The British Empire Was Much Worse Than You Realize(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The British Empire Was Much Worse Than You Realize
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/the-british-empire-was-much-worse-than-you-realize-caroline-elkinss-legacy-of-violence
46 comments
Given it's the empire responsible for the most human deaths in history, it's hard to argue (still have to contend with the Soviets, Mongols, and of course the Romans).
Of course not everything is black and white - so having a short article about one of top two greatest empires of all times, is bound to lack context and breadth.
>Given it's the empire responsible for the most human deaths in history, it's hard to argue
Is it? The amount of deaths shouldn't be compared to 0, it should be compared to a counterfactual where the indigenous people were in charge. Otherwise you run into the "doctors with most patient deaths" problem. It's possible that the doctor is objectively bad, or that he's receiving the sickest patients. It's plausible for instance, that areas with local rulers who are brutal and despotic are easy to conquer/colonize by an outside empire, because the brutality/despotism means it's easy to assemble a local coalition to depose the current regime.
Is it? The amount of deaths shouldn't be compared to 0, it should be compared to a counterfactual where the indigenous people were in charge. Otherwise you run into the "doctors with most patient deaths" problem. It's possible that the doctor is objectively bad, or that he's receiving the sickest patients. It's plausible for instance, that areas with local rulers who are brutal and despotic are easy to conquer/colonize by an outside empire, because the brutality/despotism means it's easy to assemble a local coalition to depose the current regime.
Two4(1)
I guess, as a academic exercise, such comparisons should include population size and time span. Something like imperial death per year per capita. Ideally measuring "excess deaths" in some fashion.
For example Russian excess deaths all happened over quite a short time span. Does it mean their intensity of badness was higher?
For example Russian excess deaths all happened over quite a short time span. Does it mean their intensity of badness was higher?
There's no way the inventor of concentration camps could be a force for good.
Source?
Wikipedia says the Spanish beat the British to it.
>The term concentration camp originates from the Spanish–Cuban Ten Years' War when Spanish forces detained Cuban civilians in camps in order to more easily combat guerrilla forces. Over the following decades the British during the Second Boer War and the Americans during the Philippine–American War also used concentration camps.
Wikipedia says the Spanish beat the British to it.
>The term concentration camp originates from the Spanish–Cuban Ten Years' War when Spanish forces detained Cuban civilians in camps in order to more easily combat guerrilla forces. Over the following decades the British during the Second Boer War and the Americans during the Philippine–American War also used concentration camps.
> Maxim-gun slaughter of Mahdists in the eighteen-nineties
The Mahdists had a policy, contrary to Islam, of enslaving Muslims who didn't support them, amongst all the usual slaver behaviour(e.g., after the siege, all the women and children in Khartoum were enslaved, which I'm sure went great for them. All the men were of course massacred in fun manners).
I do note that they picked the 1890s to limit it to the war where the Empire Struck Back, not the war beforehand, but nonetheless, I'm not sure the Mahdists were a good choice for building sympathy.
The Mahdists had a policy, contrary to Islam, of enslaving Muslims who didn't support them, amongst all the usual slaver behaviour(e.g., after the siege, all the women and children in Khartoum were enslaved, which I'm sure went great for them. All the men were of course massacred in fun manners).
I do note that they picked the 1890s to limit it to the war where the Empire Struck Back, not the war beforehand, but nonetheless, I'm not sure the Mahdists were a good choice for building sympathy.
Didn't the Empire go through a lot of trouble to end the slave trade?
> Didn't the Empire go through a lot of trouble to end the slave trade
Combating slavery gave the British Empire a comparative advantage, as they could export commodities like Sugar, Cotton, Palm Oil, and Coffee from the British Raj (which in the 19th century included all of South Asia as well as Malaysia) and British Egypt (cotton) without a plantation slavery model, while undermining competitors like the US and Brazil who used that model for commodity exports.
Same reason why the industrial Northeast and small-farmer Midwest was opposed to slavery, as both lobbies were undermined by the economics of slavery.
Combating slavery gave the British Empire a comparative advantage, as they could export commodities like Sugar, Cotton, Palm Oil, and Coffee from the British Raj (which in the 19th century included all of South Asia as well as Malaysia) and British Egypt (cotton) without a plantation slavery model, while undermining competitors like the US and Brazil who used that model for commodity exports.
Same reason why the industrial Northeast and small-farmer Midwest was opposed to slavery, as both lobbies were undermined by the economics of slavery.
I think the British Empire was a bit of a mixed bag that did good and bad stuff. Bit like the Monty Python sketch on the Roman Empire.
The "abolish slave trade" was done in 1833. India was colonized in 1857 officially. Apartheid didn't end until the 90's
Britain ended slavery and started colonization. But yeah "they ended slave trade"
No amount of info will convince people that colonization was evil and abhorrent because they were party to it, they benefited from it.
Britain ended slavery and started colonization. But yeah "they ended slave trade"
No amount of info will convince people that colonization was evil and abhorrent because they were party to it, they benefited from it.
> India was colonized in 1857 officially
Much of South India and Eastern India was already British ruled by the early 1800s.
> Apartheid didn't end until the 90's
Apartheid was started by the Boers (Dutch South Africans who also fought against the British) once they got autonomy in the 1920s.
Apartheid Era South Africa was also very anti-Anglo as well as anti-Black.
Much of South India and Eastern India was already British ruled by the early 1800s.
> Apartheid didn't end until the 90's
Apartheid was started by the Boers (Dutch South Africans who also fought against the British) once they got autonomy in the 1920s.
Apartheid Era South Africa was also very anti-Anglo as well as anti-Black.
>Much of South India and Eastern India was already British ruled by the early 1800s.
No they were not. They were run by private East India Company. With the revolt of 1857 and quashing of the rebellion, the official Raj by the British Royals began
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
You are still bickering over pedantic stuff. Britain profited from slave trade. They just didn't want to use the term "slave" and used "colony" instead.
No they were not. They were run by private East India Company. With the revolt of 1857 and quashing of the rebellion, the official Raj by the British Royals began
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857
You are still bickering over pedantic stuff. Britain profited from slave trade. They just didn't want to use the term "slave" and used "colony" instead.
The Soviet Union was pro choice and empowered women.
Prof. Caroline Elkins from Harvard and her books mentioned in the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Elkins
Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire | Caroline Elkins & William Dalrymple - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeZRDIarayk
Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire | Caroline Elkins & William Dalrymple - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeZRDIarayk
All the colonial empires wore. The problem was, that they could monopolize trade- and starve out countries. No need for prisons, camps etc. you just cut off trade and let the starvation do the rest of the horror. Bonuspoints if you changed the agricultural sector of a region to produce only one thing like tea or cotton.
Some even managed to starve breadbaskets - like stalin did. It was a monstrous time, and this world of monsters strangling newborn nations, gave rise to the monsters to out-monster the monsters. Stalinism and Facism. Empires are horrific things, with a starved out, vampire sucked dry periphery and a core pretending that everything is normal and civilized. To want to go back to that time, is to abandon all mankind. Nuclear war and a swift end is preferable to this.
Gandhi was controlled opposition IMO. His approach delayed the inevitable by decades.
A few tens of thousands of British troops - Over 200 years of the British Raj on average there were 60,000 to 70,000 British troops stationed in India - would have been absolutely slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians (1857 population estimated at 250-300 million).
By the time Gandhi came into the picture, the British empire was overextended - any half decent uprising would have been successful..... unless you convinced the natives to give up on any physical form of dissent and sit down, protest and get beaten up as a virtuous slave.
Truly one of the greatest psyops ever.
A few tens of thousands of British troops - Over 200 years of the British Raj on average there were 60,000 to 70,000 British troops stationed in India - would have been absolutely slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians (1857 population estimated at 250-300 million).
By the time Gandhi came into the picture, the British empire was overextended - any half decent uprising would have been successful..... unless you convinced the natives to give up on any physical form of dissent and sit down, protest and get beaten up as a virtuous slave.
Truly one of the greatest psyops ever.
I think British control worked more subtly than you imply. I'm not that up on India but I heard roughly how the takeover worked in Ireland. Pre British control Ireland was controlled by a number of local rulers of a warlord type who were endlessly fighting. The Brits basically contacted them and said ally yourself with the King and we'll protect you and make sure you have a good life, or oppose us and we'll team with your rivals to wipe you out. Thus most of them pledged allegiance to the British king with hardly a shot fired.
The following book from 1872 by an enlightened Irish politician W.M.Torrens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McCullagh_Torrens) lays bare the machinations of Perfidous Albion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion).
