Should We Be Proud Of The British Empire?, Your views.. Options

[RedRevolver]

Should we feel proud? No, not at all. Proud would be to not feel ashamed of the way we tried to completely rearrange the religion and morality of cultures that were different to ours, to not be ashamed of enslaving and discriminating against several races of people, to not be ashamed of the largely negative impact of the Empire that still resonates today.

However, we should definitely not forget the British empire, or believe that Britain should not have a standing in today's world because of it.

[S Batchelor]

Should we feel proud? No, not at all. Proud would be to not feel ashamed of the way we tried to completely rearrange the religion and morality of cultures that were different to ours, to not be ashamed of enslaving and discriminating against several races of people, to not be ashamed of the largely negative impact of the Empire that still resonates today.

However, we should definitely not forget the British empire, or believe that Britain should not have a standing in today's world because of it.

In all honesty, you have the right of the British Empire in many respects, the missionary movement was a cultural imposer, trying to teach colonial citizens how to be 'civilised'. We certainly did discriminate against several races of the Empire. However, it is worthwhile to take exception to the idea that firstly the British Empire enslaved it's population, and that it had an overall negative impact today. Unfortunately many of the myriad positive benefits of the Empire we have today our so intrinsic to our existence that we cannot but help taking them for granted, and when trying to evaluate whether the Empire was a 'good thing', we completely forget about them.

Firstly, slavery. Yes, the British Empire (henceforth referred to as BE) did partake in the slave trade, as did every other european world power. However, the african triangle trade would not have been even remotely feasible had the African tribal chiefs not been willing to sell their people into slavery. They suffered a huge surprise when the Royal Navy started to blockade the slave trade, because they saw it as central to their own economies. Which neatly brings me onto the second part of slavery: we were one of the first countries to ban it, and certainly the country most active in trying to prevent it. Due to the Royal Navy's intereference the number of slaves transported to the Americas dropped sharply, and when we bullied the other European powers, Spain and France, into dropping Slavery too the number of slaves transported dropped again. Rather intriguely it was our former colony of the US that was the most difficult to try and stop partaking in slavery, perhaps if they had never gained their independence then the shameful profiteering of slavery might have ended the world over some 40 years earlier.

Secondly: It is and always be utterly fallacious to argue that the Empire was a negative thing. Firstly, of the effect it has on the world today: of 50 odd countries once part of the Empire, 26 are now Parliamentary democracies; the benefits of liberal capitalism are still all around us; English is the first language of over 350 million people, and the second language of more than 400 million people. Never has there been a more uniting force than that of the Empire, we created the modern idea of India, before it was seperated out into minor principates, and today it is on the cusp of becoming a super power. I defy you to name one other country that has done more for the World than Britain, the years of the BE were the most peaceful and economically prosperous in all human history. Secondly, WW1 and WW2. We would have not been able to win either of those Wars without the BE. This is especially relevant for WW2, when Hitler offered allowing Germany to have European Hegemony in exchange for the continuation and expansion of the BE. We gave up our Empire in order that the Japanese, Germans and Italians could not have theirs; a noble sacrifice I believe, and no more so when you consider that for all the faults of the BE it was a thousand time less racist and more liberal than a German, Italian and Japenese Empire would have been.

Overall I believe that the BE was a fundamentally good thing, and it would damn nice if the school syllabus was less obsessed with teaching students to be ashamed for our roots and instead showed them that we did good with the BE.

[MrJohnDClare]

Overall I believe that the BE was a fundamentally good thing, and it would damn nice if the school syllabus was less obsessed with teaching students to be ashamed for our roots and instead showed them that we did good with the BE.

Thank you for your contribution, which was erudite and lucid.
However, I must challenge you on this final statement, which threatens to stereotype both History teachers and History teaching. Most teachers nowadays are concerned to help the pupils to a reasoned, balanced judgement.

As for the National Curriculum, I think it is concerned to help all pupils to appreciate their roots. However, we have to understand that there are very many pupils today who do not see those roots as being white British; and it is important that ALL children, of whatever ethnic background, are enabled to enjoy history from their own standpoint.
A black pupil, whose ancestors were taken as slaves to the Caribbean, and whose immigrant grandparents suffered discrimination despite being Empire citizens, might have a very different 'take' on issues like the abolition of slavery and the 'good' of the Empire.

