trade in black Africans as chattels
which the Europeans usurped was not in the least devilish?
> In July 1596 and in 1601, queen Elizabeth 1st tried unsuccessfully to order
> the lord mayor of London to deport her African subjects, one reason being
> that most of them were *infidels*, having no understanding of Christ or his
> Gospel. [Pg. 8-12, 191 & pg. 122, 226].
>
> In those days, people were judged by their religious beliefs - not by their
> colour nor racial origins. Colour or racial origins did not matter - what
> mattered was religious beliefs.
Absolutely, but that was as true for Europeans as it was "infidels".
Religious bigotry was as strong within Christianity as it was outwith
it. You only need to study the reformation for that. The Spanish
Inquisition happily burnt Protestants/heretics alongside any Jews,
Muslims or Conversos it convicted.
> Also check out the painting of Queen Victoria by Thomas Jones Baker (c.1863)
> at the National Portrait Gallery - 'The secret of England's greatness'. I
> would say that the painting has very strong religious undertones as the
> christian monarch of the British Empire bestows a bible to an african leader
> kneeling down before her, in sheer gratitude.
Although given the evidently pasionate Christian faith many Africans I
have met or seen on telly, I doubt many would complain. Anyway, since
when was all of Africa Muslim?
> Anyway, during the Great European War which conveniently expanded from
> Europe and into the Middle East (or Ottoman Empire as it was then called),
> the British Empire colonised one of its last colonies Palestine.
>
> General Allenby followed by T.E. Lawrence of Arabia entered Jerusalem in
> 1917 declaring: 'Today the Crusades have ended' [pg. 7, 48]. Palestine was
> the real 'Jewel in the Crown' and India was really the 'Engine of Empire'.
Of course, this is no way proves that Jerusalem had always been an
objective of the Empire, let alone the overriding principal of imperial
expansion.
> Indeed some history books describe the war on the Eastern Front as 'The Last
> Crusade'.
Although you conveniently forgot to cite any here...
> Thus the objective of the British Empire was as follows:
>
> "to combat the religion of 'Mahomet', to go to 'India' to gain enough wealth
> for Christendom to fight Muslims and capture Jerusalem [12]. "
>
> because that was exactly what was achieved over four centuries.
Bunk. Simply because something happened, it does not mean that it was
always intended to happen. Point 1: Yes, all the Christian Empires were
created partly in the desire to evangelise new peoples. However, the
BRitish spread the gospel through words rather military action. John
Company even limited missionary activity at times during the nineteenth
century, to reduce tension amongst native Indians. At no point did they
ban Islam, Islam was tolerated, Muslims rose to high positions within
India and, until 1857, the army was composed largely of Muslims. If
there had really been a strong and concerted effort to destroy Islam in
India, do you think after three centuries of subjection that Islam would
still be such a potent force on the sub-continent now? And why do you
only consider Islam? What about the Hindus and Sikhs, amongst others?
Why don't you make any mention of the fact the Sikhs largely stayed
loyal to the British in 1857, and fought against their Islamic
collegues?
Point 2: The EIC was always a trading company, and the wealth it gained
was to go back to its stockholders and the monarch. It funded a hell of
a lot more country mansions than it did crusades. And once more, you
misunderstand geopolitics by referring to Christendom as some kind of
homogenous and cooperative single entity.
Point 3: See above.
> history as it is taught today tries to interpret past events from today's
> economic / secular perspective. i think history should be interpreted from
> the perspective of prevailing geo-political and non-secular concerns of
> the past. also, history should not be centred on one particular nation
> either e.g.
> england / britain because that gives a misleading picture. with history -
> need to imagine one is standing outside, and looking in on the nation to see
> what is really going on.
Or "Empathy" as we historians would refer to it.
History is taught from the prevailing geo-political concerns of the
past; where appropriate, these are also the religious concerns of the
past. It is imposible to understand the politics of early modern Europe
without considering the religious aspects, for instance.
> one reason why history is so boring to the vast majority of people is
> because the religious, political and foreign policy concerns have been
> separated out from history as isolated and unrelated disciplines :(
You have clearly had bad teachers. How can you seperate political
history from foreign policy?