Empire in Asia, How we came by it : A Book of Confessions by W.M.Torrens - https://archive.org/details/empireinasiahoww00mccuuoft/mode/...
Empire in Asia, How we came by it : A Book of Confessions by W.M.Torrens - https://archive.org/details/empireinasiahoww00mccuuoft/mode/...
Ireland is a terrible example as it was starved to death (like literally), known as the Great Famine. To this day the population of Ireland is still lower than the pre-famine times (1845)
I was thinking of
>Henry VIII of England was made "King of Ireland" by the Crown of Ireland Act 1542. The conquest involved assimilating the Gaelic nobility by way of "surrender and regrant"...
a long while before the potato famine.
>Henry VIII of England was made "King of Ireland" by the Crown of Ireland Act 1542. The conquest involved assimilating the Gaelic nobility by way of "surrender and regrant"...
a long while before the potato famine.
The Brits didn’t introduce the potato blight, they just mismanaged the resulting situation in their 19th Century trademark bumptious, oblivious, supercilious manner. But it is unclear whether home rule at that point would have come up with any better idea than emigration. Without the potato, Ireland couldn’t (and still can’t (?)) sustain its pre-1845 population, and an agronomic solution was a long time coming.
Eh, the Americas got a lot of great Irish immigrants out of the tragedy. And those immigrants and their descendants have had a better life than if they stayed in dear old Ireland IMHO.
You could say the Great Famine actually started with the introduction of the potato to Eurasia, an Americas/colonialism introduction that at that point had kept hunger from the door of countless Europeans, especially during times of conflict (since you can’t set a torch to something growing in the ground).
Nothing is simple. It’s an ill wind…
Eh, the Americas got a lot of great Irish immigrants out of the tragedy. And those immigrants and their descendants have had a better life than if they stayed in dear old Ireland IMHO.
You could say the Great Famine actually started with the introduction of the potato to Eurasia, an Americas/colonialism introduction that at that point had kept hunger from the door of countless Europeans, especially during times of conflict (since you can’t set a torch to something growing in the ground).
Nothing is simple. It’s an ill wind…
You have nicely captured the sentiment of the post-truth world.
> Maxim-gun slaughter of Mahdists in the eighteen-nineties
The Mahdists had a policy, contrary to Islam, of enslaving Muslims who didn't support them, amongst all the usual slaver behaviour(e.g., after the siege, all the women and children in Khartoum were enslaved, which I'm sure went great for them. All the men were of course massacred in fun manners).
I do note that they picked the 1890s to limit it to the war where the Empire Struck Back, not the war beforehand, but nonetheless, I'm not sure the Mahdists were a good choice for building sympathy.
Also, staying that the State of Israel learned suppressive tactics from Britain is rather infantilising in the extreme.
The Mahdists had a policy, contrary to Islam, of enslaving Muslims who didn't support them, amongst all the usual slaver behaviour(e.g., after the siege, all the women and children in Khartoum were enslaved, which I'm sure went great for them. All the men were of course massacred in fun manners).
I do note that they picked the 1890s to limit it to the war where the Empire Struck Back, not the war beforehand, but nonetheless, I'm not sure the Mahdists were a good choice for building sympathy.
Also, staying that the State of Israel learned suppressive tactics from Britain is rather infantilising in the extreme.
[flagged]
Seems like the first thing one needs to do before criticizing something is to have a solid philosophical basis for doing so. Therefore, we should just open this dusty cupboard labeled “moral ideas philosophers agree about and…” oh my god…
The British Empire was actually one of the most benevolent ones. There's a reason why Gandhi's violentless approach worked and why China is an independent country.
Colonialism might just as well exist today like it did in the 1800s. UK amongst others specifically stopped it.
Colonialism might just as well exist today like it did in the 1800s. UK amongst others specifically stopped it.
There are many reasons Gandhi's approach worked. One of them was the fear of 2 million newly armed and combat-experienced Indian soldiers returning home after WW2.
Nearly every successful peaceful revolution had a lurking threat of a less peaceful version nearby. Which isn't a bad thing and it doesn't discredit peaceful change, it just discredits the idea that people acquiesce to peaceful protests (exclusively) out of the goodness of their hearts.
