Old Empire vs New Empire

[Tom]

The US seems to be getting a lot of stick of late for its apparently 'aggressive' stance on foreign policy.

My question is, would the British Empire have fared any better during its period of dominance, if the technology of today were available then?

Discuss.

 

[mank]

I thought this was going to be about Star Wars.

 

[old.tRoG]

Me too

 

[Tom]

I should clarify - by technology, I mean (mainly) media reporting and communication.

 

[mr.Blacky]

No but people wouldn't care caus people were less liberal in their thoughts.

 

[DaGaffer]

...and anyway, everyone knows we were delivering civilisation to the 'eathen then

Not that the Americans wanted it, but never mind...

 

[SoWat]

Interesting question, but attitudes were a lot different in days of Empire.

Given that, all through Empire, Great Britain was forced into action due to pressure of public opinion (one reason governments like to keep things under wraps).

Britain's treatment of the Arabs, and it's creation of Iraq, should serve as a warning to the US on what not to do.

 

[Teh Krypt]

Britan should take over america starwars fasion.

(and kill aol while were at it!)

Yarrrrrrr!

 

[Tenko]

I thought it was gonna be about starwars too...

But connecting the two I remember seeing a clip of US soldiers driving into iraq during the 1st war while playing music on loud speakers attached to their humvees.


It was John Williams' Imperial March

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

>>>

... if you ask me.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Originally posted by Tom
The US seems to be getting a lot of stick of late for its apparently 'aggressive' stance on foreign policy.

My question is, would the British Empire have fared any better during its period of dominance, if the technology of today were available then?

Discuss.

In the 'good old days' if we'd had the technology we have now...

I think the British Empire would have been responsible for a lot of genocide.

 

[plightstar]

Originally posted by Teh Krypt
Britan should take over america starwars fasion.

(and kill aol while were at it!)

Yarrrrrrr!

Yes Down with AOL, lets start a rebellion and call it the Alliance and win we tip the odds in our favour lets re-name it The New Republic.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Tenko
I thought it was gonna be about starwars too...

But connecting the two I remember seeing a clip of US soldiers driving into iraq during the 1st war while playing music on loud speakers attached to their humvees.


It was John Williams' Imperial March

Nah it's kellys heroes all over again

Oddball was the man.

 

[DaGaffer]

Re: Re: Old Empire vs New Empire

Originally posted by old.D0LLySh33p
In the 'good old days' if we'd had the technology we have now...

I think the British Empire would have been responsible for a lot of genocide.

We did well enough with Martini-Henrys and Maxim guns as it is. Ask a Zulu. But its a pointless argument. As Empires went we were one of the better examples. Others, like the Belgians in the Congo, like the Spanish pretty much everywhere and like the Americans were far worse. And interestingly, public opinion and the media were a huge influence as it was to improve things (within the bounds of existing mores); think about wilberforce and slavery - it was another sixty years before the 'home of freedom' got rid of slavery and it took a bloody war to do it.

 

[Munkey-]

we did well against the zulus? the zulus massacared us.

 

[Jonaldo]

<cs mode>

We got more frags though

</cs mode>

 

[ECA]

<cs mode>

And the teams were stacked.

</cs mode>

 

[Cdr]

<cs mode>

OMG FFS ZULU21 HAX TBH!!!! AIMBOT!!!!!!!

</cs mode>

 

[Mellow-]

It's not CS mode, it's STEAM MODE *makes train noises*

 

[throdgrain]

Totally true btw about the slavery thing, in the second war we had with the US we were taking slaves off thier ships and setting them free. This would be about 1813.
Also in that war the larger part of the American indians were on our side too, as they had been treated so appallingly by the white Americans. But no doubt loads of people will refuse to believe this, so wrapped up are they in the Americanised Hollywood view of history.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by throdgrain

Also in that war the larger part of the American indians were on our side too, as they had been treated so appallingly by the white Americans.

Ie they were used by the English. Just like the English and the French used the native Americans in their wars before.

C'mon... I can understand patriotism - but the English were as plutocratic and atrocious to their colonial minions as anyone else with colonies overseas.

East India Company anyone? Cecil Rhodes anyone?
They were missionaries with hearts of gold, right?

 

[Jonaldo]

English are and have always been jolly good chaps and lovely to the locale wherever we've conquered I'll have you know!

you wub us really, admit it

 

[throdgrain]

You go watch your mel Gibson films m8, Im just saying how it was.
Im not saying we was perfect either by a long chalk, but in an era where you either had an empire, or was part of someone elses, we surely wernt as bad as most. including the sancimonious fucking americans.

