[teestub]

And couldn’t one make the argument that those areas with long standing British influence like Calcutta, Chennai, Mumbai, overall have better outcomes now than the areas where British influence was far, far lighter, such as most of western Pakistan?

I chose geography over history, but isn’t western Pakistan rather mountainous and arid, whereas the areas of India you mentioned are rather more verdant and fertile, making a direct comparison of their relative outcomes quite difficult?

[spidermonkey09]

By frontier violence does that mean any geographical area in particular, like NWFP, or is it broader than that?

Yeah, so in India the geographical region I'm focusing on is the border with Afghanistan, the area that would eventually become the NW Frontier province in 1901 but was part of Punjab mostly before that (maybe a bit of it was Kashmir too). A lot of this area is now Pakistan. In Queensland the frontier tends to push out slightly ahead of settlement so the geographical region is necessarily broader as the frontier keeps moving, but basically covers anywhere north of present day Brisbane up to and including Cape York area.

[Johnny Brown]

Jeez I bet that's some grim reading.

[TobyD]

Its not hard to find ways the imperial system worked really well for colonisers. Much harder to find ways it worked well for colonised peoples. Too much 'impossible to say whether the empire was good or bad' discourse (which also completely misses the point as Sanghera points out in his book) seems to ignore this fact.

I agree with you, I may not have put my post earlier very well, I was trying to say that a discourse which tries to say empire is good or bad is unhelpful and somewhat meaningless. I thought Sangera's points on education in this country were his best. I was telling a friend about the book, and they had never heard of the Amritsar massacre. I don't think that's unusual either, schools (well certainly the one I went to) taught the details of the battles of the world wars and lists of British monarchy, but little or no social history, or really anything about the empire.

[andy popp]

The balance-sheet approach to reckoning with empire is pernicious. It reduces things to utilitarian calculations, emptying them of moral content, quibbling about offsetting this against that. It suggests we look at the individual parts and not the whole, when the occurence of the "good" is inseparable from the occurence "bad." Empire was an evil and a moral crime, both in its parts and in toto. It was vicious, often racist endeavour aimed at appropriation and extraction. Empire and slavery played very significant roles in making Britain rich.

I think it's important to say this because I agree with danm: Britain has very largely failed to reckon with its colonial and imperial histories, distorting the nation's understanding of its history and its place and role in the world, both in the past and now. These distortions continue to have damaging effects on what we might call the national psyche.

I care about these thing because of where I sit in the field of history, seeing close up the nastiness of the campaigns launched against historians who try and make these arguments about the need for a reckoning with empire (I'm currently involved in something that I can see easily turning into accusations against me and others of "cancel culture"). The reactions against even the mildest attempts at "decolonizing" an institution such as the National Trust can be almost hysterical. There are active campaigns, launched by the like of History Reclaimed, to offer not merely apologetics for empire (and even slavery) but aim at its full rehabilitation as a force for moral good in the world, a policy that might even be considered again. I find it repugnant. And it is so often based in lies and distortions (and continues, very often, to be rooted in racism and white supremacy). I saw a Tik Tok video by popular right commentator Douglas Murray the other day (no doubt its been watched many, many times by now) in which he sneeringly proclaimed Britain's moral superiority re: slavery, championing the paying of reparations (entirely failing to mention to whom they were paid) and claiming that post-abolition Britain wouldn't and didn't trade with any slave nation. That is a lie and he knows it. As a nation we continue to lie to ourselves.

[andy popp]

Meanwhile, back in LaLa Land, "Liz Truss urges world leaders to follow UK with trickle down economics."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/20/liz-truss-urges-world-leaders-to-follow-uk-with-trickle-down-economics

[SA Chris]

FFS. I didn't expect much, but her plans are worse than I'd even hoped.

[SA Chris]

Can't dispute any of what Andy has said, and maybe because it is so close to home, but I am interested as to why British colonisation is seen as carrying more "weight" than any other European country?

Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese and German Empires were also pretty huge, and (arguably) had similar impact.   

[TobyD]

Can't dispute any of what Andy has said, and maybe because it is so close to home, but I am interested as to why British colonisation is seen as carrying more "weight" than any other European country?

Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese and German Empires were also pretty huge, and (arguably) had similar impact.

The Roman empire, the Byzantine empire... when do you stop? None of them were wholly benevolent to say the least. 
Traditional conservative (small c) thinking seems extremely against any attempt at retelling the traditional British school version of history,  in which Britain won Ww2 at the battle of Britain with half a dozen Spitfires,  won all the battles in the middle ages with long bows with some details added in about the conditions in the battle of the Somme being quite nasty. 

[andy popp]

Can't dispute any of what Andy has said, and maybe because it is so close to home, but I am interested as to why British colonisation is seen as carrying more "weight" than any other European country?

Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese and German Empires were also pretty huge, and (arguably) had similar impact.

I'm not saying this is what you're doing Chris, but "but there were other empires" often turns into whataboutery. In any case, the British Empire was much larger and more long lasting than any other European empire of the modern era.

Ultimately, however, it is for France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and even Denmark to come to their own reckonings with their imperial and colonial histories (and none of them are doing a brililant job). I'm most concerned about the British empire simply because I'm a British citizen (and to add weight to that, a historian of Britain to boot).

[SA Chris]

Trust me, it's not even close to whataboutery, it just seems to that the British Empire seems to be held under closer scrutiny, but that may be just because it's closer to home.

Is it purely down to scale; I don't know enough about them to know where the difference lies.

[spidermonkey09]

it just seems to that the British Empire seems to be held under closer scrutiny

Its not; if anything its the opposite. Spanish atrocities in South America have had enormous amounts of attention. Belgium in the Congo ditto (see King Leopold's Ghost). Germany in Namibia just pre WW1 widely considered to be the first example of modern genocide (against the Herero & Nama people), with all of the political angst that labelling an event as genocide brings.

Its really interesting you perceive additional scrutiny on the British Empire but I really don't think its the case. In any case, as Andy points out, if it was the case it would actually make sense as it was by far the biggest and most long lasting.

On whataboutery, Alan Lester recently wrote a good explainer on this:

On British Empire Whataboutery: When we draw attention to the British Empire’s racial violence, a common response of @History_Reclaim and other deniers is ‘what about other empires’, as if imperial history boils down to a polemist’s game of ‘which empire was worst’. There are two main reasons why such an exercise is silly, in principle and in fact: 1. The violence of other imperialists, much of it also racialised, does not mean that British racial violence never happened, is mitigated or excused. The response is akin to telling A, who is being bullied by B, that they should be grateful it’s not C bullying them. 2. What evidence there is of imperial violence *suggests* (we’ll never *know* due to lack of data) that British colonisation and the maintenance of rule over three centuries, and up to a quarter of the Earth’s land surface, killed more people than any other modern European empire. The Belgian & German empires were often vicious but affected smaller areas in a shorter timeframe, with undoubtedly fewer wars of aggression. Probably the only other contemporaneous empire that killed more was the Qing, as a result of the Taiping Rebellion. Including the Nazi and Soviet regimes might alter things. Presumably the Empire’s defenders would not see it as a great thing that Britons *may* have killed somewhat fewer than them?

[TobyD]

Trust me, it's not even close to whataboutery, it just seems to that the British Empire seems to be held under closer scrutiny, but that may be just because it's closer to home.

Is it purely down to scale; I don't know enough about them to know where the difference lies.

I don't want to proliferate any what about -ery either, I believe that for example, the war the German colonists prosecuted in Namibia was pretty unpleasant, but, purely observationally, German culture and discourse is occupied with coming to terms with more recent national behaviour.

Is there any argument for trade ties being a positive effect of empire? Or language? These are genuine questions, not an attempt to minimise the considerable downside.

[jwi]

Economically colonialism, and especially exploitation colonialism, is absolutely awful for the colonised and pretty brilliant for the colonisers. I do not think there is any serious debate on this any more.

[SA Chris]

Interesting. I was unaware of the harm done in Namibia, maybe because it was brushed under the carpet along with a lot of other South African history (lies) I was taught at school.

As jwi says, not much upsides for the colonised. We'll take you and your natural resources, and give you epidemics and indoctrinate you into religion in return. Cheers.

[spidermonkey09]

Is there any argument for trade ties being a positive effect of empire? Or language? These are genuine questions, not an attempt to minimise the considerable downside.

My personal view is that I basically think that this line of inquiry serves to deflect away from the empire as a totality. It perpetuates the balance sheet approach that you have agreed is ahistorical, surely? I know you're trying to be intellectually curious rather than whatabouting but I don't think the effect is any different. Only my opinion of course!

I would agree that education and increasing awareness is absolutely key. I never knew about Amritsar until I was a Masters student at the earliest! Doesn't surprise me that the genocide in Namibia wasn't taught in SA either.

[andy popp]

Economically colonialism, and especially exploitation colonialism, is absolutely awful for the colonised and pretty brilliant for the colonisers. I do not think there is any serious debate on this any more.

Unfortunately, this is not really the case, at least in popular discourse, where there is currently a very serious push to rehabilitate empire. This push consists in part of "empire did good things too", in part of pure whataboutery (slavery probably attracts even more of this than empire), and in part of minimisation - "Britain would have got rich without empire/slavery and therefore it's irrelevant." It's hard to overstate how much of this is going on at the moment, and how effectively it is being seeded amongst the audiences it's directed at. I guess I'm hyperaware of it.

