The imperialism of Britain

[Danzaivar]

Then again most educational stuff is very empirical in terms of why you should think stuff. Unlike the rumoured US educational system where they make you stand up and do the oath thingy. That just reeks of wrong to me.

I swear some people will literally believe anything that plays into their obvious bias against the US.

I love the US and one of my goals in life is to get a green card to live there and become a naturalized citizen. A first world country with a government set up by people suspicious of government is the kind of place for me.

But, there are a lot of people (on this forum even) who give horrific accounts of US public education. And there is a lot of stuff about pro-union bias being taught in state schools. Some guy in this thread who's American mentioned it!

 

[thejboy88]

When we were taught this history at school we were all informed of the negative aspects of our empire. Yes, he enslaved people, yes we conquered whole nations, yes we wre the big boys on the world playground at one point. However, no nation ever just goes to other countries and does those things for the fun of it. Everything that was done had, then, legitimate reasons for it. At them time, Britan was one of the many European nations competing for dominance in the world. We had been fighting amongst ourselves for centuries but with the discovery of the Americas and other places, new opportunities came about. Opportunities for land, wealth, resources, everything we would need to keep competing with the rest of Europe.

So to summarise, our Empire was not the result f some British ideal of superiority but rather a consequence of our need to stay ahead of our immediate neighbours.

If anyone disagrees please let me know.

P.S. Just incase you misinterpret my words, I DO NOT endorse the conquest or enslavement of other people. Just so you know.

I heavily disagree on so many levels. The Famine created in Ireland was due to British greed and imperialism at the time. They absolutely hated the Irish and thought that we were savages because we were a vastly different culture. I will give you an example of some Brehon(Celtic) law. Basically a man could beat his wife as long as he did not leave a mark if he she could divorce him, A man could divorce his wife if she was a bad cook(might need to double check that one), A woman could divorce her husband if he was acting homosexual. Also in Celtic Ireland women were able to own land and leaders were always elected from the royal family and inheritance was split evenly not like in England. Which was just give it to eldest son even that son was a rapist, murdering, paedophile(I am over exaggerated but it did mostly go to eldest son).

Ok back on point. The Famine was cause by the British because they continued to export grain out of Ireland. There was enough food to stop the "Famine". I use the word famine loosely here as there wasn't a genuine lack of food. Letting the Irish people die fits perfectly into British views at the time. Around this time British thought eugenetics was the way forward although that only took off around 20[sup]th[/sup] century if I remember correctly.

A British Economist Thomas Robert Malthus with his Theory on Population and Food supply fits into this. Basically his theory stated that population increase geometrically(that is by multiplacation for anyone reading that doesn't know) and food supply will increase arithmetically(that is by addition). Thus he believed that population should be kept in check with two type of checks. One was by stopping increase(can't remember name of it at this time) by either absitnance or contraception. Since he was a cleric he did not believe in artificial contraception nor did he have any faith in the ordinary man practising this so he advocated positive checks. These were checks that would decrease population and things that he stated would do this were war and famine. There were others but no need to bulk this up much more than it already has been.

So in short the beauracracy in Britain at the time had a massive superiority complex and not everything done at the time was necessary to help Britain. I also know you do not agree wit hthe British empire and their ideals I just do not think everything they done had true legitmate reasons to help Britain.

I agree thay my description was somewhat simplistic and over-generalised and that you are right, there were many factors and some degree of a superiority complex with regard to some of the more influential figures in the empire.

However, as I said in my initial post, this was the version we were taught at school. A very early history class when I was only 8 or 9 years old. I don't think the teachers would want to go into as much detail and description as you had for students my age at the time.

No offence intended, your comments are absolutely on the money here and I apologise if my first post offended you in any way.

 

[Griff]

My school taught about the British Empire whilst History was still compulsory. And I have to say it was taught with very little Bias We learnt about imperialist oppression and the slave trade but also about its science and engineering. Imperial war were quite well described by my teacher as followed. "One bunch of unpleasant people attacking another bunch of unpleasant people so that they had enough power to kill some other unpleasant people". Continuing on from this we learnt about the end of the Empire when I was doing A-level, and it was generally taught a good thing.

 

[manaman]

Then again most educational stuff is very empirical in terms of why you should think stuff. Unlike the rumoured US educational system where they make you stand up and do the oath thingy. That just reeks of wrong to me.

I swear some people will literally believe anything that plays into their obvious bias against the US.

I love the US and one of my goals in life is to get a green card to live there and become a naturalized citizen. A first world country with a government set up by people suspicious of government is the kind of place for me.

