Crosswords2 mins ago
Colonial Crime Records Destroyed
33 Answers
I think it's fair to say that the British Empire (and colonialism generally) can be something of a political hot potatoe in this country, so I'd be interested to hear the responses of ABers to the (somewhat unsurprising) revelation of new evidence suggesting that British governments within living memory have been involved in destroying 'embarrassing' material:
http://www.guardian.c...-crimes?newsfeed=true
It's often said that we should stop guilt-tripping ourselves about the British Empire and its excesses. Personally, I agree. But surely it's extremely difficult to understand the modern world as it is without understanding the impact of European imperialism? If you accept this, then in turn it seems pretty vital to understanding imperialism accurately - in which case falsifying the historical record looks pretty dire.
With that in mind, is this something we should care about? Or should we just shrug our shoulders and accept that all governments do?
http://www.guardian.c...-crimes?newsfeed=true
It's often said that we should stop guilt-tripping ourselves about the British Empire and its excesses. Personally, I agree. But surely it's extremely difficult to understand the modern world as it is without understanding the impact of European imperialism? If you accept this, then in turn it seems pretty vital to understanding imperialism accurately - in which case falsifying the historical record looks pretty dire.
With that in mind, is this something we should care about? Or should we just shrug our shoulders and accept that all governments do?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
<<Paxman is an anti British New Labour Blairite puppet who probably made the series so he can go round the world finding people who agree with his views>>
Then why did he interview and include people who didn't?
What a stupid comment.
sp is right we should have the honesty and guts to look at these thigs in totality..e.g. Kenya
Truth - Britain did lots of good things during the colonial period and when you talk to Kenyans today they cite many aspects of life that were better then
Truth - the British administration committed many atrocities during the Kenyan insurgency - far more that were committed by the insurgents although they received all the publicity here and the dishonest now like to play down that fact.
The papers destroyed probably revealed too much about those matters.
The way of the world - the establishment like to hide their embarassments
Then why did he interview and include people who didn't?
What a stupid comment.
sp is right we should have the honesty and guts to look at these thigs in totality..e.g. Kenya
Truth - Britain did lots of good things during the colonial period and when you talk to Kenyans today they cite many aspects of life that were better then
Truth - the British administration committed many atrocities during the Kenyan insurgency - far more that were committed by the insurgents although they received all the publicity here and the dishonest now like to play down that fact.
The papers destroyed probably revealed too much about those matters.
The way of the world - the establishment like to hide their embarassments
For the record, I think I did make clear in the OP that this thread wasn't about 'apologizing' or making compensation for the sins of the past (though if that's what people want to talk about, then fair enough). Personally, I think a more interesting discussion is whether we should care about this at all. I've noticed a lot of people getting very defensive about this, but they don't seem to have read the article's details (and yes, I agree that the Guardian is a biased source but it was the first one I encountered and I didn't have time to look for another.)
The logic behind the destruction and sequestering of these papers (which occurred within living memory) is exactly the same logic motivating the burning of papers in the collapsing Third Reich, albeit in a different context. Given that the image of being a crusader for justice and truth is very important to British national identity, isn't important that we care about this contradiction? Or should we just stick our fingers in our ears and shrug our shoulders because it's inconvenient?
The logic behind the destruction and sequestering of these papers (which occurred within living memory) is exactly the same logic motivating the burning of papers in the collapsing Third Reich, albeit in a different context. Given that the image of being a crusader for justice and truth is very important to British national identity, isn't important that we care about this contradiction? Or should we just stick our fingers in our ears and shrug our shoulders because it's inconvenient?
"It is all a load of nonsense, I suspect the paperwork was destroyed as they realized right-on liberal lefties like the Guardian and its readers would go over the op on it."
Oh, well. That's all right then. I guess we can destroy as much evidence as we like for fear of letting those damn liberals seeing it. Never mind atrocities being committed by British soldiers, nothing matters more than keeping information from the liberals. I'm astounded by this comment.
"How many ordinary people were involved in the days of imperialism, it was mostly our own lords and masters, who held sway not just over dominions and peoples overseas but those on British soil."
It depends what you mean by 'involved', but I think you can make a case for pretty widespread involvement. There's been plenty of research indicating how extensively felt the economic benefits of Empire were - from commodities and materials being imported, to prized trade routes the Empire had generated - that certainly in the later parts of the C19 and during the C20 were extensively enjoyed by the British public.
