http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2481371.stm
British Empire blamed for modern conflicts
The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has blamed Britain’s imperial past for many of the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Kashmir dispute.
“A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now – I have to deal with now – are a consequence of our colonial past,” he said.
In an interview with a British magazine, the New Statesman, Mr Straw spoke of quite serious mistakes made, especially during the last decades of the empire.
He said the Balfour Declaration of 1917 – in which Britain pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine – and the contradictory assurances given to Palestinians, were not entirely honourable.
“The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis – again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one,” he said.
Mr Straw acknowledged “some quite serious mistakes” in India and Pakistan, jewels of the British empire before their 1947 independence, as well as Britain’s “less than glorious role” in Afghanistan.
‘Odd’ borders
Mr Straw blamed many territorial disputes on the illogical borders created by colonial powers.
He mentioned Iraq, the region which was governed by Britain under the mandate of the League of Nations after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.
“The odd lines for Iraq’s borders were drawn by Brits,” he said.
And he said the British Government had been complacent about Kashmir at the time of Indian independence, when it quickly became the most contentious issue between India and Pakistan.
‘Sensible statement’
This is not the first time Mr Straw has made controversial remarks about British history.
In the past he has blamed the English of oppressing the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh.
Members of the main opposition Conservative Party accused Mr Straw of undermining British foreign policy, particularly in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe has justified his campaign against white farmers as a way of righting the wrongs of colonialism.
But Downing Street said Mr Straw’s remarks were “a sensible statement of history”.
Unusual
BBC’s Diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason says that Mr Straw’s critical remarks about British colonialism would be unsurprising coming from virtually anyone else.
Such views have been commonplace across the world and among left-wingers in Britain.
Our correspondent said 30 years ago, Mr Straw used to be an outspoken left winger himself.
By: keltic - 21st November 2002 at 18:46
RE: Some thoughts
I had caught it, I was just joking.
By: mongu - 20th November 2002 at 23:00
RE: Some thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-11-02 AT 11:01 PM (GMT)]Sorry keltic, this is NOT about the US, and I’m not criticising them. I’m just trying to make the point that “human rights” and “civilisation” are subjective concepts. They tend to be interpreted according to the dominant culture of the day.
I should have put it more eloquently, but I trust my point is clearer now.
By: keltic - 20th November 2002 at 22:25
RE: Some thoughts
>Unfortunately the world of today is dominated by a country
>which projects itself on the world without debating anything
>or using an open mind.
>
>Okay, so the British were exactly the same a hundred years
>ago. I’m not criticising the US, just making the point that
>their culture is perceived as the “right” culture and
>non-conformance as regarded as akin to poor human rights.
>The only accepted exception seems to be Japan.
Oppps dear Mongu…..watch out. You are bringing a controversial point to the thread. 🙂
By: mongu - 20th November 2002 at 21:07
RE: Some thoughts
Unfortunately the world of today is dominated by a country which projects itself on the world without debating anything or using an open mind.
Okay, so the British were exactly the same a hundred years ago. I’m not criticising the US, just making the point that their culture is perceived as the “right” culture and non-conformance as regarded as akin to poor human rights. The only accepted exception seems to be Japan.
By: keltic - 20th November 2002 at 09:22
RE: Some thoughts
Totally agree. There´s a rude tendency Mongu, in some minds in the west to think that “the west” is superior, when the world is diversity and as diverse we have to get into other countries minds to understand their ideosincrasy and respect them.
By: serendib - 20th November 2002 at 01:15
Let’s focus on the issue at hand
Let’s focus on the issue here. People who don’t know about the caste system in India, shouldn’t voice their opinion on something they have no clue about. This thread also has nothing to do with human rights.
The claim that from the 16th century to the 20th century the colonists didn’t have much of an idea about ‘human rights’ is nonsense. What matters is more european nations should take note of Britain’s gesture and be accountable for their savagery.
Sam.
By: mongu - 19th November 2002 at 23:32
RE: Some thoughts
Yes keltic, that’s my point. There’s no objective yartdstick against which progress on human rights can be measured. The west likes to compare everyone to itself without looking inward. To a certain extent, this is currently justifiable (although not really accurate. because there are glaring breaches of human rights in the West).
But this is only because human rights in the West have improved dramatically since WW2.
By: keltic - 19th November 2002 at 22:56
RE: Some thoughts
>It is surely impossible to prove who invented “human rights”
>Geforce.
>
>
I feel that, the concept of human rights is a quite subjective matter, which changes from time to time, and varies according to different cultures, countries and civilizations. I find this quite obvious. What´s considered honest, decent and fair in one culture and time, changes as time passes and varies according to different cultures. We have a set of values, and consider that humans have a list of minimum rights, but as you point out in muslim countries, at least in the most extreme and integrist ones, the conception of human rights is different, and as you mention in India is different too. Same happened in time. Wars, colonizations and violations of human rights are worse and more cruel if one goes back in time. The level of attrocities in the 13th century is more intense than in the 17th or than today. Fortunately humans are learning as the time goes by, and are aware of importance of “human beings”. I suppose there´s a long way to go, for us to learn to be respectful and tolerant with others.
By: mongu - 19th November 2002 at 20:43
RE: Some thoughts
It is surely impossible to prove who invented “human rights” Geforce.
Isn’t that a bit like claiming that the West invented the wheel, or discovered fire?
The subcontinent (well, India is the only bit I’m sure about!) in particular, is famous for the caste system. People of low birth are prevented from rising through employment, political activity or marriage. Okay, most people here despise such a system – I certainly do.
But at the time when the Brits were trying to “civilise” India, was Britain much different? I think we were a bit more palatable, in that one could rise from working class to lower middle class through effort, ability and luck. A few generations on, it was possible to achive upper middle class. But “caste” and “class” equate to pretty much the same don’t they?
So, why is there so much derision of Indian culture because of the caste system?
By: serendib - 19th November 2002 at 20:20
RE: Some thoughts
>Sorry Sam, with all do respect, but you`re just BS here.
>England not as cruel as the Spanish conquistadores. Mmm,
>again, who were the ones who invented concentration camps?
>The Germans, I guess not. I don`t think it really matters
>who were the cruelest. And Britain was a powerful nation,
>but at what cost? How many wars with Spain, France, Austria,
>the United Provinces (at least 3)?? Britain was not so
>cruel, at the times of the first colonisation, because the
>country was still a mess. Only Elizabeth I could organise
>the country a bit, but while Spain was discovering the
>world, England was going through multiple civil wars.
Benjamin,
Read my second post, I have stated clearly as to who was responsible for concentration camps. When was I defending England? I am not here to place Britain on a pedestal and chastigate the other European nations. I am talking facts here. Benjamin, please don’t lecture to me about what the Spanish, Portugese et al did in our nations. You stick to european history and I will stick to mine. Don’t try to rewrite history. I think I am in a better position to tell you who was responsible for the crimes against humanity conducted in my part of the world.
>Human rights as they exist today are actually a product of
>Jewish-Christian belief. In theory, Christianity was the
>first religion on the European continent who preached
>tollerance, but we all know what happened during the
>Crusades. Though I have the greatest respect for Asian
>phylosophy, Human rights as they exist today are really a
>western invention. But long before Europe was getting
>civilised, Indian tribes had already civilisations which
>preached tollerance.
Human rights are a Jewish-Christian belief? Are you suffering from amnesia? I come from a nation that has a recorded history of 2500 years and we have had human rights ever since we have practiced non-violant forms of religion like Hinduism and Buddhism. Strengthening your position in an argument by trying to re-write history will get you nowhere. I invite you to visit my part of the world where I can show evidence and historical facts which shows you what nations were responsible for the greatest amount of crimes against humanity.
Sam.