 

[DaGaffer]

Originally posted by Munkey-
we did well against the zulus? the zulus massacared us.

Maybe you should read up on what happened after Islandwana and Rorke's Drift rather than getting your history from movies...

 

[throdgrain]

Same ol shit ...

 

[Tom]

What prompted this question was thinking about the way that the media seems to try and 'pull down' anything or anybody who dares to become successful. More often than not, you hear the story of some detractor who has an axe to grind against the dominant power in their lives (eg Middle East - USA), but you don't often hear about the people or nations who are reasonably happy with the status quo (S.America, Europe, Japan).

I got to thinking about the Roman Empire, its hard to believe now, but people actually wanted to be a part of that Empire. If you were in the Empire, you got protection, currency, infrastructure, literacy, technology, and many more (no Monty Python jokes here pls ). I think it was most likely the same story when we had an Empire. What you here mostly about these days are the atrocities commited under English rule, and not too much about the actual benefits. Time and again we are told how we did terrible things to the Indian subcontinent, but we aren't always told that things were no better beforehand, and probably much worse.

We see on the news today pictures of Iraqis complaining about the lack of basic amenities, and are left to conclude that this is somehow our fault; we aren't told without asking first that these amenities weren't neccesarily available before the invasion in the first place.

I think recent history is generally biased against the dominant power, and ancient history biased toward the same.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by Tom
(no Monty Python jokes here pls ).

PRIAN!!!


Anyway - Throd, I might as well ask you to stop playing "Rule Britannia" now.

The only natives not mistreated.. I mean "civilized" by the British (or any other conquistadores...) were the Maori. Guess they were just too scary... or reminded them of the Scots too much.

My point is not to badmouth GB - my point is that you seem to think that all the conq.. civilized, nowaday third world countries, were happy to be under British rule.

That's why the Boxer rebellion or the wars in India, Africa and the American war of independence are truly works of fiction!

... not to forget that GB laid the foundation for most of the Middle East conflicts -> Israel 1947, forming the state/country of Iraq... etc. etc.

 

[DaGaffer]

Originally posted by Uncle Sick(tm)
PRIAN!!!


Anyway - Throd, I might as well ask you to stop playing "Rule Britannia" now.

The only natives not mistreated.. I mean "civilized" by the British (or any other conquistadores...) were the Maori. Guess they were just too scary... or reminded them of the Scots too much.

My point is not to badmouth GB - my point is that you seem to think that all the conq.. civilized, nowaday third world countries, were happy to be under British rule.

That's why the Boxer rebellion or the wars in India, Africa and the American war of independence are truly works of fiction!

... not to forget that GB laid the foundation for most of the Middle East conflicts -> Israel 1947, forming the state/country of Iraq... etc. etc.

I don't think anyone is saying that everything was rosy under British rule, just that as Empires go the British example was one of the better ones.

You've also got to take the view, 'was British rule better or worse than what came before (or in a lot of cases) after it?' If you look at India, the reason why the East India Company could take over Bengal so easily was because the local princes used them in their own power struggle. India had seen wave after wave of invaders for centuries, usually imposing their own rules and introducing their own settlers and culture (that's why India has problems today between Hindus and Muslims - the British actually kept a lid on that for centuries).

As for the middle east conflict thing - yes the British are complicit but its not that simple, The Treaty of Versailles after WWI divided up the Ottoman empire - Britain got mandates in Irag and Jordan (I think France had Syria) because it would have been chaos otherwise and that's what empires did. The British didn't particularly want a lot of the middle east mandates - they couldn't afford to run them! As for Palestine, well, I have a personal view, but put yourself in the position of the British, remembering this was only three years after the discovery of the Holocaust...

 

[throdgrain]

Precisely. What would you have done about Palestine ? Remember the Jews, Begin et al, were all terrorists in those days ? Three years after the holocaust the Jews would have blown up anything or anybody to get thier own way.
I think thats still thier policy tbh
But if we hadn't given them Palestine they would probably still be fighting now, and the Arran jumper brigade would be slagging us off for that instead. You can't win sometimes.
Funny how people who don't have to make the decisions always have the answers really...
Rule Brittania ? One of my favourite tunes mate

Ahh, and the Scots is it ? They invaded England mate, killing and raping as they went, got as far as Derby you know.
But my god they paid for it . Who was right ? Who cares really ? It was 400 years ago.

 

[Will]

Originally posted by throdgrain
Ahh, and the Scots is it ? They invaded England mate, killing and raping as they went, got as far as Derby you know.
But my god they paid for it . Who was right ? Who cares really ? It was 400 years ago.

258 years, but who is counting?