But, there are a lot of people (on this forum even) who give horrific accounts of US public education. And there is a lot of stuff about pro-union bias being taught in state schools. Some guy in this thread who's American mentioned it!

There are 310 million people in the US we are the third most populous country in the world. Don't think for one second that have one solid unified culture across the entire country. I happen to live in Washington State with a population of only 7 million and you can't get people from Spokane (one side of the state) to agree with people from Seattle (the other side of the state). As it stands the Washington probably has the laxest gun laws out of all the liberal states, and some of the highest taxes on vices and gasoline. We have a fairly solid tech economy compared to the rest of the US driven by low energy costs from numerous hydroelectric plants (we produce a sizable surplus of power in this state). The culture is very lax and accepting as well.

Then you have other states on the opposite side of the country that are very conservative, and claim to follow the principles the nation was founded on yet let mob rule make some very bad decisions for them.

You mentioned the education system of the US specifically and I can tell you that the French rankings where the only ones to show the US being significantly behind other developed countries. Most show the US standing more median, much of this is do to a culture that abhors learning in many dense urban areas, you can't teach those unwilling to learn. It's known as a socioeconomic barrier, the lowest of the low are bringing down the average to a fair degree. Some areas in use test better then the top Asian countries in math, and the top European countries in comprehension and sciences. The US has been attempting to make strides into defeating this socioeconomic barrier in recent years, to some progress in select areas. I hope that they can take the lessons learned in those areas and start applying it across the nation. We could see a total revamp of the US education system within 10-15 years. Higher education in the US is still ranked as one of the best in the world with the US dominating 10 ten lists (with 8 of 10 slots usually, varies by the country making the list, but the lowest I have seen is 6 of the slots) of universities in the world, and taking well over 2/3rds of the spots in a top 50 list. It falls close to 60% of the slots on a 100 list, still a remarkable showing for one country.

The US is still a remarkable country and far undeserving of the shit heaped upon it by many that have never even set foot inside the country.

 

[Megalodon]

How is the subject of British colonialism and the whole age of the British Empire taught in the UK? I am currently studying European History, and would greatly appreciate some insight from people who actually live in Europe.

Well, there wasn't one "age" of the British Empire. Early on, there was very little central control. Trading outposts were maintained in Africa, but we left the natives basically in charge of the place. India was initially colonised by private enterprise, not "Britain". The government only took over running India after the EIC screwed up, leading to the Sepoy Mutiny. Large areas of Africa were only brought under direct British control once other Europeans, especially the Germnas, started claiming land, to stop European rival getting and "advantage" against Britain. Then there's the growing independance of places like Australia and Canada over the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Basically, the British Empire was different things at different times, not really that supriseing given a history lasting a couple of centuries.

 

[Danzaivar]

Then again most educational stuff is very empirical in terms of why you should think stuff. Unlike the rumoured US educational system where they make you stand up and do the oath thingy. That just reeks of wrong to me.

I swear some people will literally believe anything that plays into their obvious bias against the US.

I love the US and one of my goals in life is to get a green card to live there and become a naturalized citizen. A first world country with a government set up by people suspicious of government is the kind of place for me.

But, there are a lot of people (on this forum even) who give horrific accounts of US public education. And there is a lot of stuff about pro-union bias being taught in state schools. Some guy in this thread who's American mentioned it!

There are 310 million people in the US we are the third most populous country in the world. Don't think for one second that have one solid unified culture across the entire country. I happen to live in Washington State with a population of only 7 million and you can't get people from Spokane (one side of the state) to agree with people from Seattle (the other side of the state). As it stands the Washington probably has the laxest gun laws out of all the liberal states, and some of the highest taxes on vices and gasoline. We have a fairly solid tech economy compared to the rest of the US driven by low energy costs from numerous hydroelectric plants (we produce a sizable surplus of power in this state). The culture is very lax and accepting as well.

Then you have other states on the opposite side of the country that are very conservative, and claim to follow the principles the nation was founded on yet let mob rule make some very bad decisions for them.

