The Name Is Appeasement ... (German Paper Article)

[beet1e]

Mr. Toad,

From 1890-1923, the land was administered by the British South Africa Company.

Instrumental in bringing European pioneers to the area was the 19th century British imperialist and financier, Cecil John Rhodes, whose British South African Company (BSACo) was later given prospecting and mining rights by the Matabele king, Lobengula.

Source: http://www.z6.com/z6files/z6files/fotw/flags/zw-hist.html#his

As you can see, Rhodesia was named after its founder, the British financier Cecil John Rhodes.

So in answer to your question -

Originally posted by Toad
Wonder what would have happened to Rhodesia if it had just been left alone to evolve in its own way at its own pace from the beginning instead of being benevolently colonized.

the answer is that Rhodesia would not have existed at all.

I never said that the British had an impeccable record of "colony management", but it seems clear to me that the people of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, were much better off than they are now - blacks as well as whites.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by Toad
At least we don't deny we oppressed the Native Americans and stole their land. Of course, that's all familar to you, as the English started that bus rolling here first too. We merely replaced the English in the driver's seat after 1776.

Good point.

But then you don't give us; the present generation of Brits, any credit for taking up our share of the white man's burden (and perhaps more than our share, we're well aware of our causative role); and doing what little we can to sort out our Grandfather's mistakes.

Greatest Generation? Yeah riiiight; look at the mess they left behind 'em.

You're spilling your blood (and ours) trying to "free" the Iraqui's; we've been spilling our blood _protecting Catholic_ Irishmen from _Loyalist_ Protestant Irishmen. And spilling it on mainly Soviet weaponry financed by Americans.

Why the hell would we do that? Where's the colonial self interest?

How is it you guys can so proudly joke "It'll happen our way or we'll nuke 'em" and "you're just sucking on our teat; we is yo' Daddy" and then complain when much of the world whines "You're  in charge; it's your fault!".

Either live up to your Imperial responsibilities or get off the pot.....

(Tips cap; goes back to the plantation; I've a few Irish serfs to whip)

[Torque]

Originally posted by Momus--
This just in, political parties decide to base policy on public opinion, more at our next bulletin..

more like some people were capable of self-delusion and hypocrisy to a level seldom attained except among the very religious.

[AKH]

Originally posted by Toad
You must have missed the last thread on it.

Yes I missed it.  Some British may deny that we oppressed the Irish people.  Many others do not.  I'm in the second group.

I've been through the numbers before on this board. Do a search.

The Native American tribes within the boundaries of what is now the US suffered far more deaths attributable to Europeans between the arrival of the Europeans and the establishment of the United States than can be attributed to US citizens since the establishment of the Republic.

Wouldn't most deaths of Native Americans from Old World diseases be attributable to the Europeans?

Having said that, my use of the term genocide was incorrect and inflammatory.  My apologies.

Well I'd say the American people and our soldiers can't wait to leave Iraq. I'd also say the Iraqi people feel the same. Seems like a shared goal to me. Do you disagree?

Not at all.   However, you originally said that they have the same goals, which implies something other than a single common goal.

[AKH]

Somalia?

After the war, the British gradually relaxed military control of Somalia, and attempted to introduce democracy, and numerous native Somalian political parties sprang into existence, the first being the Somali Youth League (SYL) in 1945. The Potsdam conference was unsure of what to do with Somalia, whether to allow Britain to continue its occupation, to return control to the Italians, who actually had a significant amount of people living there, or grant full independence. This question was hotly debated in the Somalian political scene for the next several years. Many wanted outright independence, especially the rural citizens in the west and north. Southerners enjoyed the economic prosperity brought by the Italians, and preferred their leadership. A smaller faction appreciated Britain's honest attempt to maintain order the second time around, and gave their respect.

In 1948 a commission led by representatives of the victorious Allied nations wanted to decide the Somalian question once and for all. They made one particular decision, granting Ogaden to Ethiopia, which would spark war decades later. After months of vaciliations and eventually turning the debate over to the United Nations, in 1949 it was decided that in recognition of its genuine economic improvements to the country, Italy would retain a nominal trusteeship of Somalia for the next 10 years, after which it would gain full independence. The SYL, Somalia's first and most powerful party, strongly opposed this decision, preferring immediate independence, and would become a source of unrest in the coming years.

Despite the SYL's misgivings the 1950s were something of a golden age for Somalia. With UN aid money pouring in, and experienced Italian administrators who had come to see Somalia as their home, infrastructural and educational development bloomed. This decade passed relatively without incident and was marked by positive growth in virtually all parts of Somali life. As scheduled, in 1959, Somalia was granted independence, and power transferred smoothly from the Italian administrators to the by then well developed Somali political culture.