Apologies Chris, I should have been absolutely clear that I didn't think you were engaging in whataboutery, more that I intended a general caution about slipping into it.

[Oldmanmatt]

Can't dispute any of what Andy has said, and maybe because it is so close to home, but I am interested as to why British colonisation is seen as carrying more "weight" than any other European country?

Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese and German Empires were also pretty huge, and (arguably) had similar impact.

I'm not saying this is what you're doing Chris, but "but there were other empires" often turns into whataboutery. In any case, the British Empire was much larger and more long lasting than any other European empire of the modern era.

Ultimately, however, it is for France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and even Denmark to come to their own reckonings with their imperial and colonial histories (and none of them are doing a brililant job). I'm most concerned about the British empire simply because I'm a British citizen (and to add weight to that, a historian of Britain to boot).

I’m not sure I’m wholeheartedly on board with this sentiment. Looking at “The British Empire” we are concerned about it because it existed (just) within living memory. What do mean “reckonings with their Imperial histories”, really? The formation of that Empire oft involved the conquest of other, then existing, Empires, both large and small. The Zulu Empire (for Chris) for example. Those Empires were only different in scale, I don’t think the Nguni of the day thought highly of Shaka’s almost genocide of their peoples.
This isn’t meant as an apologist argument, nor support for the colonial concept, however the sentiment you express seems to require considering history between narrowly define points, or (possibly worse) that Western, global, Empire builders should be held to a higher standard than more “native” varieties. Humans are humans. Whilst I think we all agree the concept of conquest and colonialism is abhorrent, it hasn’t gone away. I mean, what would you call the entire USA, except an imposed colonial Empire, oppressing the indigenous population? The Russian Federation? PRC? Etc etc etc. What, ultimately, defines a Nation anyway? Or it’s peoples? Who, exactly, is British and who isn’t? GB, is an Empire, isn’t it? Not just England’s dominance of Wale and Scotland either; start a few decades before Englaland (sic) was a thing and you’re looking at Wessex conquering Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria et al. All the while ignoring the Saxon’s origins and conquest of Britain…
So, whilst there are, certainly, obvious “reparations” to be made, for recent history, such as sending back artefacts to their lands of origin (often, ironically, monuments exalting earlier Conquerers); what do you mean by “reckonings with Imperial histories”. Surely that statement applies to every human culture on the planet, including a few “un contacted” tribes, busy raiding neighbouring villages.
 

[Steve R]

The balance-sheet approach to reckoning with empire is pernicious. It reduces things to utilitarian calculations, emptying them of moral content, quibbling about offsetting this against that. It suggests we look at the individual parts and not the whole, when the occurence of the "good" is inseparable from the occurence "bad." Empire was an evil and a moral crime, both in its parts and in toto. It was vicious, often racist endeavour aimed at appropriation and extraction. Empire and slavery played very significant roles in making Britain rich.

Sorry this is a bit of an aside but out of interest, as an historian, what underlying philosophy do you adhere to when making moral judgements about the past?  Or indeed the present and future as presumably it's the same answer!? Sounds like you'd say utilitarianism and presumably consequentialism more generally is the wrong approach?  Appreciate this is a politics rather than philosophy thread but sometimes it's helpful to get to philosophical/ethical bedrock to see where people are coming from....
FWIW I can't bear Douglas Murray either.

[petejh]

In a future life I look forward to the discussions by future-Andy and future-Spider Monkey on what the historical impacts were of earthlings colonising planet B-78234.

[petejh]

Philosophically, how far back in time should the search for the origins of ‘ill-gotten’ wealth go, before it starts to become nonsensical? Isn’t that the question at the heart of this issue?

And I realise that question is what feeds the whole whataboutery narrative. But it seems to be a valid (the most important?) question despite that.

[SA Chris]

I would agree that education and increasing awareness is absolutely key. I never knew about Amritsar until I was a Masters student at the earliest! Doesn't surprise me that the genocide in Namibia wasn't taught in SA either.

I only learned about Amritsar when it was mentioned in "Into The Silence".

[Fultonius]

Philosophically, how far back in time should the search for the origins of ‘ill-gotten’ wealth go, before it starts to become nonsensical? Isn’t that the question at the heart of this issue?

And I realise that question is what feeds the whole whataboutery narrative. But it seems to be a valid (the most important?) question despite that.

Maybe a cutoff where it can be shown fairly conclusively that its lasting effects are no longer being felt* by those affected?

With usual caveats of magnitude of impact etc.

[andy popp]

Can't dispute any of what Andy has said, and maybe because it is so close to home, but I am interested as to why British colonisation is seen as carrying more "weight" than any other European country?

Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese and German Empires were also pretty huge, and (arguably) had similar impact.

I'm not saying this is what you're doing Chris, but "but there were other empires" often turns into whataboutery. In any case, the British Empire was much larger and more long lasting than any other European empire of the modern era.

Ultimately, however, it is for France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and even Denmark to come to their own reckonings with their imperial and colonial histories (and none of them are doing a brililant job). I'm most concerned about the British empire simply because I'm a British citizen (and to add weight to that, a historian of Britain to boot).

I’m not sure I’m wholeheartedly on board with this sentiment. Looking at “The British Empire” we are concerned about it because it existed (just) within living memory. What do mean “reckonings with their Imperial histories”, really? The formation of that Empire oft involved the conquest of other, then existing, Empires, both large and small. The Zulu Empire (for Chris) for example. Those Empires were only different in scale, I don’t think the Nguni of the day thought highly of Shaka’s almost genocide of their peoples.
This isn’t meant as an apologist argument, nor support for the colonial concept, however the sentiment you express seems to require considering history between narrowly define points, or (possibly worse) that Western, global, Empire builders should be held to a higher standard than more “native” varieties. Humans are humans. Whilst I think we all agree the concept of conquest and colonialism is abhorrent, it hasn’t gone away. I mean, what would you call the entire USA, except an imposed colonial Empire, oppressing the indigenous population? The Russian Federation? PRC? Etc etc etc. What, ultimately, defines a Nation anyway? Or it’s peoples? Who, exactly, is British and who isn’t? GB, is an Empire, isn’t it? Not just England’s dominance of Wale and Scotland either; start a few decades before Englaland (sic) was a thing and you’re looking at Wessex conquering Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria et al. All the while ignoring the Saxon’s origins and conquest of Britain…
So, whilst there are, certainly, obvious “reparations” to be made, for recent history, such as sending back artefacts to their lands of origin (often, ironically, monuments exalting earlier Conquerers); what do you mean by “reckonings with Imperial histories”. Surely that statement applies to every human culture on the planet, including a few “un contacted” tribes, busy raiding neighbouring villages.

Sorry Matt, but this is pretty much pure whataboutery. As I said above, I am fundamentally more concerned about Britain's imperial history than any other simply because I'm British. For most of my life I have enjoyed the rights and responsibilities of a British citizen. It has been British society and economy that has afforded me whatever opportunities I've enjoyed. It is the British political system in which I have participated. I may or may not think France or Belgium or wherever need a reckoning with these aspects of their history (and I do) but in the end that is up to those nations.

By a reckoning I simply mean a coming to terms with the realities of empire, a reframing of empire so it is no longer understood as a source of pride and greatness, an acknowledgement of empire's continuing legacies. Empire is normalised. We need to be shocked by what it did. That has not happened and until it does I believe Britain remains hobbled by it.

And it is much more than the fact it is still within living memory. There remain many extremely direct and unbroken ties between Britain's imperial and slaving history and many still extant institutions: across the economy; our systems of government and governance; the traditions and cultures that supposedly bind us; much of our built environment; the structure of land ownership; even our popular culture - let alone the wealth still enjoyed by many individuals and families. The British empire isn't dead, it lives on in these unbroken links. So long as they remain unbroken the issue remains relevant (I suppose this is now in partial answer to Pete).

To Steve R, I actually really regret using the word evil as I've always shunned it as an essentially theological concept that I don't recognize. So I kind of take that back. I know this is not the point you were making, but broadening things out, it is often said we shouldn't pass moral judgement on the past. I disagree. All history is written from a position and contains a form of judgement, whether explicit or not.

[Wellsy]

I think regarding the empire;

1) We don't talk or learn about it nearly enough, and a lot of people have a ridiculously rose tinted idea of it.

2) That said I do think there is an increasing movement in this country towards doing that, and I think that's more present than in say France, Portugal, Belgium etc. I think we have a cultural push towards discussing the Empire in more realistic and sobering terms nowadays and this will continue over time. Look at this very discussion, I think this was much less likely to happen 20 years ago and still is in many other places.

3) I think a pros and cons table of history is ridiculous and shouldn't be used, one should endeavour to present the facts and the impact honestly and with clarity, and judgements should be made in respect of what suffering was caused then and what the legacy of that is now. I think the contemporary element is key; I doubt anyone in France is mad about the Roman Legions crucifying tens of thousands of Gauls, but the situation of many people in India now is directly related to the actions of the British Raj.

Whataboutism is not helpful and "human nature" is not an excuse imo, lots of people don't do the sort of things you see in, say, Amritsar, even people who have the opportunity to do so. I don't believe human nature is so imperialist and colonialist by default at all, that is a belief mind you, not a fact.