By: Geforce - 19th November 2002 at 19:49
RE: Some thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-11-02 AT 07:50 PM (GMT)]” I think I told you before that Britain was not cruel to the same level of the Spanish and Portugese. Why you need to equate England with the conquistadors of Spain astounds me. The fact is cruel rule had nothing to do with how powerful a nation was, that is a lame and ignorant excuse by you. At the height of colonial times, Britain was the most powerful nation, no other nation could even hold a candle to their feats. “
Sorry Sam, with all do respect, but you`re just BS here. England not as cruel as the Spanish conquistadores. Mmm, again, who were the ones who invented concentration camps? The Germans, I guess not. I don`t think it really matters who were the cruelest. And Britain was a powerful nation, but at what cost? How many wars with Spain, France, Austria, the United Provinces (at least 3)?? Britain was not so cruel, at the times of the first colonisation, because the country was still a mess. Only Elizabeth I could organise the country a bit, but while Spain was discovering the world, England was going through multiple civil wars.
” Human rights may have been a “new” concept for you Spaniards, but not for us Asians.”
Human rights as they exist today are actually a product of Jewish-Christian belief. In theory, Christianity was the first religion on the European continent who preached tollerance, but we all know what happened during the Crusades. Though I have the greatest respect for Asian phylosophy, Human rights as they exist today are really a western invention. But long before Europe was getting civilised, Indian tribes had already civilisations which preached tollerance.
By: serendib - 19th November 2002 at 19:39
RE: Who Cares?
>The British Empire ended in 1945 when we no longer had the
>money to keep it. Yes okay there we raped and pillaged other
>countries. We masscared people and took there land. But so
>what.
That’s not true. The British empire in South Asia ended when the Indians led by Mahatma Gandhi requested them to “get out” in a very amicable way. :7 The Indians then proceeded to let the Portugese know they are not wanted in Goa and to pack up and leave. Knowing the arrogance of the Portugese, they refused to do so and India responded with vengeance and Portugal tucked tail and ran.
>I was born in 1975. The empire died long ago. For some
>reason the commonwealth is still around although ive never
>figured out what it does. I see it this way. Those countries
>that have progressed since they became independent generally
>dont blame us for there problems. Those countries that have
>regressed (mainly in africa) blame us for every single one
>of there problems. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves and get
>on with your life.
No one is feeling sorry for themselves. Don’t fabricate and argument that’s not present. This thread focuses on accountability and some europeans such as Arthur, mongu and dcfly are quick to admit that ‘facts are facts’ and some issues are not defensible. These gentleman are also intelligent enough to realize that I am not pressing them to take the blame for what their ancestors did and nor am I requesting reparations. I have nothing against euopeans, nor do I have anything against the Portugese, Dutch and the English. I am merely trying to highlight that terrible things were done during the times of the colonials and it is about time the europeans accepted and took responsibility for their past actions just as the British have done.
Sam.
By: serendib - 19th November 2002 at 19:08
RE: Some thoughts
Excellent replies Arthur. I couldn’t have said it any better.
Sam.
By: serendib - 19th November 2002 at 18:55
RE: Some thoughts
> I am affraid this topic has turned into something rude,
>offensive and agresive, in which the moderator should have
>something to say about. I am not going to presonalize
>because other readers deserve respect. So let´s go back to
>the point.
This is not the colonial times. I have a right to voice my grievences at my convenience just like it gives you the right to make mockery of the suffering we underwent at the hands of your ancestors. How would the euopeans feel if I trivialized WW I & WW II? Is that justifiable? How would the africans domiciled in N & S America and the Carribean feel if I trivialized the slavery issue? The point is your people didn’t suffer due to colonialism, WE did. At least give me the benefit of the doubt and actually think that I must be having a very good reason to highlight our plight. Don’t tell me to look at the positives of colonialism. That’s akin to telling the Jews to see the positive side of the Holocaust or informing the decendents of slaves to look at the positive side of slavery. There was nothing positive about colonization, and don’t you dare tell me how I should feel about it.
>We have to admit that the historical development
>of the countries is based on invasions of countries,
>colonization, opresion and so on. No place in the world can
>be considered free of this. Spain for instance has suffered
>continous invasions, bloody represions, manslaughters…and
>so on.