[Dowding]

As a fellow comrade of the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, I must congratulate AKH on his reponses here.

Toad, your anachronistic analysis of the British treatment of Ireland continues unabated I see. I assume your qualified condemnation of the IRA does also.

Oppression of Catholics in Britain has to be put into context. When England was a fledgling Protestant State, it was surrounded by Papal enemies. Until France was completely beaten in the early 1800s, there was always a risk that England as a Protestant state would be assimilated by France and Spain and come under the influence of the Vatican. Power was completely removed from anyone who could attack from within. It was oppression and it was a mistake; anyone with a modicum of sense will realise that.

The view from the saddle must be pretty spectacular, Toad. We all know America has no 'secret history' and not a blemish on its moral record...

Some of us have the moral fibre to recognise our country's failings and historical wrongs... others just excuse them and call it patriotism.

[AKH]

Uganda?

Britain granted internal self-government to Uganda in 1961, with the first elections held on March 1, 1961. Benedicto Kiwanuka of the Democratic Party became the first Chief Minister. Uganda maintained its Commonwealth membership.

In succeeding years, supporters of a centralized state vied with those in favor of a loose federation and a strong role for tribally-based local kingdoms. Political maneuvering climaxed in February 1966, when Prime Minister Milton Obote suspended the constitution, assumed all government powers, and removed the president and vice president. In September 1967, a new constitution proclaimed Uganda a republic, gave the president even greater powers, and abolished the traditional kingdoms.
...
1971 saw Idi Amin take power, ruling the country with the military for the coming decade.

[Toad]

Somalia? Yes.

The British opportunity came when Egyptian forces, having occupied much of the region in the 1870s, withdrew in 1884 to fight the Mahdi in Sudan. British penetration led to a series of agreements (1884–86) with local tribal leaders and, in 1887, to the establishment of a protectorate. France first acquired a foothold in the area in the 1860s. An Anglo-French agreement of 1888 defined the boundary between the Somalian possessions of the two countries.

Uganda? Yes.

The Imperial East Africa Company annexed the share of East Africa allocated to it by Britain in 1888. The company signed a treaty with the kingdom of Buganda in 1890. With the demise of the company, Buganda became a Crown protectorate in 1894. Other protectorates were established in 1896 and the colony of Uganda was created in 1905. Uganda became independent in 1962.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Momus--
Nice selective quoting. you missed this bit..twice..

Go back and look... I did not miss it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Seeker
But then you don't give us; the present generation of Brits, any credit for taking up our share of the white man's burden (and perhaps more than our share, we're well aware of our causative role); and doing what little we can to sort out our Grandfather's mistakes.

[/b]

In fact, I don't believe I've said anything about the present generation of Brits at all wrt to sorting out your "Grandfather's mistakes".

All I've done is point out that many of the world's troubles in some spots are directly linkable to British Imperialism. That's it.

I understand there was a worldwide "colonial period" and that it was the "in" thing to do then.

Nonetheless, the results have been problematic at best.

You're spilling your blood (and ours) trying to "free" the Iraqui's; we've been spilling our blood _protecting Catholic_ Irishmen from _Loyalist_ Protestant Irishmen. And spilling it on mainly Soviet weaponry financed by Americans.

Why the hell would we do that? Where's the colonial self interest?

[/b]

I don't deny some Americans gave money to the IRA. I never did, never would. I'm glad the US government finally acted on it.

I sort of understand it though. There's an awful lot of Irish Americans and the "family histories" are not kind when memories of what was lost and treatment received are retold.  There's plenty of hard feeling towards the English in some Irish American circles. Again, though, for those who are challenged: I don't support the IRA, I never did and I think Americans who did were wrong to do so.

Now, why would you protect Catholics in N.I.? Perhaps because if you allowed the N.I. Prods to keep killing N.I. Catholics there'd have been a much larger problem with the IRA because of much more support in the Republic of Ireland? Because it might finally have led to war or something close to it with the Republic of Ireland?

In other words, how long would the rest of the Irish have put up with the N.I. Prods killing Catholics if you'd have done nothing?

(Tips cap; goes back to the plantation; I've a few Irish serfs to whip)

Best have some British Infantry with you I think.  

In London one day, as I walked down the street,
 A quarrelsome fellow I happened to meet,
And, lookin' me over, he gave me some jaw,
Sayin', "What brings ye over from Erin-Go-Bragh?"

Well, the big blackthorn stick that I held in me fist
Around his big body I gave it a twist,
And I silenced his mouth with a blow to the jaw,
And I showed him the game played in Erin-Go-Bragh.

Well, they are all gathered round like a pack of wild geese.
 "So here's our old Paddy disturbin' the peace.
We'll lock him in prison for breakin' the law,
This quarrelsome ruffi'n from Erin-Go-Bragh."

"The devil you'll get me, you pack of shelawns,
For here comes Mike Brophy from valley Natlong,
And me mother's first cousin, McQuay from Fort Law,
And big Paddy Kelly from Erin-Go-Bragh."

Well, the lickin' we gave 'em was delightful to see,
And, oh, how we waved our shillelaghs with glee,
As we lathered them well and we laughed at them long,
And we showed 'em the game played in Erin-Go-Bragh,
And we showed 'em the game played in Erin-Go-Bragh."

(Tips cap, wishes you luck whipping the serfs)

[AKH]

Originally posted by Toad
Somalia? Yes.
Uganda? Yes.

Dismounts.  How should we have done it?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding
Toad, your anachronistic analysis of the British treatment of Ireland continues unabated I see.

[/b]

There are a lot of anachronistic things that continued unabated during the British occupation of Ireland.

Originally posted by Dowding
I assume your qualified condemnation of the IRA does also.

[/b]

You assume a lot of things. You know where that leads, don't you?

Please post any quote you can find showing me "qualifying" a condemnation of the IRA.

Oppression of Catholics in Britain has to be put into context.

[/b]

Of course! Putting it in "context" makes it right!

How's this for context: It wasn't until 1829 the Catholic Emancipation Act was put through parliament.

From 1727 until 1793, Catholics could not vote.

From 1793 to 1829, all who met the forty-shilling qualification, Catholic and Protestant, were entitled to vote.

The Catholic emancipation in 1829 came with a catch; the basic qualification for voting was raised to ten pounds. The electorate in Ireland, roughly 200,000, fell by 80%.

Legislation in 1884 created a uniform qualification to vote that was everywhere the same and included most adult males.

1884! You mentioned "anacrhonistic"?

 

The view from the saddle must be pretty spectacular, Toad. We all know America has no 'secret history' and not a blemish on its moral record...

[/b]

Attack me if it makes you feel better, Dowding. Attack the messenger, not the message.

See anywhere in either thread that I've said the US doesn't have some pretty sorry parts in it's historical record? No, I didn't think you did. Don't blame you for trying to change the subject though.

Some of us have the moral fibre to recognise our country's failings and historical wrongs... others just excuse them and call it patriotism.

Yep. We have both types in the US and you have both types in Great Britain.

Which type are you?

[Toad]

Originally posted by AKH
Dismounts.  How should we have done it?

Easiest way to get down from riding a tiger is ...........


............. never ride a tiger.


How should you have done it? Specifics for each problem country?

It'd take more research and writing than I'm prepared to do.

In general though, I'd say it should have been started far earlier (of course imperialism was probably still too profitable to give up when it should have been done), done a lot more slowly (the rush out of India as an example) and done with more consideration of how things were before the British took up the white man's burden in those lands (the drawing of the map boundaries of Iraq perhaps?).

It's always very difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, isn't it?

[AKH]

Originally posted by Toad
Easiest way to get down from riding a tiger is ...........


............. never ride a tiger.


How should you have done it? Specifics for each problem country?

It'd take more research and writing than I'm prepared to do.

In general though, I'd say it should have been started far earlier (of course imperialism was probably still too profitable to give up when it should have been done), done a lot more slowly (the rush out of India as an example) and done with more consideration of how things were before the British took up the white man's burden in those lands (the drawing of the map boundaries of Iraq perhaps?).

It's always very difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, isn't it?

Grabbing a tiger by the tail has similar results to riding one.  I'd have thought you would have realised that after Vietnam.

So I put it to you: How long will you be in Iraq before you are confident that freedom and democracy can survive longer than in Somalia and Uganda?

Its very easy to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.  On the other hand, it is impossible to resurrect the dead.

[Toad]

Yep. Those Saddam killed will never be resurrected.

How long? I don't know. No one does. The merging of the the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia into one country ensured problems, don't you think?

As one history of Iraq states:

The current borders of Iraq and most Middle Eastern nations, such as Syria and Palestine/Israel, were drawn by the conquering Europeans, often with little regard to the preferences of the people who were to live in these newly created nations.

I guessed Afghanistan at about 5 years. I think we'll be pretty much out of there in something close to that. There may still be bases and support units (we're building them a huge hospital right now; I here we'll man it for them until the get enough medical personnnel trained), but we'll be essentially out in around that time I think.

Iraq? Probably longer now because of the Iranian nuke situation. Earlier I'd have said about 5 -7 years. Now I have this feeling we're going to try for a major military presence due to Iran.

I'm just speculating though.

How long do you think? How long will the Brits stay?