You mentioned the education system of the US specifically and I can tell you that the French rankings where the only ones to show the US being significantly behind other developed countries. Most show the US standing more median, much of this is do to a culture that abhors learning in many dense urban areas, you can't teach those unwilling to learn. It's known as a socioeconomic barrier, the lowest of the low are bringing down the average to a fair degree. Some areas in use test better then the top Asian countries in math, and the top European countries in comprehension and sciences. The US has been attempting to make strides into defeating this socioeconomic barrier in recent years, to some progress in select areas. I hope that they can take the lessons learned in those areas and start applying it across the nation. We could see a total revamp of the US education system within 10-15 years. Higher education in the US is still ranked as one of the best in the world with the US dominating 10 ten lists (with 8 of 10 slots usually, varies by the country making the list, but the lowest I have seen is 6 of the slots) of universities in the world, and taking well over 2/3rds of the spots in a top 50 list. It falls close to 60% of the slots on a 100 list, still a remarkable showing for one country.

The US is still a remarkable country and far undeserving of the shit heaped upon it by many that have never even set foot inside the country.

I like the US, you admitted yourself that the US education system will probably have a big shake up soon. So we agree on both points.

So why does your post sound hostile?

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

So, you want to know what the English feel about their history and identity?

Spoiler: Well, read this.

[/spoiler]

I studied in London for three years and was gifted this when my friends and I were packing up our stuff to go home and were trying to get rid of stuff. Suddenly explained so much of the last three years to me.

 

[comadorcrack]

Mike (My A Level History teacher): Yeah England was a horrible country, and all in all, we're pretty honest about it. But we're not above sugar coating slavery and work houses. Generally most people get their idea of a work house from Oliver rather than actually being taught about it.

 

[wooty]

It got taught in my school and told as it was, some bad shit happened, some good shit happened. Thats about it really, I personally don't feel any remorse for what happened in the past or what this country did during the Imperial days. I think no country/empire has ever been faultless or not committed an atrocity in its history, so arguing over each others past actions is pointless, no one is clean........except maybe Canada?

I guess all you can do is learn from it and hope it never happens again.

 

[Charli]

We're certainly not bullshitting ourselves about it, we know we were right bastards.

 

[Cheesus333]

Uh, from what I remember of my education on the British Empire... it was all going quite well until the Americans decided they didn't want to be in it anymore.

And also the slavery thing was a really bad idea. Like, really bad.

 

[Karma168]

I have a question for the many people who call the UK home and happen to be on this forum.

How is the subject of British colonialism and the whole age of the British Empire taught in the UK? I am currently studying European History, and would greatly appreciate some insight from people who actually live in Europe.

Please keep this topic hate and flame free. Thank you.

simple answer, we don't. (at least not in Scotland) we are taught romans in britain, WW1&2 and the suffrogettes. the empire is never mentioned even in passing. our history curriculum is so piss-poor that we dont even learn about our own history let alone the history of the rest of the world - we get to watch 'braveheart' and told that's what happened.

most of the history i've learned has been from the 'horrible history' series and wikipedia, which IMO is really messed up.

 

[beniki]

We're not formally taught about the empire. We learn about history in relation to major events or time periods, like WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. We learn mostly about the results of the empire rather than the process of building it, because that spans across a few centuries, and is basically a string of wars and treaties that just happened to result in an empire. We're really taught about European history more than anything else, and our particular role in it.

We learn about consequences of our actions in what used to be called Religious Studies, but I don't think it's called that any more. I remember one series of lessons was about what we did in India, with a focus on Ghandi.

We learn about how it affected the British mind set in English literature, with poems about it and stories set in those times, which often have a spread of opinions, just like we have these days.

But it's just part of our culture really, as much as drinking tea is. It's in our music, our traditions, and our food.

And jus as an aside, I got put on the Naughty Board when I was in primary school in Alaska for not saying the pledge of allegiance. They even called my parents, who had to remind them I was British

 

[Valksy]

I don't recall ever being taught about the Empire. I took my History GCSE in 1990 and my A level in 1992 and it was never a subject. Probably due to squeamishness of the subject.

That doesn't mean that I know nothing about it, a person is not obliged to stop learning and reading just because they left school.

Bizarrely, as I remember it, one of the subjects that I was taught for GCSE (exam for 16 year olds) was the American West with special emphasis on Custer's Last Stand. Fuck alone knows why that subject was on the syllabus that year (also did the history of medicine which was great).

 

[Sovvolf]

Well, with the looks of the quite varied responses we've had... I think its safe to say that it all comes down to what school you learned at or how good your teachers are. Some glossed over it, some went into detail, some sugar coated it, some put it straight between the eyes.

Given that I didn't do much studying at school, I spent my time at home or prating around in class, my knowledge on it from what school taught me is a little fuzzy. Most of what I learned was out of school. I know that what I did learn at school didn't exactly portray us as being nice people at all.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Well I can't offer much help here aside from the Danish perspective.