You would have made a great legislator during the times of your ancestral lootings. Spain has suffered? Every country has suffered; but don’t you see the irony in that? Can you compare the level of suffering? Can all sufferings be measured with the same yard-stick? Were thousands of dollars worth of gold carted from Spain during your so-called “suffering?” Did the nation in question rape your nation, starve your people, destroy the economy, devastate the environment and re-invest only 1% of their profits in Spain? Its fine to talk about your nations’ past grievences, but make sure you don’t undermine the validity of nations that have legitmately suffered under the sword of colonialism. Trvilizing a situation as you have done and comparing the pseudo “suffering” Spain has undergone to the suffering experienced by the colonies from the conquistadors is grossly unfair and in poor taste.
>Powerful countries submit the weak ones for their
>interests. The SPanish submitted the Aztecas for instance,
>which previously had manslaughters his neighbours and
>sometimes with a higher degree of cruelty. But all these
>invasions, colonizations and so on, have shaped the
>countries identities, by getting different aportations of
>different cultures.
Absolutely. No argument there. But, again you have trivialized the situation. Every nation/race/tribe have their own issues, whether its for territorial gain or to settle a long standing feud, people will be at each others throats. But, as I have said in my earlier post, is it fair to compare the Spanish who came and looted, pillaged, murdered, raped and destituted an entire group of people to the wars between the different Aztec tribes? From the Aztecs, to the Bushmen of the Kalahari to the Inuits of Greenland, they all have waged war against each other. But, the question remains. How much of their lives were altered due to it?
>So we can´t decide what part our own
>indetity comes from own local cuture or is given. As we
>don´t have any magic bowl to indicate us how our countries
>would be without any invasive of colonizating process or if
>we would be worst of better, we have to accept that we can´t
>eliminate colonization from human existence, and try to find
>what positives have given to us.
Positives? Let’s see. Well, we have Dutch tourists coming to find the a little bit of their architecture, then we have the Portugese tourists paying homage to the catholic churches they built and then we have the British tourists who come and wonder at our archeological accomplishments and wonder why they never shipped them to England pre-1948.
>I am talking in a general
>sense not refering to the British or the Spanish….But It´s
>quite naive pretending to say…”well we were the pure
>Spanish before this or that country came”. I am sure that in
>Sri Lanka, there were other people coming from other parts
>and submiting the locals. Why the British and Spanish
>colonization processes were the most cruel ones…..again
>question of scale.
Why do yoy keep bringing Britain into the fold of cruel rule? I think I told you before that Britain was not cruel to the same level of the Spanish and Portugese. Why you need to equate England with the conquistadors of Spain astounds me. The fact is cruel rule had nothing to do with how powerful a nation was, that is a lame and ignorant excuse by you. At the height of colonial times, Britain was the most powerful nation, no other nation could even hold a candle to their feats. Were they cruel? Yes. As cruel at the Portugese and the Spanish? Absolutely not. A nation’s actions has a lot to do with the psyche and character of the people. Some colonists like the Portugese and the Spanish were barbarians, hell bent on destroying and changing the entire colony. The British and the Dutch on the other hand were much more easy going and more toward enhancing their coffers through economic means and were not interested in destroying the entire culture.
>If you are powerful you can kill many, if
>your weak you can kill less or in a lower scale. Spanish was
>even more cruel, because it was previous in time, in which
>human rights concepts were even more inexistent. I AM NOT
>JUSTIFYING IT, but it´s how it worked. I would find a bit
>childish asking for responsabilities to the italians for the
>Romans having invading muy country…TODAY.
Human rights may have been a “new” concept for you Spaniards, but not for us Asians. Don’t excuse your self from your sordid and embarassing past by blaming it on not knowing human rights. It comes down to what kind of people you were. Let’s not forget that all your conquests and looting was done with the auspices of the catholic church. Childish for asking for responsibilities? Why did the whole europe hold Hitler accountable for his actions? Why is Stalin being held responsible for his actions? Why are they holding these people accountable EVEN today? Double standards? Think about it.