[S Batchelor]

When you consider that the population of England is 92% British White, and the same can be said for the proportion of students in the UK, surely we owe more to the majority of students than to simply teach a different and not entirely factual version of history in order to not offend the sensibilities of the few? A black pupil could instead by shown that despite the British promotion of the Slave Trade, it was also the promoter of abolitionism across the world; and that despite being of original African descent they have as much claim on the better parts of the Empire as heritage, that they too can be proud of even British White victories over African tribesmen, as being British now transcends ethnicity and is quite simply a cultural thing. What I'm trying to say is History should be taught so that a White student can feel as much shame over the acts of slavery as a black pupil. They will only respond differently if you treat them differently.

[MrJohnDClare]

I absolutely agree with much of what you are saying.

I agree with your statement:

A black pupil could instead be shown that despite the British promotion of the Slave Trade, it was also the promoter of abolitionism across the world

although I think you will find that in most classrooms teachers not only teach this, but they also show the role that black Britons played in helping to achieve abolition; abolition was not a favour bestowed by white Britons upon the black slaves.

I also agree very much with your brilliant point that

[a pupil] of original African descent [can] have as much claim on the better parts of the Empire as heritage ... as being British now transcends ethnicity and is quite simply a cultural thing.

and I am impressed by the sentiment that

History should be taught so that a White student can feel as much shame over the acts of slavery as a black pupil

What I would dare to challenge, however, is the preassumptions behind your phrase: 'despite being of original African descent' which is pejorative in tone (one must be SO VERY careful with langaue)

and also I wonder how or why we 'can be proud of even British White victories over African tribesmen'?
I am not closed to being persuaded, but I would personally feel that the actual victories, their motivation and methods were often things of which we ought to be ashamed.
It was afterwards, as rulers, that the British did some of the things of which I would suggest we canfeel genuinely proud.

What do you reckon?

[08ratsmae]

i think we should as we live in England,
england has made msitakes but so has everybody i think we should forgive them as things like this do not happen any more
(although i do find it interesting!!)

[Marx]

When you consider that the population of England is 92% British White, and the same can be said for the proportion of students in the UK, surely we owe more to the majority of students than to simply teach a different and not entirely factual version of history in order to not offend the sensibilities of the few?

If we teach a not entirely factual version of history, doesn't this lead us open to then deciding "We'll now only teach the events that Britain looked good in." and then maybe to "We'll only teach what our government finds correct" 1984 style . Why should we be ignorant and deceitful for the 92% ? Although the history books are only written by the winners of conflict, does hoping to prevent embarrasment make it right to lie ? Would it not be right to teach history as the winner wrote it, rather than alter history as and when we please ?

[Cyfer]

As for the National Curriculum, I think it is concerned to help all pupils to appreciate their roots. However, we have to understand that there are very many pupils today who do not see those roots as being white British; and it is important that ALL children, of whatever ethnic background, are enabled to enjoy history from their own standpoint.
A black pupil, whose ancestors were taken as slaves to the Caribbean, and whose immigrant grandparents suffered discrimination despite being Empire citizens, might have a very different 'take' on issues like the abolition of slavery and the 'good' of the Empire.

I agree with you on the point that all cultures should 'enjoy' history although our teacher has made this so one sided it's unbelievable! Reading your comments on the sterotypical teacher make me livid. Is just our teacher different? The only work she set us that shows black people also took a vital role in the abolition was 'extension', which only me and my friend managed to get to. Now it's the same with the Industrial Revolution. She has not even mentioned the standard of living debate and the optimist's point of view which i would strongly argue for.
You already know that i do not care much about feelings and ethnics although this is not my only mentality for saying that we should be taught both sides of the story! Not having to go do extra research by ourselves which I'm sure no one does unless our teacher sets a research homework.

When you consider that the population of England is 92% British White, and the same can be said for the proportion of students in the UK, surely we owe more to the majority of students than to simply teach a different and not entirely factual version of history in order to not offend the sensibilities of the few? A black pupil could instead by shown that despite the British promotion of the Slave Trade, it was also the promoter of abolitionism across the world; and that despite being of original African descent they have as much claim on the better parts of the Empire as heritage, that they too can be proud of even British White victories over African tribesmen, as being British now transcends ethnicity and is quite simply a cultural thing. What I'm trying to say is History should be taught so that a White student can feel as much shame over the acts of slavery as a black pupil. They will only respond differently if you treat them differently.

