A discussion forum for history enthusiasts everywhere
 
HomeHome  ShortcutsShortcuts  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima


Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Thu 10 Nov 2016, 07:57

@PaulRyckier wrote:
Temperance,



Temperance you are not naive and in my opinion I haven't seen yet "inapproriate posts" of yours overhere. In fact you are as valable as any member of this small team, even more. And you are certainly not to think that you are the minor one in this team or it has to be that you are assuming it yourself, which I find would be a pity for you. No I find that you have to stay your grounds and if you by occasion makes a mistake that's not a big event. Others overhere do the same on my first sight...

And as Nordmann I say in reply to your above sentence: "which would be an extreme pity"...

Kind regards and with esteem, esteem sparked by all the years that I have already acquaintance with you,

Paul.



Thank you, Paul, for your genuinely encouraging message. You sometimes miss the subtleties of nordmann's prose style. He has the ability - ironically one perfected by the snooty English upper classes - to be both icily polite and insulting at the same time. Words such as "silly" and "naïve" embedded in the text of his post(s) - although apparently not directly aimed at an opponent - could be read as conveying an uncomfortable subtext, as could, of course, the wording of that classic weasel expression of regret: "you have chosen to be offended". I didn't choose to be offended at all: nordmann just bloody well got right up my nose. That's ordinary English, by the way, not superior-put-down-English-to-be-used-when-addressing-uppity-inferiors English.

But what the heck - no doubt I'm imagining all this. And, after all, we all have far more to worry about now than me having a fit of the vapours. (You'll have to look that up. Smile )

PS My inappropriate post was a recipe for Empire Christmas Pudding, as concocted one year by the chief chef at Buck House. It mixed ingredients from all over the British Empire to produce a royal version of the heavy, sticky abomination we all consume on December 25th. I readily admit that Imperial Christmas Pudding was/is of no benefit to anyone.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5428
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Thu 10 Nov 2016, 08:39

Temp wrote:
But what the heck - no doubt I'm imagining all this.

But don't stop imagining, please. I'm strangely complimented by your rebuke - subtle, snooty, polite and insulting is a huge step up from being simply scathing and nasty. The first places me at the Rivers/Parker end of the obnoxious scale, the other at the Trump rump. No contest.

Seriously, no offence was intended, so if you didn't choose to insert me up your nasal cavity then I simply haven't a clue how I ended up there at all. In any case, from this unique olfactorial vantage point it seems the vapours are dissipating? I certainly hope so.
Back to top Go down
http://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Thu 10 Nov 2016, 09:01

@nordmann wrote:

I'm strangely complimented by your rebuke...


I thought you might be.   Smile


@nordmann wrote:
Seriously, no offence was intended, so if you didn't choose to insert me up your nasal cavity then I simply haven't a clue how I ended up there at all. In any case, from this unique olfactorial vantage point it seems the vapours are dissipating? I certainly hope so.


Oh, my vapours never last long - I can usually only last out for a couple of days or so, then I get bored.
Back to top Go down
Meles meles
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2566
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Sat 12 Nov 2016, 18:35

@Temperance wrote:


My inappropriate post was a recipe for Empire Christmas Pudding, as concocted one year by the chief chef at Buck House. It mixed ingredients from all over the British Empire to produce a royal version of the heavy, sticky abomination we all consume on December 25th. I readily admit that Imperial Christmas Pudding was/is of no benefit to anyone.


Given the current trend of the discussion, a far better culinary example might have been the queen's wedding cake. In 1947 - because rationing and food shortages were still very much in place in Britain - Liz and Phil's wedding cake was made from ingredients "generously supplied" from throughout the Empire. Accordingly it was made from sugar donated by Barbados, raisins from Australia, nutmeg from Malaya, flour from Canada etc, etc ...

(I note that this was originally an idea of the Australian Girl-Guides Association ... so I hold you, ID, in some way complicit! Wink ).

My parents were also married in the summer of 1947, just two months after the royal couple. They got nothing given to them, although friends, family and neighbours went without or hoarded scarce supplies, and pooled their sugar, butter and lard ration coupons, to provide enough food for their wedding. My parents' wedding cake, far from being "representative of the  Empire's generosity", was mostly made with dried egg and home dried apple and plums from neighbours' gardens, and though it was still fashionably constructed in three tiers (just like the royal couple's cake) unlike Liz and Phil's, the bottom two tiers were cardboard covered in plaster-of-paris ... there just weren't sufficient ingredients to make more than the smallest top cake. And to toast the happy couple, for the forty or so guests at my parents' do, they'd only managed to get hold of two bottles of sweet sherry ... that's all they could afford on the black market.

As my mother later remarked at their ruby wedding anniversary: "I still don't see why she [the queen] got everything given ... unlike us they could have just bought it ... they had the money!"
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1368
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Sat 12 Nov 2016, 21:52

Thank you so much, Meles meles for sharing your family history with us.
I was always wondering why Britain, that after all had fought together with the Americans and the Canadians to free us, Belgians, from the Nazi yoke, had not a fairer food recovery after WWII and and had that long rationing. Contrary to the Belgians, who seems to have a quicker recovery and less time of rationing.

I did some quick research and came on the Kronacker Missions as a reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kronacker
I found also a Jstor article, but although I have access to Jstor, I was not able to find it back and to read the whole content of the article. And what is free to read is not enough to see the reasoning.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1025670?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
But I have a Dutch language PDF from a university that highlights the question.
Although nobody overhere understands Dutch except my Dutch colleague Dirk Marinus, I give nevertheless the link to consult if there are questions.
[url=http://www.scriptiebank.be/sites/default/files/webform/scriptie/Masterthesis(2) kopie.pdf]http://www.scriptiebank.be/sites/default/files/webform/scriptie/Masterthesis(2)%20kopie.pdf[/url]


Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
Meles meles
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2566
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Sat 12 Nov 2016, 22:45

I think rationing continued for so long in Britain in part because Britain was basically bankrupt, being massively in debt to the USA and other Commonwealth countries and so couldn't afford to import food, not even basic commodities like American and Canadian wheat. It also had obligations to feed, not only its own population, but a large part of the German population under it's direct control, as well as having to deal with a serious on-going famine in India. That British-grown food was actually being shipped to feed Germans was seen as particularly unfair. In Britain rationing was actually more severe after the war was over ... bread for instance was never rationed during wartime but had to be rationed, albeit fairly briefly, in 1947 because the lease-lend agreement had ended in May 1945, and post-war Britain simply didn't have the cash to buy wheat from the US.


Last edited by Meles meles on Sun 13 Nov 2016, 19:46; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
Islanddawn
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2006
Join date : 2012-01-05
Location : Greece

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Sun 13 Nov 2016, 03:30

@Meles meles wrote:


(I note that this was originally an idea of the Australian Girl-Guides Association ... so I hold you, ID, in some way complicit! Wink ).


Complicit away MM! Australia has a lot to answer as well.
Back to top Go down
Meles meles
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2566
Join date : 2011-12-30
Location : Pyrénées-Orientales, France

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Sun 13 Nov 2016, 19:48

@PaulRyckier wrote:

I was always wondering why Britain, that after all had fought together with the Americans and the Canadians to free us, Belgians, from the Nazi yoke, had not a fairer food recovery after WWII and and had that long rationing. Contrary to the Belgians, who seems to have a quicker recovery and less time of rationing.
 Further to my last post ...

Also remember that France, as essentially an agricultural economy, was basically self-sufficient for food both during and after the war. Food rationing takes on a different meaning when a lot of the population can raise their own animals and provide their own food, even if its only a goat a few chickens in the back yard.Belgium and Holland, being much more intensively industrialised and urbanised, were different. And didn't Belgium manage to come out of the war with the majority of its foreign currency (ie gold) reserves basically intact and untouched.

But returning to the OP ...  by the 1950s Britain's colonies, whether Singapore, Guyana, Nigeria, Kenya or wherever, were mostly just too expensive to manage and maintain. In short they were no longer of any material benefit to the home country.
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 08:05

@Meles meles wrote:


But returning to the OP ...  by the 1950s Britain's colonies, whether Singapore, Guyana, Nigeria, Kenya or wherever, were mostly just too expensive to manage and maintain. In short they were no longer of any material benefit to the home country.



Did the exhausted Britain simply abandon its former colonies then? Was 1945 our equivalent of 410 CE? What of the Commonwealth? Has this brought any benefits to its member countries, or is it simply a toothless "post-colonial club" without power, influence or purpose?

Voltaire famously said of the Holy Roman Empire that it was "neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire": would he have been as scathing about the Commonwealth of Nations?

From the BBC article (link given below):

The Commonwealth has been criticised for being a post-colonial club. But to its members it is a voluntary association of independent states in the business of promoting democracy, good government, human rights and economic development.

It has also been criticised for having little influence. Indeed, the Commonwealth does not act as a bloc in international affairs and has little influence over non-members.

However, its influence over its own members derives from the benefits which membership brings in developmental support and cooperation on international goals.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1554175.stm
Back to top Go down
Nielsen
Consulatus
avatar

Posts : 234
Join date : 2011-12-31
Location : Denmark

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 08:28

Very much an aside, but the other day I received a message regarding my 'membership' of the BBC message boards.
As any such was terminated by the BBC when the History Boards were closed for input, I didn't act nor react, i.e. I didn't fill their questionnaire probably requesting the names of my grandparents, my banking arrangements &c., and probably a sample of my foreskin as well.
First i put the message in the sin bin and blocked the sender, following which I simply hit two buttons on this keyboard - the 'Shift' and 'Delete' ones.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5428
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 09:25

What strikes one when reading contemporary political commentary from the period between the 1920s and the 1950s is how completely different the prevalent British view of its role in maintaining its imperial status was when compared to just about every other commentary source, even from "fellow imperialists". When Time magazine named Gandhi as "Man of the Year" in 1931, for example, it led to Beaverbrook - the Rupert Murdoch of his day - spearheading a very effective campaign to block the sale of "foreign" newspapers and magazines within the UK, a relatively easy thing to do since he owned most of the distribution network. This led to a public debate, then conducted largely through "letters to the editor" of all the leading media outlets and the responding editorials, which quickly turned into one addressing what exactly Britain's "role" was any more with respect to maintaining an empire especially, as it was often pointed out at the time, since global depression had hit Britain hard and there was no real indication any more that the average person benefited in any way any longer from being "imperial masters" of anything. In fact the opposite was the case, argued many. Having an empire only made things worse at home, and during the 1930s for many it must indeed have appeared so.

Yet throughout this long debate - which disappeared during the war but reemerged almost immediately in its aftermath - there was never at any point within the UK even the slightest suggestion that Britain should formulate a disengagement policy with its colonies, except of course from the political margins and voiced by people dismissed as crackpots and idealistic fools. Whereas American opinion and policy, especially after WWII, was geared towards facilitating the old empires in extricating themselves from colonial holdings in as orderly a manner as possible (no doubt with one eye on moving in afterwards to "secure" these new states from a Communist threat etc, but coincidentally establish a strong economic presence), Britain persisted in simultaneously recognising the near impossibility of maintaining its imperial role while still never realistically countenancing an intelligent withdrawal. Even after India's independence (invariably termed within the UK as "granted to them" rather than as a solution born of dire necessity at the time and one in which Britain in the end had little choice), and then the Gold Coast and Togoland's secession shortly afterwards to form Ghana (again one largely instigated from within the region and not due to any British policy) the Beaverbrook line, which reflected government policy, was that these were aberrational events.