Nearly every successful peaceful revolution had a lurking threat of a less peaceful version nearby. Which isn't a bad thing and it doesn't discredit peaceful change, it just discredits the idea that people acquiesce to peaceful protests (exclusively) out of the goodness of their hearts.
In AL Basham's, 'the wonder that was India', he identifies several key differences in the idea of what a king is in India.
It's nothing like the European version.
There was no way India could have been properly ruled by the English crown. The understanding of monarchy is so different and also explains why so many kings happily agreed to become British vassals.
It's nothing like the European version.
There was no way India could have been properly ruled by the English crown. The understanding of monarchy is so different and also explains why so many kings happily agreed to become British vassals.
Gandhi’s non violent approach did not work. Until external factors like WW2 forced the British Empire to get rid of most of their colonies. The British empire was content with letting Gandhi protest in the streets and regularly throw him in jail as soon as his protests inconvenienced them.
Benevolent empires don’t let millions of people die because they are too busy extracting resources from their colonies to care about them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Benevolent empires don’t let millions of people die because they are too busy extracting resources from their colonies to care about them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
Gandhi was controlled opposition IMO. His approach delayed the inevitable by decades.
A few tens of thousands of British troops - Over 200 years of the British Raj on average there were 60,000 to 70,000 British troops stationed in India - would have been absolutely slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians (1857 population estimated at 250-300 million).
By the time Gandhi came into the picture, the British empire was overextended - any half decent uprising would have been successful..... unless you convinced the natives to give up on any physical form of dissent and sit down, protest and get beaten up as a virtuous slave.
Truly one of the greatest psyops ever.
A few tens of thousands of British troops - Over 200 years of the British Raj on average there were 60,000 to 70,000 British troops stationed in India - would have been absolutely slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians (1857 population estimated at 250-300 million).
By the time Gandhi came into the picture, the British empire was overextended - any half decent uprising would have been successful..... unless you convinced the natives to give up on any physical form of dissent and sit down, protest and get beaten up as a virtuous slave.
Truly one of the greatest psyops ever.
(as an Indian, who has studied a lot about Indian history)
> A few tens of thousands of British troops
A lot of Indians happily joined British army because of the (relatively) better pay and better treatment.
> slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians
But those were all divided into hundreds of kingdoms. In fact, a lot of Indian kings and princes preferred being a vassal of the English crown because the alternative was much worse (being imprisoned or killed by Indian rivals). Read about almost any major Indian wars/battles in the 18th century involving English and you will find a lot of neutral Indian parties, or the ones actively fighting on England's behalf.
> any half decent uprising would have been successful
Indian subcontinent suffered from a "coordination problem". Gandhi is admired because he played the biggest role in bringing a lot of them together. Of course, he couldn't bring everyone along (eg. Jinnah and Muslims), and there were a lot of other great leaders who also contributed (Patel, Tilak, Bose etc) towards uniting all the Indians, but none could attain Gandhi's stature.
> A few tens of thousands of British troops
A lot of Indians happily joined British army because of the (relatively) better pay and better treatment.
> slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians
But those were all divided into hundreds of kingdoms. In fact, a lot of Indian kings and princes preferred being a vassal of the English crown because the alternative was much worse (being imprisoned or killed by Indian rivals). Read about almost any major Indian wars/battles in the 18th century involving English and you will find a lot of neutral Indian parties, or the ones actively fighting on England's behalf.
> any half decent uprising would have been successful
Indian subcontinent suffered from a "coordination problem". Gandhi is admired because he played the biggest role in bringing a lot of them together. Of course, he couldn't bring everyone along (eg. Jinnah and Muslims), and there were a lot of other great leaders who also contributed (Patel, Tilak, Bose etc) towards uniting all the Indians, but none could attain Gandhi's stature.
>The British Empire was actually one of the most benevolent ones.
Whoopsie daisy. What stage of civilization have we reached?
Whoopsie daisy. What stage of civilization have we reached?
What are you comparing it to?
Textbook Colonial Apologist!
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42573505
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42573505
Imperialist Apologia: Salt on Colonial Wounds - https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/imperialist-apologia-salt-on...
The story peddled by imperial apologists is a poisonous fairytale - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/28/commen...
Safe Spaces for Colonial Apologists - https://socialhistory.org.uk/shs_exchange/safe-spaces-for-co...
The case for reparations by Jason Hickel - https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/10/13/the-case-for-rep...