mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/24/83)
... And when did the English ever leave a colony
except after a protracted colonial war? Eisenhower knew just as the Egyptians
knew that once established the English would never leave.
....
And how did the English ALWAYS gain a foothold in some new colony?
First they send in a "private trading company", then they provoke an incident
and claim that THEY HAVE BEEN WRONGED! Next the British military is sent in
to "protect the lives of British subjects". The inhabitants resist the
invasion and that is the justification for the conquest of the entire country
because the British army cannot rest until it's stamped out the last vestige of
resistance. If you think this applies only to backward nations or "heathens"
then look at South Africa where Dutch-African civilians were placed in
concentration camps at the turn of the century before Germany ever thought of
such a thing!
=======================
There is some truth in what this long article says, but some
misinformation as well. Personally, I don't like Empires of any kind,
British or otherwise. What I also don't like is USAmericans arguing
for the purity of their foreign policies against the perfidy of the
English. There seems to be a lot in common among the methods used by
both in establishing and maintaining their empires. The last-quoted
paragraph could be a description of US policy, except for the name
of the Boers.
As for the British leaving colonies without colonial wars, one of
the things that makes me proud of my English background is that
Britain is one of the few colonial powers that HAS left most of
its colonies freely and without conflict, and which HAS been invited
to help the newly independent countries to stand on their own feet.
Of course, you can come up with several counter-examples, but notice
that the Commonwealth Conference still goes on regularly, with Britain
as a welcome (usually) member of the 40-nation group. As far as I can
remember, the only countries to opt out of the Commonwealth after
becoming independent have been Eire and South Africa. You might add
Egypt, but Egypt never was a full colony of Britain, so it
probably shouldn't be counted.
You and a previous contributor mentioned the Falklands. I have
serious doubts about the wisdom of that War (except for Thatcher's
political wisdom), but none about its justice. Argentina had no
claim on the islands except for having successfully invaded them
and held them for a few weeks or months 150 years ago or so. The
people on the islands are British and always have been. Did the
Argentine invaders land to popular acclaim? The problem had been
that Britain had been trying to find a way of GIVING the Falklands
to Argentina in a way that the population would accept. Galtieri
needed a macho stunt to bolster his popularity at home. Unfortunately
for him, Thatcher was more macho.
If there are any people with real historical knowledge out there,
I have a question about the nature of nations and Empires:
Is there any example in the history of the world of an independent
nation that had substantially greater power than its neighbours
(or other accessible countries) that has not tried to direct or
govern them in some way? In other words, has any government that
had the chance ever refused the temptation of imperialism?
I can't think of any.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt