Quote:


South Africa was granted independence in 1931. The writing was already on the wall in India. I know you think that western capitalism is propped up by the economic midgets of Africa, but the reality was that they were just basket cases that the UK did not know what to do with.

Quote:


Again, would you mind explaining how you get none violence from the losing battle example I started off with?

Quote:


Most of the empire was already gone by WWII. You claimed that WWII caused it's dissolution. I was just highlighting how stupid that is. It started with the American war of independence and was pretty much over by WWII.

Quote:


Yet nearly every point you have made has been wrong. Are you saying we should reject all the evidence and accept your version on faith or something?

Colonialism itself is a symptom of the fall of imperialism.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:56pm:


Not 100 years before WWII. Britain formerly took control of India in the 1850s, and Queen Victoria was crowned Empress of India. Britain then prospered from its spoils for the rest of the century.

Likewise in Africa, Britain really only started to benefit economically from its colonies when rail links started to be established in the late 1800s. It was also during this time that Britain took control of Egypt and with it, the strategically critical Suez Canal. The period between the end of the Napoleonic wars and WWI was the height of the British Empire, and even though it started to decline after WWI, it certainly didn't dissapear until after WWII. Thus making a mockery of your claim that the British empire was "dissolved" a century before WWII.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:56pm:


I have no idea what that means. I was responding to your statement:
Quote:


In fact history shows that most of the violence against British rule was non-muslim - as the examples I cited. There were many key British colonies in muslim areas that saw no muslim violence against them - Malaya (the muslims even helped the British suppress the Chinese communists), Palestine (violence against the British was Jewish), Egypt and Aden (Modern day Yemen). Muslims were overwhelmingly loyal to their British masters - for example 10s of thousands of Indian muslims fought for Britain in WWI and WWII. Your statement cannot be described in any other way but sheer bigotry.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:56pm:


Britain still had a massive worldwide empire just before WWII - including the "jewel of the crown" India. That WWII devastated the British economy cannot be denied. That this devastation made it that much harder for Britain to hold on to its (declining) empire cannot be denied either. Its almost certain that had it not been for WWII, Britain would have kept its empire for a lot longer than it did. You may be right that WWII may not have caused its dissolution, but it certainly hastened it. But the point is neither here nor there, all this demonstrates is that you have shifted from your original position that the British empire "dissolved" a century before WWII - to arguing that merely "the writing was on the wall" for its dissolution at the time of WWII. Obviously it had not "dissolved" by any stretch of the imagination - until well after WWII.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:56pm:


Says the guy who has stated in this thread:

1. The British empire "dissolved" a century before WWII - ie when the empire was just reaching its peak

2. All muslims were violent to British occupation

3. Non-muslim occupation was "comparitively peaceful" (when in reality most of the violence against British occupation was non-muslim)

4. Britain only started to prosper after they started dismantling the empire and setting up free trade with its previous colonies - when in fact British prosperity peaked during the "British imperial century" - when coincidentally, the British empire was at its peak.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:56pm:


*FACEPALM*

This "evidence" thing must be some extraordinary magical stuff that can prove a contradiction. Say like prove that the British empire "dissolved" a century before WWII, while at the same time during WWII, it was merely a case of "writing was on the wall" for a still as-yet non-dissolved empire. It can also prove things that have no basis in historical fact - like that most of the violence to British rule, after the loss of America, was by muslims - and that *ALL* muslims in British colonies were violent. Can you show me some of this wondrous "evidence" stuff FD? I want to try some.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 8:56pm:


Oh I see, so colonialism is not really imperialism. Is it like a Claytons imperialism? The imperialism you have when you don't have imperialism?

Let me rephrase:  Either way, I think we can see how absurd the claim that capitalism caused the death of imperialism is.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:39pm:


Firstly, wrong. The loss of America preceded the most aggressive period of British imperialism in the 19th century - it was not the start of a long and steady decline. The loss of America happened before taking full control of India, before the great railway expansions in Africa (and associated land grabs, including Rhodesia), before taking control of Egypt and the Suez, and before Singapore, Hong Kong etc.

Secondly, "being mindful of the potential benefits of long term trade with people who at the time considered them an enemy" (a completely baseless claim by the way) does not equal "dissolving" their empire. The British empire wasn't even in decline 100 years before WWII - let alone "dissolved" as you claimed.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:39pm:


Oh I'm sorry, did I misinterpret the statement "Obviously the Muslims were all violent"? Here's your chance to explain how this is not a completely bigoted and baseless statement. Were the Malay muslims "all violent" towards British occupation? Were the Egyptians "all violent" towards British occupation? Palestinians? Yemenese?

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:39pm:


We were both talking about after the American war of independence, I made that clear. Your whole theme is about the loving and harmonious relationship Britain had with its colonies, which enabled a seamless transition from occupation to gentlemanly trade. That resulted in the bigoted and wholly baseless claim that British colonies were fine - as long as they were not muslim:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 10:17am:


Nice little qualifier "comparitively [sic]" - which as I keep pointing out is rubbish anyway. Non-muslims were not "comparatively peaceful" towards British rule at all. I have already demonstrated this. You are so busy nitpicking over words, that you don't even see the point that I am calling bigoted and baseless - namely that after the American war of independence, *ALL* muslims were violent towards British imperialism, and that non-muslims were peaceful in comparison. Complete and utter trash on both counts. 

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:39pm:


No, what you actually said. Here it is again:

Quote:


1. completely historically wrong and 2. bigoted

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:39pm:


No one is disputing that, but not a century before WWII, and it had certainly not "dissolved" by then - let alone 100 years earlier.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:39pm:


They did - during the late 18th century and most of the 19th century - when the prosperity of both imperialism and capitalism in Europe went hand in hand. But the system tends to break down when fellow capitalists stop trading with each other and turn on each other - which is what happened during the world wars. You on the other hand attempt to fly in the face of actual historical fact and say that imperialism was declining when the capitalist system was rising.

freediver wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2013 at 12:39pm:


My point is that they didn't have an iron fist after WWII. They didn't have the economic power, nor the political will to hold on to its territories. France tried it in both Indochina and Algeria, but they were decimated militarily in both cases. Obviously you need some sort of economic strength to maintain an empire that covers close to half the globe - which Britain lost, not because of the cost of holding that empire, but because of a devastating war between fellow capitalist powers. Thus when Britain was faced with violent resistance by those "comparatively peaceful" non-muslim occupied territories in places like Palestine, Kenya, Cyprus etc, Britain didn't have the strength to quash them.

Quote:


So the American war of independence was not aggressive? Or was less aggressive?

Quote:


It was the start. By WWII, it was mostly over.

Quote:


Yes. You seem to have gotten it into your head that I said they were the only violent ones. You were too busy pontificating to even notice all my attempts to correct you. You have made about half a dozen similarly absurd misinterpretations.

Quote:


No. It is that capitalism replaced the traditional strategy of economic growth by militant expansionism. It allowed Great Britain to dismantle it's empire without collapse (as has tended to happen in the past). At the time there was active discussion about the merits of the two strategies and there was conscious, deliberate consideration given to maintaining trade relations despite the souring political relations. None of this is a denial of those souring relations. That was entirely your invention.

Quote:


Another of your fanciful inventions. Please stick to what I actually say.

Quote:


Another invention on your part. Even when you quote my words you cannot see them for what they are.

Quote:


Compared to the American civil war they were. Ghandi is a great example. Had the British emulated the approach of past empire builders like Muhammed, they would have simply slaughtered Ghandi and anyone else who stood in their way.

Quote:
 

I am not nitpicking over words. I am sticking to the same simple point I made since entering into this thread - while you dance around inventing arguments on my behalf.

Quote:


What are you saying? That free trade somehow depends on free trade? Genius.

Quote:


Nor did they before WWII. They had already granted a self governance of sorts in 1935, following Ghandi's successes.

Quote:


LOL. You chop and change at the drop of a hat.

Quote:


Quote:


True, I was making a point about the changing attitudes towards capitalism and free trade, and how it represented a different approach to the traditional one of militant expansionism.

Quote:


Except of course that it happened at the same time and there was active debate and a conscious choice between them.

That does not mean that it happened overnight and the Queen announced that the age of imperialism was over, to be replace with free trade between independent nations.

Quote:


1 down. About half a dozen more to go. Are you deliberately making this as tiresome as possible?

Quote:


No.

Quote:


That was a reference to the American war of independence. All the later conflicts Britain had with it's own territories were more peaceful. I am not saying it was a "love-in" or backpeddaling on a technicality. I chose those words very deliberately.

Quote:


Does our argument sound like this?

Gandalf: Imperialims finished in the 1400's

Freediver: Capitalism started in the 1800s

Quote:


No it isn't. I pointed out at ages ago that the colonialism you hold up as an example is itself a symptom of the end of imperialism.

Quote:


Except that it was nothing at all like classic imperialism. They did not invade a single neighbour. They let a private company run India.  One by one they let go of nearly every piece of territory with barely a fight (by the standards of classic imperialism). It was a messy transition, at best. It was the last vestiges of imperialism played out at the ends of the earth in an opportunistic manner, while the transition to capitalism over Imperialism had already happened in Europe and North America and gradually followed to the rest of the world.

You point to the fact that both were still happening (free trade, colonialism) and falsely conclude that one relied on the other. The reality is merely that the transition was not a clean-cut affair.

Quote:


Hitler's expansionism was aggressive old-style military expansionism. The British example is almost unique.

Quote:


You are the one who is over-simplifying things. The simple thought bubble is entirely yours.

Quote:


Earth to Brian: Britain is in Europe, not Africa.

Well done Brian. You have completely inverted the concept of logic. You cite examples that demonstrate exactly what I have been saying, then insist they somehow contradict me. It's like 99% of this argument went straight over your head, but you recognised one or two words and insisted on butting in anyway.