Cheers, Alex
surr...@my-deja.com
alone much of the irrelevent stuff, and the Jerusalem references were
clearly getting into nutcase land.
Moreorless agree with virtually all your points (which probably damns
you!).
Larry G
> Actually, it's very possible to teach British modern history and not
> mention the Empire. They're not particulalry pertinent to the study of
> public health in the nineteenth century, nor the operation of the Poor
> Law.
>
> And they don't skip it per se. If your kids weren't taught it,
> Surreyman, it's because the department(s) at their school(s) chose not
> to teach that particular syllabus.
This begs the question: Are there British young people today that are
unaware that the Queen is also the head of state of Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and a few other countries? (As a result of a few British young
people not having a great knowledge of the Empire) I was surprised a couple
of years ago when I talked to a Canadian who was unaware that the Queen of
the UK is also the Queen of Canada.
Larry
surr...@my-deja.com
>
> However, I reject that there is a deliberate and institutionalised
> effort to paint the Empire as inherently evil. Individuals, on the
> other hand, might well feel this way. After all, you can't help but
be
> a person of your time - the Empire collapsed more than half a century
> ago, and in post-colonial Britain I'd say many would oppose the
concept
> of Empire now. Attitudes change, and society has to reflect this.
> Shifting emphasis on Empire in schools needn't simply represent
> PC-domination (your bugbear, Surreyman!), but it could well be in
> response to many finding the old emphasis offensive in the modern
day.
>
> I personally feel that Empire is now portreyed in a more reasoned
> manner, rather than the Biggles kind of approach that seems to have
been
> held in the past.
>
> cheers, Alex
I wouldn't say 'institutionalised as evil', but I do think that all has
swung, rightly, from 'Biggles', but too much the other way, certainly
to 'institutionalised embarrassment'.
Sure I'm of my time, I saw some of the Empire, and all I try to state
is:
1/ It existed
2/ There was much good as well as bad.
3/ It was essential to today's politics and should thus be taught and
understood, not avoided.
Can anyone argue with that?
I certainly wouldn't support the concept now! When involved, we were
within a status quo, not a situation that we were initiating!
Nightjar
> history about any events after, oh, 1655, and omit the Empire, there being
> Relics of Empire aplenty in London, Liverpool, Bristol, etc... In
particular,
> exactly where would a history course which omits the Empire say where the
> money to start the Industrial Revolution came from?
My own experience dates from an era when it was perfectly acceptable to be
proud that one quarter of a map of the world was coloured red. However, the
history taught was political history, which seemed to consist entirely of
remembering dates, while economic and social history were rarely touched
upon. Why things happened was far less important than when.
Colin Bignell
surr...@my-deja.com
> > Actually, it's very possible to teach British modern history and not
> > mention the Empire. They're not particulalry pertinent to the
study of
> > public health in the nineteenth century, nor the operation of the
Poor
> > Law.
There are other aspects of British history!
Surreyman
>
> This begs the question: Are there British young people today that are
> unaware that the Queen is also the head of state of Canada,
Australia, New
> Zealand, and a few other countries? (As a result of a few British
young
> people not having a great knowledge of the Empire) I was surprised a
couple
> of years ago when I talked to a Canadian who was unaware that the
Queen of
> the UK is also the Queen of Canada.
>
> Larry
>
>
Absolutely!
Andrew Chaplin
>
> This begs the question: Are there British young people today that are
> unaware that the Queen is also the head of state of Canada, Australia, New
> Zealand, and a few other countries? (As a result of a few British young
> people not having a great knowledge of the Empire) I was surprised a couple
> of years ago when I talked to a Canadian who was unaware that the Queen of
> the UK is also the Queen of Canada.
>
That is probably someone who would tell you that the first prime
minister of the Dominion of Canada was Sir John Ten-Dollar Bill.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jim Voege
news:3A586C85...@yourfinger.home.com...
> Larry G wrote:
> >
> > This begs the question: Are there British young people today that are
> > unaware that the Queen is also the head of state of Canada, Australia,
New
> > Zealand, and a few other countries? (As a result of a few British young
> > people not having a great knowledge of the Empire) I was surprised a
couple
> > of years ago when I talked to a Canadian who was unaware that the Queen
of
> > the UK is also the Queen of Canada.
> >
> [Blanch!]
>
> That is probably someone who would tell you that the first prime
> minister of the Dominion of Canada was Sir John Ten-Dollar Bill.
> --
John Cartmell
<Mawh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The monarchy is of very little relevance to Canada. The Queen is titular
> Head-of-State but doesn't participate in the life of the nation as she
> does in the UK.
She tends not to turn up to any of the events I frequent either.
--
John Cartmell - Manchester, UK
The next meeting of MAUG on Wednesday 17th January...
..will be... [still embargoed]
Kareem
Stan Spade wrote in message <935mue$i1m$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
<some interesting stuff snipped due to brevity and space...hint: post
readership is directly proportional to length.>
Why not others? Easy...they couldn't...read technology and desire for
trade. The former excluded all but Europe and China/Japan, while the latter
excluded China/Japan. As you pointed out, empires around the world rise and
fall based on their dominance in time...tech and trade. Witness the fall
of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mongol China, the Islamic Empires...and finally the
British, Spanish and French Empires (might throw in the Dutch and Portuguese
as well).
Question: What is your definition of this "American Empire"? Curious.....
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Spade) wrote:
> IF global enterprises came about by accident then I ould be
> extremely
> worried just in case Britain suddenly became part of
> somebody elses empire, by accident!
Well British holdings in India were established by the East India
Company. That was far more interested in making a profit than gaining
territory. Wars were expensive.
> The mandate also charged them to buy or
> seize and rule whatever territories that did NOT belong to a
> Christian king
> [pg. 18, 215].
And the company had no interest in India at the time. They were
intending to trade with the Spice Islands.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Jim Voege
news:939tiu$og1$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...> news:939dm7$9aul1$1...@ID-37509.news.dfncis.de...
> > This begs the question: Are there British young people
> today that are
> > unaware that the Queen is also the head of state of
> Canada, Australia, New
> > Zealand, and a few other countries? (As a result of a few
> British young
> > people not having a great knowledge of the Empire) I was
> surprised a couple
> > of years ago when I talked to a Canadian who was unaware
> that the Queen of
> > the UK is also the Queen of Canada.
>
> Queen is titular Head-of-State but doesn't participate in
> don't have strong views one way or the other, but she is
> laregly seen as "Britain's Queen Elizabeth".
>
Insofar as your comments pertain to this Canadian, you would be wrong.
Jim Voege
Renia
The Frontier. Constantly crossing it, until it ran out.
Renia
> Kareem
> Pax Vobiscum
Andrew Chaplin
>
> Kareem wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > Question: What is your definition of this "American Empire"? Curious.....
>
> The Frontier. Constantly crossing it, until it ran out.
>
Andrew Chaplin
>
> Insofar as your comments pertain to this Canadian, you would be wrong.
>
Rabid Bee
> alone much of the irrelevent stuff, and the Jerusalem references were
> clearly getting into nutcase land.
>
> Moreorless agree with virtually all your points (which probably damns
> you!).
Hey wow! :-) First time for everything?... :-)
Cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
> is:
>
> 1/ It existed
>
> 2/ There was much good as well as bad.
>
> 3/ It was essential to today's politics and should thus be taught and
> understood, not avoided.
>
> Can anyone argue with that?
Yeah, I certainly agree with it.
Cheers, Alex
Rabid Bee
>
> > > Actually, it's very possible to teach British modern history and not
> > > mention the Empire. They're not particulalry pertinent to the
> study of
> > > public health in the nineteenth century, nor the operation of the
> Poor
> > > Law.
>
> There are other aspects of British history!
Of course there are. I was merely rejecting the idea that modern
BRitish history could not avoid reference to the Empire...
Cheers, alex
Pat James
(in message <3A59747D...@btinternet.com>):
Even with public health and the poor law, there would be refs to the empire.