>Of course many
>current problems are due to colonization, it´s obvious. But
>history is history, and it´s only to learn from it. And once
>again, bringing it back to the current world affairs, is an
>easy excuse to blame others for many problems in which we
>are also responsible for.
Let me tell state this for the thousandth time. I am not asking for anything. Get it? Does accountability ring a bell? Look it up in the dictionary. I had finished off with this topic after my very first news report in which Mr.Straw too responsibility for Britan’s actions. Then you procceded to “cook” up some nonsense about how we should be grateful for Tea and Chocolate. Then you proceeded to bring about trivial reasons which made a mockery of our suffering by equating it to the “suffering” of Spain.
>Before leaving this topic and for
>anyone interested in my level of education, I have two
>university degrees, a diploma, a master, I speak five
>languages and colaborate in different publications in my
>country, appart from other things. Not really dramatic, but
>of course I don´t consider myself uneducated. At least, I am
>able to respect others. Bye.
Sadly, your education does not show. You are probably an embarassment to the institutions you studied at.
Sam.
By: Hand87_5 - 19th November 2002 at 08:22
RE: Who Cares?
I wrote Spain in South Africa (stupid) , it was South America for sure.
By: Geforce - 19th November 2002 at 08:16
RE: Who Cares?
… The Turks in eastern Europe (almost conquered Vienna)
… The Americans on the Philippines
… China in Tibet
… Morocco in the western-Sahara
…
By: Hand87_5 - 18th November 2002 at 14:50
RE: Who Cares?
I guess it’s nice that British official finally admitted those kind of things.
Unfortunately you were not alone in your “colonial” business.
Spain in Sout Africa
France in Africa and Far East
Portugal in Africa , Far East
Italy in Africa
Etc….
I’d like the French Govermenent to be that honest with the horrors committed in Algeria for example 🙁
By: User Flage - 17th November 2002 at 16:45
Who Cares?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 04:47 PM (GMT)]The British Empire ended in 1945 when we no longer had the money to keep it. Yes okay there we raped and pillaged other countries. We masscared people and took there land. But so what.
Everyone did it. All the other european countries did it too. As did the USA. What some people forget is that the British leaders did it to there own populance. Law in Britian was sending the troops out to kill any discentors. The masscares that British troops did to British people are many.
I was born in 1975. The empire died long ago. For some reason the commonwealth is still around although ive never figured out what it does. I see it this way. Those countries that have progressed since they became independent generally dont blame us for there problems. Those countries that have regressed (mainly in africa) blame us for every single one of there problems. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves and get on with your life.
By: Geforce - 17th November 2002 at 15:57
RE: Some thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 04:03 PM (GMT)]”But history is history, and it´s only to learn from it.”
A very interesting point of discussion you brought up. First of all, it’s naive to place todays values in a historical context. As Keltic said, The Aztecs were probably more cruel than the Spanish, still nobody talks about them. Why? Because they simply don’t exist anymore? Or because it’s so much easier to pick on the Spanish.
I think focussing on Spain and Britain’s bad points does not give a an exact point of what the situation was back then. As we said, we are using modern values and place them simply into the history as if it happened today.
Ohh and before anyone starts accusing me of being euro-centric, I’m not. I’m perfectly aware of the problems related to colonialism. But simply saying that all the conquistadores did was bad is just not true. Some of them had good intentions, others were just after the gold. Spreading the christian belief was just a priority in the 16th century, by all means necessairy. Is it so different from today’s new belief, the economy??? Don’t we also bomb countries to spread our god, the almighty dollar, or the less almighty euro. And don’t we also want to finish off the devil himself, today being referred as Saddam :7. Maybe this sounds a bit silly, but I hope you understand what I want to say. Just because we now have other values, because we give more about the dollar than the pope, doesn’t mean we are better.
We should not judge the people of then, maybe they find our way of approaching conflicts as disgusting as we think about them.
“L’histoire se repête.”
I don’t think we will ever learn from history, because by the time you see the similarity in it, it’s already too late.