In addition, there's also the fact that you can't really understand the modern world without understanding colonialism - the history of India and China, for instance, were both extensively changed by the actions of British imperialists. If we want to understand the modern world, we should care about attempts to rewrite history and be wary about the motives behind them.
Oh, well. That's all right then. I guess we can destroy as much evidence as we like for fear of letting those damn liberals seeing it. Never mind atrocities being committed by British soldiers, nothing matters more than keeping information from the liberals. I'm astounded by this comment.
"How many ordinary people were involved in the days of imperialism, it was mostly our own lords and masters, who held sway not just over dominions and peoples overseas but those on British soil."
It depends what you mean by 'involved', but I think you can make a case for pretty widespread involvement. There's been plenty of research indicating how extensively felt the economic benefits of Empire were - from commodities and materials being imported, to prized trade routes the Empire had generated - that certainly in the later parts of the C19 and during the C20 were extensively enjoyed by the British public.
In addition, there's also the fact that you can't really understand the modern world without understanding colonialism - the history of India and China, for instance, were both extensively changed by the actions of British imperialists. If we want to understand the modern world, we should care about attempts to rewrite history and be wary about the motives behind them.
^^
True
And we also need to have a clear view of our current opportunities and the future steps that will benefit us most.
that can only be done with a clear and honest appraissal of our current situation and our recent history
If that is 'post colonial' we need (for our own sake) to have an honest and comprehensive understanding of that experience and what that means.
Hiding aspects of that experience due to 'embarassment' or fear that 'liberals' will 'go on about it' is dangerous, dishonest and frankly, rather pathetic
True
And we also need to have a clear view of our current opportunities and the future steps that will benefit us most.
that can only be done with a clear and honest appraissal of our current situation and our recent history
If that is 'post colonial' we need (for our own sake) to have an honest and comprehensive understanding of that experience and what that means.
Hiding aspects of that experience due to 'embarassment' or fear that 'liberals' will 'go on about it' is dangerous, dishonest and frankly, rather pathetic
Old Git persists in peddling this ill informed nonsense
<<A point in question was in the recent documentary on the British Empire, an Indian woman when asked by Jeremy Paxman, "was the Empire good for India"?
When the woman replied "the British did a lot of good for India", Paxman nearly swallowed his teeth and replied, "do you know that your answer isn't Political Correct"? >>
As I pointed out to you at the time, Paxman was hardly 'caught out' by this. He and film crew would only have been placed in front of the lady because the programme wanted that element in the programme.
And what he said was correct - her view is 'politically incorrect'.
The programme (via Paxman) was actually presenting your point of view.
ie that the PC dogma on colonialism is not shared by everyone, including people in the ex-colonies.
If Paxman can highlight your POV and still get criticised by you I don't know what you want!
<<A point in question was in the recent documentary on the British Empire, an Indian woman when asked by Jeremy Paxman, "was the Empire good for India"?
When the woman replied "the British did a lot of good for India", Paxman nearly swallowed his teeth and replied, "do you know that your answer isn't Political Correct"? >>
As I pointed out to you at the time, Paxman was hardly 'caught out' by this. He and film crew would only have been placed in front of the lady because the programme wanted that element in the programme.
And what he said was correct - her view is 'politically incorrect'.
The programme (via Paxman) was actually presenting your point of view.
ie that the PC dogma on colonialism is not shared by everyone, including people in the ex-colonies.
If Paxman can highlight your POV and still get criticised by you I don't know what you want!
-- answer removed --
I have answered this twice, once it didn't appear and 2nd I pressed the wrong button...to make it quick.
...'is this something we should care about? Or should we just shrug our shoulders and accept that all governments do?
No, absolutely not, if the Government is not held accountable then we do not live in a democracy.
The wealth of the West is built upon the backs of the third world, the colonies have been raped and plundered of their natural resources to provide us with the comfortable life we live today. That should never be forgotten. And neither should the centuries of Empire and its continuing legacy...think about the Aborigines for example.
The Mau Mau people and others deserve justice for the crimes perpetrated against them. The truth needs to be told even if it is 'embarrassing.'
...'is this something we should care about? Or should we just shrug our shoulders and accept that all governments do?
No, absolutely not, if the Government is not held accountable then we do not live in a democracy.
The wealth of the West is built upon the backs of the third world, the colonies have been raped and plundered of their natural resources to provide us with the comfortable life we live today. That should never be forgotten. And neither should the centuries of Empire and its continuing legacy...think about the Aborigines for example.
The Mau Mau people and others deserve justice for the crimes perpetrated against them. The truth needs to be told even if it is 'embarrassing.'
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.