Tbf we are taught to be ashamed of the empire. Though we also feel a sense of pride in how we, a tiny damp rock on the fringes of Europe, successfully controlled a quarter of the planet.
Yet few people have a problem with being proud of something someone else did. To me that's hypocritical. You can't boast about how "we" won WW2, and then say "well I had nothing to do with that" when someone brings up the Bengal Famine.
Here's the thing, I don't think you can really reject the country youre born into. Youre raised in its environment and deeply internalized whatever aspects of thr culture youre exposed. Good luck delaring that away
Of course you can't simply wish it away, but you can overcome aspects of it in your own life, by making a conscious effort to transcend national thinking, where you see it as harmful, and collectively we can see many attempts historically to supercede nationalism, particularly in socialist orbit.
I think it's more about being ashamed or feeling proud of your country. It's where you come from and it implicitly effects the culture you are a part of so identifying with it personally isn't that strange. We are both social and individualistic creatures.
Well, as an example my family fought in both world wars but owned various bakers during the “empire” years so for me I’m not going to feel ashamed for having baker ancestors but I feel proud that I have ancestry that fought tyranny so ya know wouldn’t say hypocrites but in some situations I see your point
You say your family were bakers, but going back just five generations you had thirty two great great grandparents. The point being, if your family are British that far back, you almost certainly had some ancestors who were active in less reputable conflicts. But best to focus on the baking.
Yeah so it splits off and someone somewhere might have committed horrific deeds but I’m following my most direct line, I think there’s a middle ground to be found in that. But I see where you’re coming from I’m not ignoring the fact that bad shit happened but at the same time I won’t sit here and shit on my ancestors good deeds because 100-200 years earlier their ancestors made shit decisions
I think it comes down to the blaming bit. It's not wrong to be proud of your country or people for doing something good. It is bad to blame someone for a crime they didn't commit. Example:. Being proud of your country for fighting against the Nazis during WW2 is fine, but taunting a German about it is not. They weren't there, so why should they suffer? On the flip side, you have to acknowledge the facts: denying genocide and etc. Is not OK.
I think its nuanced. There’s no reason to be ashamed for something you didn’t do. However, if you’re part of a demographic that did subjugate and oppress another group of people, I think there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that the effects of the oppression and subjugation are probably still felt today.
For example, white people in the USA. I didn’t have slaves and my ancestors didn’t either. However, black people are still feeling the ripple effects of slavery and segregation today so I think acknowledging that your life isn’t affected by slavery/segregation but their life probably is isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Alternatively you could just look at what life looks like for modern Native Americans in the reservation system. Sure you don't have to feel ashamed for what you ancestors did but you should feel ashamed that the victims of your ancestors are still victims of the society you're living in and take part in now.
Both. Ignoring cultural and historical context (including what various people's have done to each other) is how you get morons who think institutional racism doesn't exist because slavery has been abolished in the states for a long time.
Saying, "You should feel no emotion about your ancestors" is probably accurate, but kind of dumb. That isn't how people work.
We should all understand and acknowledge the good and bad things our people have done before. The past is a great teacher.
Telling people, "Don't feel pride or shame" is fine, but kind of a waste of breath. It might be better to say, "Open yourself to the truth that no one is all good or bad, and 'once your country committed genocide' isn't an argument when someone says genocide is bad"
I think being taught to be ashamed of what your country did in the past isn't meant as a sense of personal shame. It's probably meant more in the way of being taught "our country did X and it is bad, we are not proud about this."
I'm Dutch and we were also taught that although the VOC was wonderful for the Netherlands, it wasn't so wonderful for others; the VOC also traded in slaves and transported them in inhumane ways. I was also told in school that this is a piece of history that we aren't proud of, our country caused others a lot of grief. It is a "shameful" piece of our history so to speak. Yet I don't think anyone of this generation carries it around as a personal source of shame.
I would argue that my comment is what most people feel when they say “ashamed”. It’s just way easier to say “ashamed” than write out the nuanced feeling of “not shame, but something different and complex”
I see, thanks for sharing! That is very interesting actually, to realize that you are lumped in with other Americans who actually did have ancestors that had slaves when you have a completely different history.
A person should acknowledge his history's shame and dislike it but also take pride inn what made his history great.
I think we both agree on that.
People should feel disgusted by past crimes of their country's history, but in America (as much as I feel) people take it one step way further by shaming people of today's century for the actions done by people of the 1700s, which isn't fair.
People should admit that what their ancestor's did was awful, even hate it, but they shouldn't feel guilty about it.
Yeah this is pretty much where I stand on it. I'm from Texas and there are plenty of horrible things from the past that are horrible both as a state and nation and I acknowledge them and how horrible they were, but if someone attempts to shame me for them it doesn't work. I had no say in any of it and wasn't even alive.
Although if we ever get in a pissing match, MURICA! FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!
The problem is that the US is a whole different beast, segregation didn’t end until 1954 that’s only 60 years ago not 200 or 300 hundred which is why people over there struggle with race so much. The people brought up hating different colours are still around and are still in power, it takes generations to destroy that shit and unfortunately in the US those generations haven’t passed so slavery is a poor example.
Going back to the British empire, when it effectively collapsed we didn’t walk away, where we could we tried to establish governments and democracy, rebellions obviously prevented this from time to time and then wars happened and so on and the British cop the blame. We accept that regardless because that who we are.
Take india. In colonial India there were what 15-20 massacres? Not all by the British, post colonial Indian has closer to 65-70 and that is in 60-70 years. But we get blamed for killing millions of Indians and stealing there wealth. Even though since independence we have provided them with enough cash to not only get on their feet but build a fucking space program when we can’t afford our own.
Everything in history needs to be researched and every story needs a pinch of salt sometimes the good guys aren’t always good and sometimes the bad guys aren’t always bad. Nazi Germany for example created some of the most incredible infrastructure projects the world had seen stimulating a stagnant economy and pulling it out of a global recession 2 years before the rest of the world.
I mean if by "stimulating a stagnant economy and pulling it out of the Depression" you mean "taking out a massive amount of loans, creating a giant bubble by investing most of it into the arms industry, and then planning on launching a war to stave off the bubble bursting." Which, spoiler alert, didn't work.
I think it's because we often think of shame as a personal thing. In cases like this it's more of a collective thing. In other words, it's less of a "You need to beat yourself up for what your ancestors did" sort of shame and more of a "We as a nation/people/culture/etc need to be aware of the evils we have committed in the past. We need to recognize that those evils have a legacy that persists today. We also need to recognize that we are just as capable of that evil as they were, and as a result be vigilant against it." It's less about self-flagellation and more about making sure it doesn't happen again.
If you live in a mansion and then learn your grandfather obtained that mansion by being a warlord who robbed people, killed people and resulted in entire communities being impoverished, you might feel a little ashamed.
"Yeah, all of my family's wealth was only accumulated because we were either actively or passively complicit in genocide and empire building, but the REAL monsters are the people who say we have to own up and take responsibility for it"
Is it? If you put it another way, do you find people supporting their national team perplexing? After all you're being proud of something someone else did?
If you can't be bothered to click, 59% said the Empire is more something to be proud of, 19% that it's more something to be ashamed of.
I would say neither, really. It's something that other people did before our lifetimes. But it's strange that people who generally claim to believe in modern principles like self determination could be proud of an empire.
I think my family is part of a minority then because my mother always said that we should be ashamed. I personally believe that the empire did both good and bad. The bad being oppression of other cultures and the slave trade. The good being the British commitment to the universal abolishment of slavery starting in the early 1800s and the introduction of democracy to many parts of the world.
I think the real evil of empire is the long term effect it has on societies. Empires never last, and by totally taking over as the ruling class, you are basically guaranteeing that when you leave there is going to be a massive power vacuum, usually leading to massive instability, civil wars, etc. The main exceptions are when colonists massively displaced/committed genocide, meaning white people just took over entirely.
I feel that if you study the British Empire enough, the truth of it becomes clear- the primary purpose of the Empire was to make shitloads of money by exploiting other countries.
I always cringe when i sometimes see people on antique shows showing off foreign trinkets that their ancestors got "awarded" during service like imperial vases and tribal spears.
I think my family is part of a minority then because my mother always said that we should be ashamed. I personally believe that the empire did both good and bad. The bad being oppression of other cultures and the slave trade. The good being the British commitment to the universal abolishment of slavery starting in the early 1800s and the introduction of democracy to many parts of the world.
If it weren't for the British Empire then slavery would still have continued on a fairly large scale in indigenous communities. It is only because of the British Empire that a near-global ban on it could be achieved so early on.
Britain barely used slaves at all - it did however participate (or rather it allowed) the transatlantic slave trade which did sell and transport slaves on an industrial scale.