By: Geforce - 17th November 2002 at 14:48
RE: Some thoughts
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 17-11-02 AT 03:05 PM (GMT)]”It was different in South America, where both the Spanish and Portugese immediately started running to grab as much gold as possible, so you got a kind of turbo-colonisation here since two powers of that time were in competition to grab as much as possible.”
–> That’s true, and I never denied this. And not only the Portuguese, but later also the French have shown interests in what now is Brazil. But Spain – more than Portugal – had both the people and the finances to undertake missions in South-America, also because independent cities in North-Italy (Genua) also participated in the expeditions. And unlike the Belgian Congo for example, the territories in South America were not property of the Royal Family. Theoretically they were even independent, but the king did organise the transports between Europe and the New World, and the port of Sevilla was the only one allowed to import goods from SA.
“Because Portugal couldn’t split it’s resources. They knew gold was to be found in South America, so most Portugese colonialists went to Brasil.”
–> Apart from the Chinese, no other ‘country’ in Asia wanted to compete against the Portuguese.
“While diseases themselves were very destructive amongst the local population, it didn’t help that the people were by that time already forced to do slave labour Birnenau-style in order to relieve Spain’s rold-thirst.”
–> True, I am not here to defend slavery, which is something barbaric I think. But you should also mention Spain installed so called “reducciones”, compare this to the “nature reserves” of today, where no Spaniards were allowed to come, and the Indians could live freely. (albeit they should become Catholicis and many did so).
“Cortez and Nunez did ‘some bad things’? What about massacring the entire population of Tenochtitlan and totally destroying the city? The same happened to almost every populated city the Spaniards found. Ethnic cleansing by the book, Benjamin. “
–> They didn’t massacre an entire population, at least they didn’t come to the New World with that intention. Nobody denies here that horrible acts were undertaken to install the Catholic Church in South America, but as I said most Indians died from diseases. And you are right, it’s not the flu, but Tyfus and Cholera. My mistake.
“That’s why Torquemada started the Spanish inquisition, and immediately began a massive campaign to clense Jews and Muslems out of Spain. Most were killed. Your history books are quite euphemistical!”
–> Indeed, many Jews and Muslims have been killed by the Spanish inquisition. The situation in Europe was no different than the one in South America, in fact, in many cases, even worse.
“This because of the decay of Spain during the 80-year and 30-year (the latter being also the last part of the former… very obvious) wars. The VOC was disestablished in the Napoleonic era by the way. It wouldn’t have much use nowadays…”
–> Spain was not yet defeated after the 30-year war. In fact in 1656 they were able to conquer Duinkerke (North-West France), and if Cromwell (English president) wouldn’t have intervened, Spain would probably had a new victory on France and the United Provinces. (The Spaniards were already at the gates of Paris).
The southern Netherlands (today’s Belgium) were still in hands of the Spanish, even after Westfalen.
But I agree with you that the 30-year and the 80-year wars are very strange wars, and one of the bloodiest in the history of Europe I guess, mainly because almost all nations were involved.
“..some… slavery?”
–> That was sarcasm, Arthur. I’m perfectly aware of how nasty our Belgian presence in the Congo was, and we should’nt be proud on our King Leopold II, the fourth largest massmurderder in history. But I don’t think Belgium is to blame for the current situation in Congo. How bad we may have treated the local population, Belgium left a country behind which was well organised, had modern infrastructure, and even some companies which gave work to many people (Sabena for example). The ongoing civil wars in that region may have something to do with our past, but we are not to blame. In fact, Belgium has supported many peace-missions in that region, at the costs of our own soldiers, and I think we are still too involved. We should take more distance from the Congo, and let the UN work things out. The
murder of Lumumba (PM of Congo in 1960) by the Belgian and American intelligence services is regrettable, but more things like this have happened in the cold war, not?
“Ah, this explains why you post those West-centered historical theories here. You’re a Euro-centered historian yourself! “
–> I’m sorry but what has this to do with it? Yes, our history is Euro-centric, that doesn’t mean we are not thought of all the bad things we did. As soon as I get the opportunity, I would like to study abroad, but as for now, the lessons are limited to European history.
Sign In
November 15, 2002 at 8:41 pm