I agree with this but in a rather abstract way. I'm also not of British decent and we've been taught about how Britain opposed my culture/country. Just because someone is of different colour does that give them special privileges? No. If teachers can talk about the destruction of other cultures but not those from the Carribean or Africa than opinion is pointless.

I absolutely agree with much of what you are saying.

I agree with your statement:

A black pupil could instead be shown that despite the British promotion of the Slave Trade, it was also the promoter of abolitionism across the world

although I think you will find that in most classrooms teachers not only teach this, but they also show the role that black Britons played in helping to achieve abolition; abolition was not a favour bestowed by white Britons upon the black slaves.

I also agree very much with your brilliant point that

[a pupil] of original African descent [can] have as much claim on the better parts of the Empire as heritage ... as being British now transcends ethnicity and is quite simply a cultural thing.

As i said before. Our teacher only set this side of the argument as extension. I'm actually quite disappointed with my teacher this year, the teacher i had last year was amazing but she left.

History should be taught so that a White student can feel as much shame over the acts of slavery as a black pupil

What I would dare to challenge, however, is the preassumptions behind your phrase: 'despite being of original African descent' which is pejorative in tone (one must be SO VERY careful with langaue)

and also I wonder how or why we 'can be proud of even British White victories over African tribesmen'?
I am not closed to being persuaded, but I would personally feel that the actual victories, their motivation and methods were often things of which we ought to be ashamed.
It was afterwards, as rulers, that the British did some of the things of which I would suggest we canfeel genuinely proud.

What do you reckon?

I agree with this. The crude ways which they created over that period of time should not be pride worthy in any way. Neither should the African tribe cheif's willingness to sell his people be.
Neither do i believe should we be proud of ending our slave trade first. We started it first. And society was bound to bring it down one day. We should, though be proud of how we 'bullied' (as a person put it so well ^^) other countries into stopping the slave trade.


~Cyfer

[MrJohnDClare]

If you are interested in this topic, there is a very lively and occasionally heated discussion on YouTube here.

[Cyfer]

interesting but it doesn't really address a point that I've been thinking over for... the last 5 mins.


So the 'best' empire. Let's consider our options.

Can't include the first human migration to countries.

Roman Empire
Byzantine Empire
Ottoman Empire
Chinese Empire
Mongolian Empire
Aztec Empire
British Empire


I'll start in an easy way.
The Aztec empire cannot be accounted for since half the people in the world would skin my ass if I considered them since they only used fear to rule, and there was no one else in the empire. Many uprising etc...

Ottoman + Byzantine both were very successful empires but they existed for such a short time that I cannot consider them.

Chinese Empire. One of my favourite. They controlled most of Asia through cunning and politics, mixing up other countries into tribes and keeping them separated, using organized events to stage lots of mini civil wars and therefore controlled the land with others not knowing of this.

Roman Empire. Arguably the best along with the British Empire. Both created things far beyond the capabilities of the world so far but it had only one nation with, at the time it created these things, much smaller land mass than Britain, with much, much less people than Britain. So the invention of these ideas are worth alot more until you account for the majority of worker's literacy rate and education in times of the Industrial revolution and how large a population Britain had. With these factors in mind I cannot separate which is better in terms of advancement and Rome eventually had more land mass than Britain so I put it in a higher ranking.

Mongolian Empire. Invented nothing. Basically rised due to one person so nothing in technology. Also although they did create amazing tactics and organization so did the Romans and even though the Mongols had a larger scale of organization, It didn't really matter with the same system. They controlled roughly a mass twice as big as the Roman Empire and 4 times as big as the English one. Now I know someone will come up of the witty answer that they controlled the desert which is just an empty space and easy to control. Well, I would like to see a single Roman or English army marching through half the world as a single unit (yes they did get separated in the late middle life of Genghis Khan). They destroyed so many incredible forces that arguments like these, in my opinion are not valid. E.g. the Romans had the largest army but until they got it. Who was there to oppose them? The land was basically scot free until they got a stable society.

I conclude that the Roman empire is the best in my opinion. Hopefully you can see why from my point of view in these nearly indiscernable ramblings