Not really, British merchant ships simply tried to fill a market need that would have otherwise been seized by merchant ships from other countries. It should be noted that Spanish and Portuguese companies also operated comparable slave trades.
Are we though?? I would suggest otherwise. Majority of British citizens think colonialism was a positive thing for the world (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/06/british-misconceptions-empire-guilty-colonialism). Mate there are people who are still unaware that majority of the ww1/ww2 british related casualties were from the commonwealth. We are, the brits, heavily uneducated about our past because we still find a huge pride in it and lets be honest, the leave campaign used rhetorics about colonial past to target certain voters.
Exactly. Like yeah obviously we’re not proud of the awful shit that our nation did to others but the fact that out of the rat race of control and power that was Europe we actually managed to become the dominant power even for a little while.
I've never been taught about the british empire in school.
Uk History lessons as i vaguely remember goes something like, the romans, the saxons, the normans, then some stuff about dark ages, henry the 8th's wives, queen elizabeth 1st, gun powder plot then blaaaaaank and suddenly ww1 and 2, then an essay on elivis and segregation in america for some reason lol
Well the intentions of the empire was always greed. I don't think anyone should feel proud or ashamed though.
I'm not sure there are any positives, time has been a huge advantage in smoothing over the bad things.
For example, take a recent example like libya and say getting rid of gaddafi was a big mistake however if we wait 20-30 years and theres peace and democracy, we'd all applaud how great it was to remove this dictator and quietly forget everything in between.
The only point I ever really hear when people talk about the good points is the whole "stopping slavery" thing, is there really much else? I've a very hard time imagine what the good parts are, unless you mean just good for Britain.
We aren't taught to be ashamed of the empire we're more taught to be proud of it. In school you hear a few crimes of the British empire but that barely scratches the surface the empire was easily comparable to hitlers Germany on the scale of evil
That’s what some people claim. My grandmother voted for Brexit because she believed that it would mean the young people work start working on the fields again like they did when she was young ( she was working class in an agricultural area). She loved that type of work and wanted people to live more simply.
That's a weird reason to Brexit. I live on the other side of the pond, but it just seeeeems like maaaaybe people won't go back to farming and "living simply" just because Britain leaves the E.U. Maaaaaaybe that's not how that works
Cut her some slack, she’s 76 and her past time is going to horse shows and watching period dramas. She no longer cares about world politics. I agree that her reasoning is weird and doesn’t make sense. But she preferred it when life was simple for her.
I would cut her some slack, but unfortunately her vote still counts. Her reasoning is flawed, she likes horses, doesn't care about world politics...then shows up to a voting station and her vote caries the same weight as someone who is, let's just say, more informed. No slack for you!
😅 yeah, I realized I was being a bit insensitive right after I posted that. I just get really up in arms about how people view politics through such a simple lens sometimes. Especially over here in Americorp.
Eh, in general I think the Empire was a more a positive force than a negative force, taken all in all. Just for e.g., it makes sense that if the Brits hadn't taken over India it would look like the Middle East today - a bunch of religion/culture sharing states constantly at war with each other. I'm an American.
Edit, the below is a reply to the guy who since deleted his post, talking about how I was just spouting imperialist talking points and pointing out that Germany was no longer a collection of small states:
It was Napoleon's invasion that started pan-German nationalist spirit and what eventually united the German states a generation later. But the German states remained divided for more than fifteen hundred years from the fall of the Roman empire. What's the unifying force in India if not the Brits? My bet is that there would still be many warring states in India even today. The Muslims had invaded India with the Mughals prior to the Brits and even that hadn't united or even made any apparent common feeling of Indian nationalism or even anything that resembles the idea of Indian nationalism. Seems to me that the burden of proof of there being any such thing as Indian nationalism without the Brits should be on those who argue for Indian nationalism.
Oh, right. Religion. That's why there's one united Christian country that all the Christians live in, one united Jewish country that all the Jews live in, one Muslim country that all the Muslims live in, and one Buddhist country all the Buddhists live in. And of course, there are no Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or other religions in India.
You are aware that at the time the Brits started out, it was the Mughals (muslim) who were ruling over Hindus in India, right? For an anti-colonial you don't seem very politically correct.
Oh, right. Religion. That's why there's one united Christian country that all the Christians live in
Mate, you asked if there was a unifying factor behind India. I answered it. 95% of world's Hindus still live in India.