The drive to rebrand the empire as a commonwealth - a change of name that translated into practically no change of status or living conditions for the many millions still termed "colonial inhabitants" - reflected Beaverbrook's long argued "empire of free trade" stance. However what it finally managed to achieve was a way out for the UK as represented by successive governments and what was left of Britain's "big business" concerns, in that a nominal "independence" could now be "granted" (always "granted") in return for trade agreements in which the old coloniser would continue to reap profit from its old holdings.

The French, faced with a similar extraction challenge, watched all this with incredulity. From the end of the war right up to the 1960s the attitude as expressed by French media and politicians was that Britain had abandoned all pretence at protecting its colonial citizens from a whole new type of exploitation. This might seem ironic in hindsight given what happened in almost every French colony where its attempt to "departmentalise" the territory in question was met with vicious resistance and even bloody revolution, though there is also a worthwhile historical research exercise at this point in time after so many official secrets have been released in the meantime to gauge to what extent much of this resistance was fomented by agents of American, Soviet and Chinese government. In any case the French saw the British as worse than "abandoning" their responsibilities, and rather being hustled out of them while pretending to the rest of the world and its own UK citizens that this was all a plan.

American media - as can be seen from the influential Time and Newsweek magazines which could be said to reflect mainstream American policy and outlook - took an even stronger line of condemnation. Whatever one might suspect about actual American motives in wishing the old imperial powers ill in their efforts to retain possession of colonies (and one can be very cynical indeed) their consistent analysis of British ineptitude, callousness bordering on war crime status (such as in Malaysia and Kenya), and general policy confusion and cluelessness at high government level was, as historical hindsight demonstrated, spot-on.

Yet from reading what Britain told itself, and to a large extent still tells itself, one would be hard put to know that such insight ever had been available at all. Not until Macmillan declared decolonisation as a political reality in his "winds of change" keynote speech were many British citizens even aware that they needed to divest themselves completely of their colonies at all.

The Commonwealth, the legacy of this confused and blundering approach to disengagement, is what it is as a result. Neither power bloc nor "club", and with only as much relevance to the ex-colony as the ex-colony wishes to appoint. Calling it a "British" commonwealth, besides the nod to whatever historical events justified the prefix and the resultant cultural overlaps left in their wake, does little to explain any extent of influence or control remaining to Britain in the running of these states.

If anything, if any state was "abandoned" in the long process, it was Britain itself.
Back to top Go down
http://reshistorica.historyboard.net
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5428
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 09:51

Nielsen - the BBC membership mail was genuine. They have changed the resources to which one has access now and beefed up their security criteria. Nothing sinister.
Back to top Go down
http://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 10:06

Thank you, nordmann, for your detailed, thoughtful and thought-provoking response. Much to disturb in your latest contribution here.


@nordmann wrote:
...their consistent analysis of British ineptitude, callousness bordering on war crime status (such as in Malaysia and Kenya), and general policy confusion and cluelessness at high government level was, as historical hindsight demonstrated, spot-on.


Speaking as a British subject, I am glad that at least one American, a man of Kenyan descent whose family apparently had good reason to hate us all, has found it in his heart to forgive us. The present Head of the Commonwealth - a woman respected throughout the world - has proved a benefit in many ways.

But no doubt you will disagree.



Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5428
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 10:31

For me it's not a question of morality - in politics on this scale and in particular regarding the process of decolonisation, Britain, its allies and its detractors alike all share a susceptibility to be accused of wrong-doing and few if any emerge as ever having pursued anything but self-interested policies, even during the extraction process, which themselves could not be construed simply as further exploitation of the people concerned (and that goes for the regimes which often emerged locally too), even when they did do something at times which could be deemed ostensibly "good".

