Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Are the British to blame for many of problems in the world today ?
zidangus
Veteran
The UK prime minister recently said
"I don't want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world's problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/05/david-cameron-pakistan-raise-taxes-rich
this caused some outrage in the UK among many people. Two sides of the argument are given below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12992540
So just wondering what people think of this statement, do people outside the UK believe Britain is to blame for many of the problems in the world today ? And people from the UK, do you believe this ?
"I don't want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world's problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/05/david-cameron-pakistan-raise-taxes-rich
this caused some outrage in the UK among many people. Two sides of the argument are given below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12992540
So just wondering what people think of this statement, do people outside the UK believe Britain is to blame for many of the problems in the world today ? And people from the UK, do you believe this ?
0
Comments
And, we don't know if former colonies which seem pretty screwed up at various times might have gotten screwed up had they remained independent.
What's always amazed me is that people from former colonial powers often think they did those colonies a favor when they took away their freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads_in_Britain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall
Joking aside, the Romans did bring a lot of good things to Britain and to all the territories that they occupied. Alright they did a lot of bad also, this is beyond doubt, but a lot of what we see today is a consequence of Roman innovation.
search youtube if you would like to see more of the series, it was really good
and you can see that they really were quite innovative
Also I imagine that if the Roman Empire could actually last so long, then the Roman Empire of 43 AD, would not be the same as the Roman Empire of 2011 AD, so who knows what differences there may have been. I mean prior to Emperor Constantine <312 AD, at the time who would have thought that the Roman Empire would convert to Christianity ? after spending so many years persecuting christians. For all we know, the world may have been a more peaceful place if the Roman Empire continued to the present, it might have even converted to Buddhism :rolleyes:
British empire's purpose was to plunder resources from
far flung places. So, that is bad karma.
But the Brits were less brutal than many other
colonial powers eg French & Spanish.
Also, from ceylon, Buddhism became known In uk.
I think the aborigines will disagree.
to give Palestinians their country & US' unflinching support.
To me, I am tired of this neverending story while arabs & jews continue to die.
But if they can have peace in N ireland, maybe there is hope.
Now, I know you'll say concepts of revenge don't exist only in the Middle East, and I agree. But tribal animosities are pretty strong there. There's a tendency not to "get over it" (whatever "it" happens to be).
If you see what Portugal did to Brazil, thats pure plunder. The "states" in early Brazil were pretty much huge slave plantations.
Native Americans don't particularly care that the public transportation a) exists (however marginally) and b) runs reasonably on time. They want their land back, they want full control over their lives and communities, they want their languages back (almost stamped out in many cases, due to forced enrollment in boarding schools that prohibited use of Native langs., they want full freedom to practice their spiritual traditions, etc. Maybe the Romans in England left people relatively unscathed, so the view back through history comes out positive.
Q. for you historians: When did the colonial period end in the US? (warning: trick question) See answer at bottom of post. This is an interesting view that the Brits have toward the Roman colonizers. I think it's quite the exception to the rule. Most colonized people don't embrace their exploiters.
When the Germans invaded Prussia, there was a Baltic-speaking ethnicity living there since not long after the end of the last ice age. The Germans, beginning around 1250, began wiping them out, passed a law prohibiting the language, stamped out the ancient spiritual traditions (as did Poland as well), and many survived by assimilating to German. Stalin evicted them (along with the Germans) after WW2. Descendants of Indigenous Prussians are now scattered throughout Europe and the rest of the world (I am one). None are happy with the German and Russian invasions, and some would like to have their Baltic republic back (formerly E. Prussia, now Kalinin Region), and are working to revive the language. The standard of living in the Baltic states during the Soviet period was much higher than the "civilization" brought by the conquerors.
@Ric, et al.: It may seem to us that the Brits were "the better colonizers" (if that isn't an oxymoron), and less heavy-handed than others (the Belgians in the Congo as a worst-case scenario, perhaps). But colonization and exploitation is just that from the view of the people being colonized. When Indigenous people get together at international gatherings and forums, I can assure you they don't discuss the relative merits of one regime over another, they don't do comparisons, or rank colonizers in terms of austerity of the regime. They don't play "my ow-ie is bigger than yours". They discuss the commonalities of their experience and work on how to improve their lot. In other words, the view from below is very different from the view from above (our view).
Back to the Brits (closer focus on actual topic): I recall seeing documentaries about the fact that the US policies in Iran and elsewhere in the Mid-East (?) were initiated by the Brits, having to do with oil supplies. The US became the successor regime, as it did in Vietnam, taking over from the French. The more things change the more they stay the same. If anyone has info or clarification of this history, it would be appreciated.
A. to history Q.: It never ended. Colonial policies controlling the Native population, depriving them of rights, etc. are still going strong. (Like I said--the view from below.
P.S. z, so you're from around Hadrian's Wall? I spent a couple of weeks in the area ages ago. Nice area.
By the way I probably mention the good things the Romans did, because where I come from used to be a big Roman settlement, therefore I am assuming that I have Roman blood in me somewhere down the line
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3865983
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/the_west/
But the question makes me ask another question. Say the British are to blame for many problems (mostly national boundary lines designed to keep people in conflict). Seems to me other nations were in there competing for Empire and if Britian hadn't moved in, wouldn't Spain or France have ruled the waves? Empire building was the thing to do once long range navigation made getting the spoils back home a bit easier, and the industrial revolution was turned to making weapons.