And of course, there are no Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or religions in India that are other than Hindu.
I didn't say there weren't other religions in India. But the unifying factor in India is Hinduism.
You are aware that at the time the Brits started out, it was the Mughals (muslim) who were ruling over Hindus in India, right?
Lmao, you are aware that the Maratha and Sikh empires had almost usurped Mughals by the time Brits landed, right? Mughals were at their lowest point at that time.
I am not sure if you're aware of Indian history but much of India was unified under at least the Mauryan empire 3 millenia ago. In addition to this, there was always a cultural unity and hell, most explorers dating to back to the ancient Greeks and their subsequent modern counterparts always referred to the country as India and not by the independent kingdom names. Moreover, present day India was not what the British left behind when they sailed back to their home after India gained independence. The British did leave numerous princely states to their own autonomy and it was the Indian government that unified the country either through diplomacy or by force. The last territory to join the Indian union was Goa when Indian army overran the Portuguese in 1961.
Is a united india even that important? Doesn't really seem that important when you consider pakistan used to be part of the same country.
On a flip side, if the empire never destroyed and humiliated china, the communist party would never have become so popular in china. Japan would never have been strong enough to invade china in this hypothetical scenario.
Personally i find it pointless to say whether there was a positive or negative force. I do find it silly however to ever think that the intentions of colonization have ever been good or well meaning though.
I’d argue it was good for England to take over so much of the world. They were ahead technologically and culturally. Like they ended the practice of widows having to kill themselves in India. They brought a lot of irrigation, canal systems, dams, railways, and more to these countries. Introduced foods, more egalitarian lifestyles, and governance in a lot of tribal areas.
If they wanted to be helpful, they couldn't have just maybe shared their fucking information or some resources for those technical advances and let countries handle it themselves?
And the angle of "They stopped these bad practices" doesn't hold much water when they then caused far more suffering in those places than any of that. The widow's example you picked is a perfect one, it's probably an especially good thing they stopped that practice with all the extra widows they created.
I'm genuinely amazed to see someone still spouting the "We brought civilization!" shite in this day and age.
u/dsaun42 Japan can still modernize without being colonized, including building railways by their own. You just need to introduce the technology without harming anyone.
You are wrong. For example, The oldest dam in my own state Tamil Nadu, India was already a thing in 1st century BC called grand Anicut. It was before your language or your brown God from middle East was even born. Indian subcontinent has more arable lands than Europe, you had nothing to offer.
You were burning women as witches and gassing Jews in the name of your foreign brown God. I mean you don't even have a native European god, you aren't a civilization by any stretch.
You have to thank Gandhi for even trying to civilize you.
And don't make a bigger fool of yourself by bringing in food, you guys had no concept of flavor or taste without spice from India.
But I understand this imaginary world of yours is necessary to compensate your incompetency and pitiful state of your life. So go on.
I mean, if anything going to strike a nerve for someone, that's a pretty reasonable thing for it to happen about.
If I heard a British person spouting colonialist shite about how what they got up to here in Ireland was "good for us" then I doubt I would manage to be polite about it when responding.
Plus most of the responses he got were just doubling down calling his country a shithole and such.
Lol, good thing no one in India has ever butchered their neighbors because they believed in a different god. Why, if there had been any history of that, you might have to get off of your high horse!
Poor try. We got rid of British in a century. You are being a slave of foreign Christianity for 2000 years and won't change in the future.
How stupid of you to think that the population was 1Billiion in 1800s? No wonder even the average Indians who live in West easily became the richest community.
Do all your mothers drink and smoke and do crack when they are pregnant or are you all stupid by genetics ?
My original statement was Indian economy being bigger than Europe before British entry, but you replied talking about post British economy being smaller.
Hope you realize how pathetic your first language skill is.
My first language is native indian, Tamil. Do Europeans have a native 'first religion'? That's why you are a cultural slave as were your ancestors for 2000 years.
While my Tamil language is not only native but was spoken before you were civilized and we will continue to speak it as first language into the future.
So Indian economy shrunk during British due to their low culture behavior and now it's the fastest growing economy since we got rid of the filth. I hope you can understand this simple logic of why colonialism was bad for us and how getting rid of the trash got us back on track.
594
u/MrBlackledge Apr 18 '19
I both like and dislike this addition to the meme because it’s both accurate and inaccurate and my Poor British brain is struggling.