We aren't taught much about the British empire aside from in relation to Danish history (Britain raiding our ships and attacking our fleet in port when they felt Napoleon was being too friendly)

As for Empires they were generally portrayed in a negative light, with the Danish empire being slightly comedic in it's failures. We only managed to gain a few outposts aside from Greenland and Iceland (Former of which is still a colony). Slave trade (In which our merchants were heavily involved) was explained in practical details, how people were settled in like fish. Not that surprising given we were also heavily involved in that same sort of fishing in the Baltic.

Danes largely escape blame for these things due to our absolutist government and the fact that most Danes were enslaved to some extent under serfdom while the whole thing was raging.

 

[Karma168]

Then again most educational stuff is very empirical in terms of why you should think stuff. Unlike the rumoured US educational system where they make you stand up and do the oath thingy. That just reeks of wrong to me.

I swear some people will literally believe anything that plays into their obvious bias against the US.

I think he means the pledge of allegiance and i agree with him, on a trip to an American middle school I got to watch the entire class stand up and say the pledge. all the way through all I could think of was some kind of mass brain washing and wondering how people in America don't understand how they can have a country of flag waving nutjobs

 

[Quicksilver_Phoenix]

Same as a lot of people here.

Wasn't taught it at all. What I know about the time period is entirely from other sources.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

When we were taught this history at school we were all informed of the negative aspects of our empire. Yes, he enslaved people, yes we conquered whole nations, yes we wre the big boys on the world playground at one point. However, no nation ever just goes to other countries and does those things for the fun of it. Everything that was done had, then, legitimate reasons for it. At them time, Britan was one of the many European nations competing for dominance in the world. We had been fighting amongst ourselves for centuries but with the discovery of the Americas and other places, new opportunities came about. Opportunities for land, wealth, resources, everything we would need to keep competing with the rest of Europe.

So to summarise, our Empire was not the result f some British ideal of superiority but rather a consequence of our need to stay ahead of our immediate neighbours.

If anyone disagrees please let me know.

P.S. Just incase you misinterpret my words, I DO NOT endorse the conquest or enslavement of other people. Just so you know.

I heavily disagree on so many levels. The Famine created in Ireland was due to British greed and imperialism at the time. They absolutely hated the Irish and thought that we were savages because we were a vastly different culture. I will give you an example of some Brehon(Celtic) law. Basically a man could beat his wife as long as he did not leave a mark if he she could divorce him, A man could divorce his wife if she was a bad cook(might need to double check that one), A woman could divorce her husband if he was acting homosexual. Also in Celtic Ireland women were able to own land and leaders were always elected from the royal family and inheritance was split evenly not like in England. Which was just give it to eldest son even that son was a rapist, murdering, paedophile(I am over exaggerated but it did mostly go to eldest son).

Ok back on point. The Famine was cause by the British because they continued to export grain out of Ireland. There was enough food to stop the "Famine". I use the word famine loosely here as there wasn't a genuine lack of food. Letting the Irish people die fits perfectly into British views at the time. Around this time British thought eugenics was the way forward although that only took off around 20[sup]th[/sup] century if I remember correctly.

A British Economist Thomas Robert Malthus with his Theory on Population and Food supply fits into this. Basically his theory stated that population increase geometrically(that is by multiplication for anyone reading that doesn't know) and food supply will increase arithmetically(that is by addition). Thus he believed that population should be kept in check with two type of checks. One was by stopping increase(can't remember name of it at this time) by either abstinence's or contraception. Since he was a cleric he did not believe in artificial contraception nor did he have any faith in the ordinary man practising this so he advocated positive checks. These were checks that would decrease population and things that he stated would do this were war and famine. There were others but no need to bulk this up much more than it already has been.

So in short the bureaucracy in Britain at the time had a massive superiority complex and not everything done at the time was necessary to help Britain. I also know you do not agree with the British empire and their ideals I just do not think everything they done had true legitimate reasons to help Britain.

I agree thay my description was somewhat simplistic and over-generalised and that you are right, there were many factors and some degree of a superiority complex with regard to some of the more influential figures in the empire.

However, as I said in my initial post, this was the version we were taught at school. A very early history class when I was only 8 or 9 years old. I don't think the teachers would want to go into as much detail and description as you had for students my age at the time.

No offence intended, your comments are absolutely on the money here and I apologise if my first post offended you in any way.

It's fine I thought that were doing this history up to say around GCSE level and if you are being taught things like that at that age. Even we were told about the various massacres of Protestants. No but I am not offended.