Historical Perspective

Those who do not learn history are doomed to use this quote over and over again.

Moderators: danlo, Damelon

Post Reply
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Historical Perspective

Post by peter »

I made an observation recently in another thread about how the actions of the British in the formation of their Empire were of the same order of terrorism and 'comply or be killed' attitude as ISIS now operate in the building of their 'caliphate' - and how it is sobering to see yourself in he cold light of day as 'the ISIS that won', but simply 150 years down the track.

For was it not actually so: were not the 'white man's burden' and 'spreading the cause of civilisation and Christianity' simply ideological justifications used to cover the true purpose of the policy of colonialism - the extension of power and the accrual of wealth by the established order of the day simply because they had the military might and rapacious desire to do so.

Here's a corollary question that may seem simplistic and even ridiculous, but at least give it some thought and try to tell me where my misunderstanding of history lies in my even asking it. Why was India returned to its people for self rule, why the same for African and Asian countries (and it is absolutely right that they were for the above mentioned colonial activity of Britain must rank as one of the greatest perpetrated crimes of man against man of all times) yet the USA and Australia were not. Was it because the indigenous peoples of those countries did not adopt and comply with the occupying powers of their countries in the same way that the Indians did and were thus so depleted and reduced that there was effectively none left to hand it back to. Or were they (the indigenous peoples) so thinly spread in number in the first place that the appropriation of their lands was effectively an historically inevitability, expedient to the general increase in the human population as a whole. Or was it simply that the occupiers, once having cut their ties with the countries from whence they came, had no countries to return to (that and having populations composed of many differing originating nationalities making ordered hand-over of power more difficult.

Tricky thinking and probably not productive to persue, but never the less it remains undeniable that the path of history for the the indigenous peoples of the USA and Australia has been markedly different from that of indigenous Indian ones who now oversee their own thriving country.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

In the US, the colonists broke from imperial rule long before the Empire started thinking about giving things back.

Also, the new nation had nowhere to go. It's easy to give back a country that you don't live in.

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

Agreed Av. The latter point is particularly significant I think: it really has to be a second country - the mother administration if you like - that does the giving, and usually after a period of insurrection in the first.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Often when it becomes to difficult or expensive to maintain control over the colony. (Not always...they gave a few back that weren't revolting, but only after they'd stripped a lot of the resources out.)

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

There's not much milage in counterfactuals, but I wonder, had the USA not been able to throw off the 'yolk of imperialism' when it did, would the independance have been freely given at a later date - in fact to take it further, would any of the dismantleing of the British Empire have ever occured at all? 8O
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Yes--the rationalizations of being a colonial power were just thin veils covering the ugliness of rampant greed for money and raw materials; the same principles applied here in the 19th Century. I suppose colonial history serves to remind us how easy it is to abuse people when you convince yourself that they are somehow less human than you are.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11488
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

Agreed Hashi - and a realisation that applies just as equally down at the personal level as at that of the nation state.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Indeed. And is still applied at higher levels with varying degrees of sophism, obfuscation, and realisation.

--A
User avatar
Mighara Sovmadhi
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1157
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:50 am
Location: Near where Broken Social Scene is gonna play on October 15th, 2010

Post by Mighara Sovmadhi »

The above remarks seem to apply more to the comparison between the US and the UK than to that between the UK and Australia. India was just as far away from England, more or less, as Australia.

So part of the problem would be the ease of population reduction. Infectious diseases wiped out masses of American/Australian natives, especially when it was "convenient" for the invaders. India seems to have suffered nothing of the sort except Britain did oversee a series of famines that bears comparison to the Soviet and Communist Chinese starvation regimes. Also there were a lot more Indians than American/Australian natives (in the relevant regions), so the demographic-sparsity suggestion actually does help account for the discrepancy. But ultimately, I think, it's just that in the US and Australia, the reduction of the natives was part of not just the colonization but the permanent resettlement of the land. Just like the Nazis later, the Americans and Australians of yore knew just what such an enforced resettlement really meant. So they had a motive to wipe out the natives to such an extent that they would never resurface so as to be in a position to have their whole realm handed back to them, so to speak.

In other words, genocide is kinda pointless if you don't try to exterminate the target "strain." It'd be like allowing smallpox in millions of people. Sure, you might be able to contain it at that level (keep in mind this is a disease estimated to have killed 300,000,000 people, either over all time or just recently before it was almost completely annihilated), but aren't you just trying to get rid of it? So when you identify your genocide victims in plague terms of various forms, you tend towards nullity.
Post Reply

Return to “Doriendor Corishev”