freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 5:38pm:


Here we see a typical example of what is referred to as "cherry picking" where FD has chosen to respond to the first sentence in a paragraph and ignore the second which clarifies what I had said in the first.

This of course robs it of context and allows the critic to try and appear far smarter than he actually is.  FD, increasingly you're looking desperate and even worse, pathetic.  It's not a good look.   

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:


They acquired much of their land through stealth or quasi-legal means - but so what? Ancient Athens acquired an empire from an alliance that was recognised as legitimate throughout the whole of Greece, and which all the members had willingly joined. But no one makes the claim that the Athenian empire wasn't an empire once they took control of the league. Both powers ruled their empires with an iron fist and there was never any doubt who was the sovereign power of the territories. That is imperialism - plain and simple.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:


Not until well into the 20th century. The colonies were let go go gradually and smoothly at the same time the empire was growing - but only because they were fellow whites who could be dealt with as fellow gentlemen. , Black Africans, arabs and asians though were treated with typical European contempt; they were there to be conquered, and any attempts at independent development was brutally suppressed - as in the case of the Indian revolt, the boxer rebellion, the zulu wars, the annexation of Egypt etc etc. As I said, more than twice the number of people killed in the American revolutionary war were slaughtered by a British led imperial force when the Chinese attempted to take back control of their economic development. And that was just one of the many wars fought by the British to maintain control of their empire during the 19th century. So much for your claim that British imperialism was "comparatively" more peaceful after the American war.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 4:06pm:


I point to the fact that it wasn't merely "still happening", at the same time, but that it had been massively ramped up. While you have clearly backtracked throughout this discussion (from the empire had "dissolved" some time in the early 1800s, to merely being in its last throws), but still you are way off track. You have still yet to counter the fact that far from being in some kind of transitory state, or in its last throws when Britain was prospering in the capitalist system, British imperialism was in the midst of the greatest imperial expansion and prosperity it had ever seen. Hence the term "British Imperial Century. Until you address this adequately, rather than just making vague unsubstantiated claims about 'the transition was messy' or 'free trade was being discussed' etc, you don't have a leg to stand on.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:


It was not colonialism, we've been through this. It was militant expansionism - alive and well throughout the 19th century. Ask the zulus or Sudanese ffs 

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 3:35pm:


Try harder, and this time address it with an actual argument.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:


FD you choose to cherry pick and place emphasis upon a single sentence.

Increasingly your tactics are obviously dishonest.   

Sorry I didn't have anything to add but I felt compelled to post anyway.

freediver wrote on Oct 26^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:


So Britain's empire didn't consist of its geographical neighbours - therefore it wasn't imperialism? Is that your argument? 

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 8:41am:


Not making much progress are we FD? Once again, to make your case you need to present an actual argument.

Please try again. You can start by explaining to me how the militant expansionism through far east Asia, central asia, and a huge chunk of Africa by the British represents an ending of imperialism - even when that phase of expansion was the most aggressive and most expansive Britain, indeed the world had ever seen. Ever.

By the way, saying its not imperialism because the conquered territories were not Britain's neighbours is not an argument.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 10:29am:


I confess it is difficult to keep track of an argument that goes from saying the British empire "dissolved" 100 years before WWII, to saying actually, it was in a state of transition/last throws during that time - even though in reality, British imperialism was being ramped up to its greatest intensity ever, and is popularly known as the "British Imperial Century".

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 10:29am:


Why is it so difficult to comprehend the very simple concept that free trade and imperialism goes hand in hand? What we saw in Europe at the time was a mutually beneficial arrangement whereby they colluded with each other in conquering and exploiting the vast territories in the new worlds, and shared the spoils with each other via free trade in Europe. We saw this collusion in practice when virtually all the imperial powers joined forces to crush the Chines boxer rebellion - after they dared to assert their own economic independence.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 10:29am:


Another point you stubbornly refuse to look at the actual historical evidence. When did Britain yield its territory? Apart from the traditional colonies - which were incorporated into the European market anyway - I can think of not a single British holding that was relinquished until the free market/capitalist system that fostered its acquisition and maintenance, effectively collapsed as a result of the free trade nations turning on each other. Or in other words, what territories of the British empire were yielded before WWI? What examples are there of Britain yielding territory of their empire primarily as a result of willingly transitioning to a free trade arrangement within a thriving capitalist system - as opposed to yielding them as a result of a near collapse of their prosperity in the capitalist system as a result of WWI and WWII? I can think of none. The reality is that the only thing that Britain did with its empire while it thrived within the capitalist system, was to aggressively expand it, and assert more and more control over the territory it already held - ie India, which during the 19th century, went from a corporate entity, to British sovereign territory.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2013 at 10:29am:


Like I keep saying - saying that British imperialism was declining because it was quite successful at acquiring new territory with remarkably little military or economic cost to itself - is not an argument. It is an argument for saying Britain was remarkably successful at acquiring an empire at very little military and economic cost. Thats not to say the expansion wasn't violent. Yet when you pit rifles against spears - as was the case in most of their conquest of Africa - the results are going to be somewhat lobsided. The British were incredibly violent in conquering independent economic movements in India, Africa and China - violence that was many times the scale of the American war of independence, as already pointed out. Put simply, they had the best of both worlds - imperially speaking - they could conquer whatever they wanted almost at will, and conceded virtually no economic or political concessions to the natives - at minimal cost to their own economy and military forces.

In short, British imperialism was remarkably efficient - but it was still imperialism.