Maintaining public health costs money, some of which came from guess where.
The Industrial Revolution created jobs. The money to start the Industrial
Revolution came from guess where. More jobs were created by trade, with the
empire and with markets based on goods created in the empire. (Cotton, sugar,
tea...) More jobs were based on supporting that trade (ship building.
insurance. banking...) and a general knock-on effect from that. The
conditions under which the poor laws were set up therefore depended on the
fact of empire.
Jim Voege
> Jim Voege wrote:
> >
> > Insofar as your comments pertain to this Canadian, you would be wrong.
> >
> This one too, but she's Captain General of my regiment.
> --
Jim Voege
Kareem
Andrew Chaplin wrote in message <3A592E79...@yourfinger.home.com>...
>Renia wrote:
>>
>> Kareem wrote:
>>
>> > <snip>
>> > Question: What is your definition of this "American Empire"?
Curious.....
>>
>> The Frontier. Constantly crossing it, until it ran out.
>>
>Ooh, it's a fair cop, but Europe is to blame.
>--
So, in this vein, there is also a Russian Empire? (Not talking Soviet,
here)
Kareem
Pax Vobiscum
John Kane
Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> Jim Voege wrote:
> >
> > Insofar as your comments pertain to this Canadian, you would be wrong.
> >
> This one too, but she's Captain General of my regiment.
Just trying to get on the boss' good side eh?
Of course I used to work for her too. She was our only shareholder. :)
>
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
--
John Kane
Hull, Quebec Canada
Robert Redfearn
We don't have to pay for our head of state,the Brits do it for us. The fact
that the PM isnt head of state means a dictator can never seize control,for
more than five years. Why mess with perfection? Robert
CG Luxford
been the Russian Empire.
Chris,
Stan Spade
>>The EIC was always a trading company, and the wealth it gained was to go
back to its stockholders and the monarch.
reply
I don't dispute that but look at the religious undertones of the mandate
given to the East India Compnany, 400 years ago:
"Their mandate charged them to buy or seize and rule whatever territories
that did not belong to a Christian king."
Source : Mothe, Gordon de la. (1993). Reconstructing the Black Image.
Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books Ltd. ISBN: 0 948080 61 2.
> However, I would still hold that the primary objective in Europe's
> expansion was economic. You only have to look at the amount of silver
> that poured in from Peru to understand its importance to the economy of
> Europe, not just Spain.
reply
and with all that silver, spain could not even defeat a tiny british naval
fleet. also amazing considering spain had 100-year head-start over the
british isles in naval experience, crossing the atlantic to the americas.
why is britain subject to such rip-off prices compared to its continental
neighbours?
why is the country's infrastructure and institutions in such a bad state ?
also the british empire never made a profit.
"Only by the Second World War, when the British Empire was in terminal
decline, did trade between Britain and its colonies reach a peak of 35% of
all British trade"
Source
98. The Economist. 'Imperial Britain - Friendly Natives'. May 18th 1996,
pg.11.
as empire expanded, so did the debts.
the national debt was never repaid.
germany without a comparative global empire and with two massive defeats has
come back economically stronger than britain even though britain received
more in american aid than germany after ww2.
until the gulf war, oil-rich arab countries without hardly any technical or
industrial knowhow or organisational abilities had 'free' welfare state,
free education, health, etc. so if empire was about economic, how come
britain never had freebies to offer its citizens ???
the irish famine occurred one hundred years after the industrial revolution,
at the height of the victorian age and yet people were going hungry.
thus, i cannot see hardly any evidence to support your thesis that empire
was motivated primarily by economics.
just as the spanish and portuguese were motivated by a religious impulse to
fight their historical enemies, so was the british empire - though I would
agree in certain areas, the tactics employed were completely different (but
then that's the protestant revolution/crusade for you). more later, when
i've got time. too busy working to make ends meet :-(
surr...@my-deja.com
>
> the irish famine occurred one hundred years after the industrial
revolution,
> at the height of the victorian age and yet people were going hungry.
>