You could always just buy the books, get the cd, and watch the dvd rather than go all the way to UK, but all the above are much better enjoyed with bad weather and warm beer.
"All of this struck me as very difficult to understand. Obviously no nation is without problems, but in a deeply imperfect world
i lived in scotland for all too brief a time. hollyloch. loved it. beautiful place and people. i would go back in a minute and when i win that 110 million dollar lottery tonight hollyloch’ll be one of the places i laze about for too long.
[quote=“TonAng”]
But there is always a feeling of shame. It will never go away. Because we took that which was not ours and we had no right. It is history. Therefore you will not generally hear bravardo about British conquests and how we are superior, etc. because we all know that crimes were committed and can never be made right.[/quote]
True, but this all happened such a long time ago, I’m not proud or shamed that we raped countries like Australia and India. Why should my generation feel remorse for what went on long before we were born? Sympathy and empathy yes, but not shame. It happened, all we can say now is “sorry”.
Not to start a political spat but how did the British “rape” India and Australia exactly? And specifically in terms of India, what kind of governments were in place before the British came along? Just curious.
Eddie Izzard: We stole countries! That’s how you build an empire. We stole countries with the cunning use of flags! Just sail halfway around the world, stick a flag in. “I claim India for Britain.” And they’re going, “You can’t claim us. We live here! There’s five hundred million of us.” “Do you have a flag?” “We don’t need a bloody flag, this is our country you bastard!” “No flag, no country! You can’t have one. That’s the rules… that… I’ve just made up! And I’m backing it up with this gun”
Eddie Izzard: We stole countries! That’s how you build an empire. We stole countries with the cunning use of flags! Just sail halfway around the world, stick a flag in. “I claim India for Britain.” And they’re going, “You can’t claim us. We live here! There’s five hundred million of us.” “Do you have a flag?” “We don’t need a bloody flag, this is our country you bastard!” “No flag, no country! You can’t have one. That’s the rules… that… I’ve just made up! And I’m backing it up with this gun”[/quote]
There was no India till the British got there and created it…just a mishmash of feuding citystates and petty princedoms.
Perhaps, CS, the guilt comes not from unifying a collection of warring states, but rather from the lasting effect that British rule had in terms of political rights and general well-being of the people.
In this respect, I remain curious regarding the the condition of India’s people before British colonization.
If, for example, pre-colonial India was a peaceful democracy characterized by a large degree of social mobility, respect for minority rights, material prosperity, equal treatment of men and women, and the like, then I could certainly see how the British colonization could be seen as a major step backward. Was, for example, the dehumanizing caste system something the British brought with them and introduced to India? Or was this an institution which already existed and --while continuing to exist-- had some of its more cruel and unjust edges softend by the institutions and ways of thinking that the British brought with them?
I don’t know enough about Indian history to answer the questions above with any degree of confidence.
I am certain, however, that the following two questions need not necessarily have the same answer. All two often, I have a feeling that there may be a temptation to allow an open-minded and honest answer to the second question be contaminated by feelings of shame or anger/outrage over one’s answer to the first.
(1) Was the British colonization of India intended to (a) benefit the people of India, or (b) enrich and glorify Britain with little or no regard for the local people?
(2) In 2005 looking back, would India have been (a) better-off, or (b) worse-off, had it not been colonized by the British (keeping in mind an honest and non-romanticized perspective regarding India’s pre-colonization rulers, and specifically their the attitudes toward, and treatment of the lower castes)?
Wow, looks like I’ve opened a can of worms. 
Maybe I shouldn’'t have added India, but certainly Australia was well and truely raped by us. An interesting book is “The Explorers” by Tim Flannery. While he details the fascinating adventures of Wills, Giles and Sturt, and a host of other explorers; he also tries to view the occupation from the aboriginal side of things…a bleak picture indeed (maybe “Aussie pride” is a good next topic?)
To answer your questions on India (a) Definitely to enrich the British Empire (I think we all agree on that)
(b) Would Austraila be better or worse off if we hadn’t colonized it? Yeah, I know question for question. But these questions are subjective aren’t they? Go ask an Aboriginal person, then ask a non-aboriginal, you will probably get very different answers.
I do believe that we, The United Kingdom, wanted to be in control of a lot of land. Be it Australia, Africa or India. Remember that we are a tiny island, one which can only grow in status, and wealth, by taking what doesn’t belong to us. Taking what is not yours =raping? In most peoples’ books, yes.
L 
[quote=“Limey”]
I do believe that we, The United Kingdom, wanted to be in control of a lot of land. Be it Australia, Africa or India. Remember that we are a tiny island, one which can only grow in status, and wealth, by taking what doesn’t belong to us. Taking what is not yours =raping? In most peoples’ books, yes.[/quote]
Who lived in the British Isles before the Celts moved in? And how about those nasty Romans. Building baths all over the place and making people wear togas. And then those Angles and Saxons. Trouble from the word go. Normans? What a wussy name! No wonder they had such a big chip on their shoulder.
In History, [i]everybody[/i] gets screwed over by [i]somebody.[/i] It’s not something that suddenly began in 1700, 1800, 1900 or 2000. Considering the fact that the name ‘Mohammed’ is now listed as one of the top 20 most popular names in the UK, you’ll see it’s still happening even now.
[quote=“Limey”]
I do believe that we, The United Kingdom, wanted to be in control of a lot of land. Be it Australia, Africa or India. Remember that we are a tiny island, one which can only grow in status, and wealth, by taking what doesn’t belong to us. Taking what is not yours =raping? In most peoples’ books, yes.
L [/quote]
The UK just happened to be the best at the colonisation thing at the time.
China would have been in the forefront of the colonisation drive if they had not just decided to get all inward looking back when the big ships were setting out.
They are heavily into Africa now and making up for lost time.
Hey Broon Ale? What do you think of all this?
[quote]
LONDON, England – British Prime Minister Tony Blair described pictures of Iraqis apparently being abused by British soldiers as “shocking and appalling.”
But he said the vast majority of the 65,000 British troops who had served in Iraq had done so with “distinction, courage and great honor.”
Blair was quizzed at Prime Minister’s Question Time Wednesday on the photographs, published by British newspapers under “Shame” and “Shock” headlines, which were being described as “Britain’s Abu Ghraib” scandal.
Blair said the difference between democracy and tyranny was that in a democracy when “bad things happen” the perpetrators were held to account.
He said the photos should not be allowed to tarnish the good reputation – fully deserved – of British soldiers.
Opposition Conservative leader Michael Howard also branded the photographs “appalling” and said they bought shame on the country. But they did not reflect the true character of the majority of the British armed forces, he said.
As the storm grew, the head of the British army made a rare public statement as the photos were used as evidence at a court martial in Germany. (Court martial evidence)
Some of the front-page pictures showed naked Iraqi prisoners appearing to be forced to simulate anal and other sexual acts, while in another a soldier had his fist raised above a bound detainee who had a net over his torso.[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”]Hey Broon Ale? What do you think of all this?
[quote]
LONDON, England – British Prime Minister Tony Blair described pictures of Iraqis apparently being abused by British soldiers as “shocking and appalling.”
But he said the vast majority of the 65,000 British troops who had served in Iraq had done so with “distinction, courage and great honor.”
Blair was quizzed at Prime Minister’s Question Time Wednesday on the photographs, published by British newspapers under “Shame” and “Shock” headlines, which were being described as “Britain’s Abu Ghraib” scandal.
Blair said the difference between democracy and tyranny was that in a democracy when “bad things happen” the perpetrators were held to account.
He said the photos should not be allowed to tarnish the good reputation – fully deserved – of British soldiers.
Opposition Conservative leader Michael Howard also branded the photographs “appalling” and said they bought shame on the country. But they did not reflect the true character of the majority of the British armed forces, he said.
As the storm grew, the head of the British army made a rare public statement as the photos were used as evidence at a court martial in Germany. (Court martial evidence)
Some of the front-page pictures showed naked Iraqi prisoners appearing to be forced to simulate anal and other sexual acts, while in another a soldier had his fist raised above a bound detainee who had a net over his torso.[/quote]
CNN.com/2005/WORLD/Europe/01 … index.html[/quote]
Fakes.
All fakes.
The guy in the developing shop was a CIA operative abusing visa free entry to God’s country to work illegally.
That’s it.
BroonAgfa
[quote]Considering the fact that the name ‘Mohammed’ is now listed as one of the top 20 most popular names in the UK, you’ll see it’s still happening even now.
[/quote]
Consider the fact that the name “Mohammed” is now listed as the number one name for the dead, imprisioned, or injured in Iraq, you’ll see it’s still happening even now.
I wonder if the Moors will apologize for conquering and colonizing Spain in 711AD?
[quote] King snubs Moroccan plea for apology
Isambard Wilkinson in Tetouan
(Filed: 20/01/2005)
Descendants of the Moors expelled from Spain 500 years ago failed to receive an apology from King Juan Carlos as he toured Morocco yesterday.
Residents of Tetouan, many of whose ancestors were driven from the Iberian peninsula by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, said an opportunity had been lost to heal an historic wound, which has become all the more sensitive in recent years.
Osama bin Laden has often talked of the tragedy of the loss of al-Andalus, the Moorish region of Spain. The terrorists who attacked Madrid last year, killing 192 people and wounding 1,900, spoke of Spain with the same sense of historic vengeance. Three million Muslims were expelled in 1501.[/quote]