So whether one thinks "forgiveness" is important or not, or even if one wishes to believe that Queen Elizabeth is "respected throughout the world" (whatever that actually means in "food on plate" terms), what I am trying to point out is the dichotomous nature of the historical record regarding how Britain's conduct has been assessed by contemporaries along the way, especially when compared to what British citizens themselves have been encouraged to think by their so-called leaders. Why this is important is, of course, in relation to the fact that the many issues which decolonisation has raised are still very much with us, and in some respects operating as a consistently malevolent background ethos underlying much that as yet can harm us, and harm us profoundly. If, in that context, the dichotomy is allowed to persist - and as far as I can see from reading British media it is still alive and well - then the danger can only persist in like measure, and in fact unchecked it can eventually consume us all.

Far beyond any issue which can be resolved through retrospective blame-casting, assumed guilt trips, or even callous or ignorant disregard of history in a pointless effort to avoid the above, there is a fundamental issue of resource management and welfare goals which now requires urgent global addressing. The decolonisation of the many regions (over 70 percent of the world's land mass at one point) in which these resources are to be found should have been the automatic starting point for whatever global debate and resultant measures required to be undertaken to resolve this very human dilemma could be initiated. In some parts of the world the issues are rightly interconnected in discourse and assessed as such. In the USA we are about to see an abandonment of intelligent debate on this level - which is a shame because much of the hard data informing this argument in recent decades originated from within that country. Other contributors to the debate, such as France for example, have been side-tracked by their effort to contain a hardening of ultra-conservative opposition to the debate within their borders. In Britain, as far as I can see, it has yet to even start, so tied up are the issues - thanks to history - with what is presently consuming Britain's attention at the moment. Its own identity as perceived by its own people.

Much like the queen, in fact Britons' sense of their identity is actually of far less concern outside of Britain than Britons currently seemingly appreciate. And in my view in fact this tendency to self-absorption as exemplified by Britain in 2016 is nothing less than a human tragedy on a global scale too - Britain, whatever one thinks about its historical or present conduct, was actually positioned at one crucial point in time to act as a credible honest broker in the very fundamental fact-facing and negotiations required to move humanity out of its cycle of post-colonial violence and what can only be classed as rape of dwindling resources required to perpetuate our species with anything approaching even minimal communal benefit for all. It has reneged on fulfilling that role by letting the moment pass, a moment which will never present itself again, and current indications (even small ones like your comment above) are that the moment is now receding into historical obsolescence with heartbreaking velocity.

EDIT: I feel obliged to point out, in light of recent huff-taking etc in response to previous ejaculations on my part, that the above post is not "bashing" anything except my head against the wall of historical obtuseness.
Back to top Go down
http://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 15:30

Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure that's all true.

However, I was more put out by your odd choice of the word "ejaculations" (in the "edit") to describe your posts here. You never ejaculate, nordmann: on the contrary your missives are always measured, deliberate and controlled - never hasty or exclamatory. I was also confused as to why the BBC should request a sample of Nielsen's foreskin (please do not offer us an explanation, Nielsen).

Arthur Conan Doyle, of course, was also fond of ejaculation, although he preferred (usually, but not always) the verb rather than the noun form of the word. I wish I could offer the following as my own research, but I can't: I pinched it.


Okay so back in the 1800s, “ejaculate” was a synonym for “exclaim”, which results in some rather unfortunate turns of phrase, especially when you add a genius detective and his overenthusiastic doctor pal into the mix. I give you:

The 5 best uses of the word “ejaculate” in Sherlock Holmes.

5. Holmes overreacts slightly to a visitor:

The ejaculation had been drawn from my companion by the fact that our door had been suddenly dashed open, and that a huge man had framed himself in the aperture.

4. Holmes underestimates his effect on Watson:

“Wonderful!” I ejaculated.

“Commonplace,” said Holmes, though I thought from his expression that he was pleased at my evident surprise and admiration.


3. Watson has an eventful night:

So he sat as I dropped off to sleep, and so he sat when a sudden ejaculation caused me to wake up, and I found the summer sun shining into the apartment. The pipe was still between his lips, the smoke still curled upward, and the room was full of a dense tobacco haze, but nothing remained of the heap of shag which I had seen upon the previous night.

2. Holmes expresses himself:


I tried to draw my companion’s attention to them; but he gave a little ejaculation of impatience, and continued to stare into the street.

He glanced at it, and then, with an ejaculation of disgust, threw it on the floor.

Holmes gave an ejaculation of impatience.

Finally, he sprang down with an ejaculation of satisfaction.

In the bedroom he made a rapid cast around and ended by throwing open the window, which appeared to give him some fresh cause for excitement, for he leaned out of it with loud ejaculations of interest and delight.

1. And the best use of the word in the whole Canon:

“My dear Holmes!” I ejaculated.

Honourable mention goes to Percy Phelps, who managed to ejaculate three times in one page during despite being on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Hats off to you, Perce.
Back to top Go down
Priscilla
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1805
Join date : 2012-01-16

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 15:44

Bash on, bash on...... and keep on taking your tablets etc.

There were small instances of thoughtful handing over. For instance, quite correctly but perhaps not known, war widows of servicemen in World War 2 at least, received pensions.... and some of those men had very young wives so there are  several who still receive this. Exservicemen's welfare bodies keep tabs on this - and most in a voluntary capacity from UK and abroad. And at several overseas memorials, full Remembrance observance  - by locals in the main, are still held. medals are worn with pride and many heels click nicely to attention. I have taken part in many of these -  German and Japanese diplomats were also invited; and all was arranged by locals along with former ex servicemen. I expect there must be much head bashing somewhere but it was kept muffled enough not ever to be heard. People move on; it's not a perfect world.
Back to top Go down
Triceratops
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2715
Join date : 2012-01-05

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 15:53

Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 15:56

Shocked


Last edited by Temperance on Mon 14 Nov 2016, 21:57; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 16:01

Right, that's quite enough.

Back to our serious study of the iniquities of the British Empire now.




Last edited by Temperance on Mon 14 Nov 2016, 21:59; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Islanddawn
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2006
Join date : 2012-01-05
Location : Greece

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 17:57

@nordmann wrote:
In Britain, as far as I can see, it has yet to even start, so tied up are the issues - thanks to history - with what is presently consuming Britain's attention at the moment. Its own identity as perceived by its own people.



Britain's? More English agonising over post colonial identity imo. The last gasp of the Empire?

Well to hear Brexiters talk anyway.
Back to top Go down
Islanddawn
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2006
Join date : 2012-01-05
Location : Greece

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 19:09

Well the Queen has her own plans, even if everyone else doesn't know whether they're coming or going Smile


http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1368
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 14 Nov 2016, 20:59

@Meles meles wrote:
@PaulRyckier wrote:

I was always wondering why Britain, that after all had fought together with the Americans and the Canadians to free us, Belgians, from the Nazi yoke, had not a fairer food recovery after WWII and and had that long rationing. Contrary to the Belgians, who seems to have a quicker recovery and less time of rationing.
 Further to my last post ...

Also remember that France, as essentially an agricultural economy, was basically self-sufficient for food both during and after the war. Food rationing takes on a different meaning when a lot of the population can raise their own animals and provide their own food, even if its only a goat a few chickens in the back yard.Belgium and Holland, being much more intensively industrialised and urbanised, were different. And didn't Belgium manage to come out of the war with the majority of its foreign currency (ie gold) reserves basically intact and untouched.

But returning to the OP ...  by the 1950s Britain's colonies, whether Singapore, Guyana, Nigeria, Kenya or wherever, were mostly just too expensive to manage and maintain. In short they were no longer of any material benefit to the home country.


Thank you very much Meles meles for your information about Britain. As about Belgium the food recovery was perhaps better, but qua industry the Belgians started immediately with the old environment and machines and although the industrial human potential was nearly untouched during WWII, the quick start was a mixed blessing, while others as perhaps Britain and especally Germany started from scratch and had as such a new industrial potential. And one forgot perhaps the recovery had a lot to do with the Marshal plan and the big American investments for which we are still grateful after all those years. And you can say that we got "colonised" by the Americans Wink , but in that time it was rather a blessing.


Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
Priscilla
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1805
Join date : 2012-01-16

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Sun 20 Nov 2016, 16:51

Apparently there is clout in becoming President elect of a former colony and then getting excited about an invite  by the heirs of the very Royalty that were ousted. Getting my threads twisted here. Benefits all round?
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Sun 20 Nov 2016, 17:13

@Priscilla wrote:
Apparently there is clout in becoming President elect of a former colony and then getting excited about an invite  by the heirs of the very Royalty that were ousted. Getting my threads twisted here. Benefits all round?


“Never speak disrespectfully of Society, Algernon. Only people who can't get into it do that.”
―Oscar Wilde

How very true, our Oscar. Who indeed would refuse an invite to Buck House? John Lennon did and nord probably would, but who else? Not Donald, certainly. And if we have an American princess soon, there will be trade deals all round.

Is it from nordmann or Priscilla I have learnt to be so sadly cynical?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-invite-donald-trump-president-american-elections-windsor-castle-state-visit-cut-out-farage-a7427996.html


Last edited by Temperance on Mon 21 Nov 2016, 17:05; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Priscilla
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1805
Join date : 2012-01-16

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Sun 20 Nov 2016, 23:11

Me, (marge-mouth) of course. Not nordmann - butter wouldn't melt in his.But on the other hand you are not really cynical, Temps. I'll just claim the slight tinge you might suffer  - and that is a condition that others here probably harbour with more commendable  reticence than I can manage.
Back to top Go down
Caro
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1061
Join date : 2012-01-09

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 21 Nov 2016, 01:54

Back to the original question, though I wiped all that I just wrote.  Can I remember it all? 

I was thinking of how Maori and Polynesians would have managed without colonisation.  I think the Asian and African peoples were large enough and organised enough to manage without interference from others.  Polynesians were organised enough but they might not have had large enough populations to sustain them in the face of large trading blocs.  And Tuvalu at least is facing the problem of rising sea levels and may be seeking the refuge of New Zealand/Aotearoa in the next 50 years for all their people. One Tuvaluan has already requested refugee status because of climate change but this was refused. Other small island communities are losing their young people to larger countries like New Zealand.  Some of them are New Zealanders, like Cook Islands (and NZers are also Cook Islanders, I think.).  Niue is self-governing with free association with NZ, and they are New Zealand citizens.

As regards Nordmann’s query about Caro knowing what the situation was in New Zealand, it is my impression that by the time NZ was facing exploration the powers that be advised strongly that the natives were to be treated well, and that happened, but when the settlers arrived they wanted land and didn’t understand the Maori system of land tenure (it is/was held in group ownership and I have just re-read a story for our local publication of people’s reminiscences where a Maori woman was saying that she had not been able to use her land the way she wanted as it was in group ownership, but she had always understood the value of being able to prove uninterrupted use of the land, which is important here to prove customary rights, one of the rights in the Treaty) , nor did Maori understand theirs.  So that was the main cause of friction between the two groups. 

There was mutual admiration between the two groups, though.  Probably mostly because they had similar attitudes to warfare, and admired the courage and values of the other culture.  (The Europeans still thought of them as ‘savages’ really, all the same.)  The Treaty of Waitangi, while it has been a source of argument ever since, has been a great benefit to both cultures, I think.
Back to top Go down
nordmann
Nobiles Barbariæ
avatar

Posts : 5428
Join date : 2011-12-25

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 21 Nov 2016, 08:44

Thanks, Caro. That fits well with my theory regarding the benefit in these cases of formal treaties with indigenous people, and the sooner in the process the better. It is not necessarily that the colonial power honours such treaties, or even sometimes can honour them at all; post-independence USA left Britain with treaties it no longer could do much with except use as spurious grounds for declaration of war with the emergent country, which of course ended up as disastrous for all concerned. For the indigenous people in that particular historical case it got even worse when the USA embarked on a flurry of treaties which it almost immediately reneged on. However even in that really atrocious scenario recent decades have seen an effort to reconcile and settle long term inequities and compensatory claims, often with reference to some very old treaties indeed, some of which had been all but forgotten about by everyone concerned except the indigenous people themselves, so even then it was in hindsight better for them that they existed at all.

In a sense the USA also represents what happens when a treaty cannot be negotiated, or will not be countenanced by the colonial power. The American drive for independence grew in strength only when initial efforts to broker such a treaty with Britain failed - Britain refusing to negotiate with the thirteen colonies as a single entity and in any case insisting in each individual colony's case that they were not in a position to demand a treaty anyway. A softening in this stance, a drop in punitive taxation measures, and even the most slipshod of treaties might have changed the course of history rather fundamentally in that part of the world. In that alternative timeline who is to say how much better or worse the indigenous people might have fared? But I reckon it couldn't have been any worse than what actually transpired.
Back to top Go down
http://reshistorica.historyboard.net
Priscilla
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1805
Join date : 2012-01-16

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Mon 21 Nov 2016, 10:33

A really interesting contribution to the thread, Caro. So much to learn and so much to try to understand of this facet in history. In the sub continent, the British India Company may have made treaties but in their land grab - especially in Oudh honouring them is unlikely. The Shia ruler Wajid, a person of renowned poetic scholarship and ruling compassion was no match for the company's machinations was packed off to Bengal in exile. His first wife - a former purchased concubine - made a valiant stand when the  'Mutiny' confronted the Company's hegemony. Her beef (!) in particular was about the destruction of temples and mosques destroyed in the widespread great road building programme. The Oudh court at that time was much given over to poetry music and dance....... of the round dance complex development a scholar of the time wrote a book  with the lovely title, 'The Lord of the Harvest Moon,'  and road building was not high on any agenda. 
In truth who can say if the intruders had benefited the land in any way , really? I opened the subject to get some sort of perspective in my own thinking. The  history of the place is ancient, deep, colourful and intellectually mature in so many aspects. A few 'colonials'  came to appreciate  that and they made  huge personal efforts to bring something to enrich the  many varied cultures there. That, of course does not alter the over riding rip off company legacy. One needs to get into the mind set of the time - as, for instance, why  the 13 colony situation that nordmann illustrates above so badly handled.
Back to top Go down
Temperance
Virgo Vestalis Maxima
avatar

Posts : 4889
Join date : 2011-12-30

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Fri 10 Mar 2017, 14:22

Saw the new film, The Viceroy's House yesterday. Oh dear. Most definitely Downton in Delhi, with Lord and Lady Mountbatten being terribly decent and English and all that, distributing food to the refugees, but being played for fools by Attlee back home. But the whole idea of the Partition of India had been, according to the film, planned by Churchill who was convinced of the need to keep Stalin from gaining a seaport (Karachi?) that would allow the Russians access to the Gulf. I am utterly baffled. What actually was going on? I know absolutely nothing of the politics of the Partition. Does anyone out there know? Sure as heck the too-hasty withdrawal of the British from India in 1947 was of no benefit to anyone. Or was it?  One distressing line from one of the less sensitive toffs was addressed to Mountbatten:  "We defeated the Nazis and the Japs. Do you really think we are now going to hand the shop over to the servants?"  Wince.





Last edited by Temperance on Sat 11 Mar 2017, 09:01; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1368
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Re: Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?   Fri 10 Mar 2017, 21:11

Temperance,

Tasneem Khan has explained a lot in the time. He was overhere, but isn't perhaps not so close with the Boss. He still "subsists" on a small closed forum where Tim, Dirk Marinus and Per also "reside". I am there too but have no time to attend it all. Only read the update of the Syrian and Iraq war overthere from a nearly expert in the matter.

Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
 

Colonisation: What were the Benefits to the Colonised Lands?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Res Historica History Forum :: The history of people ... :: Civilisation and Community-