A Long Way

Scotland - the not quite so little part in the north of the United Kingdom. To some extend a mysterious country with its moors, mountains, incredible landscapes and legends. Since the beginning of the 18th century it has been legally and therefore officially been a part of the United Kingdom and therefore also of the British Empire. The Scottish fights and claims for independence have, unlike other parts of the British Empire, not yet led to the countries independence from Westminster and England, although they were often quite close.
Still Scotland played a very big role in the Empire and the United Kingdom. Today a lot of money (and oil) go from Scotland to England, which is also a great cause for debate ("It's Scotland's oil!"). During the time of the Empire Glasgow, today the largest city in Scotland even before Edinburgh, was called "Second City of the Empire" (after London) which shows the importance of Scotland during the Empire.
Scotland did not only contribute its money so to say to the Empire but their soldiers also. As it is stated on educationscotland.gov.uk "Highland regiments fought with pride in campaigns in India, Africa and Afghanistan, commanded by Scottish generals. Between 1885 and 1939, one third of colonial governors were Scots." This also shows again how the high numbers of dead Scottish soldiers came about.
Also many educated Scots spread far across the Empire to work as a missionary, doctor etc. The first official Prime Minister of Canada was in fact a Scot: Sir John MacDonald who had been born in Glasgow.


sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/makingindustrialurban/empire/index.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland

The title I chose for this post is a quote from the Article by Robin Neillands, the one I wrote in my last post about.
He said that Amritsar was a horrible incident in the history of the British Empire but that only a few people can think of another such incident.
I didn't have to look too hard to find another incident.
It wasn't a mass-shooting like at Amritsar but it was no less horrible and inexcusable: How the British behaved during the Boer War(s)
In order to weaken the Boers the British destroyed farms and crops systematically, slaughtered the farmer's livestock, poisoned their wells and salted their fields (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes)
Neillands said in his article that "On the whole the British left their Empire well and ruled wisely while it existed". I don't see how poisoning of wells and ruining other peoples opportunity to farm land is wise and well ruling.
Also the British did more than just the things listed above.
Against common believe it weren't the National Socialists and Hitler who invented the concentration camps in the middle of the 20th century. The British made this questionable invention at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century.
Initially they were intended to be used as refugee camps. There were 45 tented camps for the Boers (Dutch and Africaans word für farmer) and another 64 for black Africans.
Defensless women and children were brought forcefully into these camps on "open cattle trucks in freezing rain during winter". They were not given enough food or water.
"Of the 107,000 people interned in the camps, 27,927 Boers died along with an unknown number of black Africans."
In total 26,000 Boers, mostly women and children, died in these camps. They had commited no crimes for which they could have been held there as prisoners.
I think when people talk about the British Empire in a glorifying way they really miss out on the many things that were not all sunny and sweet about it.
Killing nearly 30,000 innocent people (by letting them starve, freeze etc.) is not to be overlooked and I think the way many people still glorify the British Empire Needs a very big change.





sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment

In this post I will reflect on a text we read at university for a British Studies class on the Empire. It is called 'A fighting Retreat - The British Empire 1947 - 1997' by Robin Neillands, from which we read a few extracts.
The first thing that struck me was that Neillands wrote "On the whole the British left their Empire well and ruled wisely while it existed." This, in my opinion, is the perfect example for the sugar-coated view. The next line is "This view is not always popular. There has been a certain amount of premature criticism from people tending to the view that the British Empire is something the British people should be ashamed of. There is little evidence to support that opinion." I think that this is not right. You just have to take a history book and flip open the page were it is listed how many soldiers from British colonies died during the world wars. These soldiers probably would never even have fought in these wars if it hadn't been for the British. Amritsar and slave trade are two big examples for what was wrong about how the British ruled certain parts of their empire.
Neillands refers a few lines down himself to what happened at Amritsar and writes that "Amritsar cannot be excused but it is notable that few people can think of another such incident." Even if no one could think of another such incident, isn't one enough? More than 300 innocent people were shot because they were peacefully protesting. I think just one event like this justifies a critical voice towards the Empire.
The author also protects the British Empire against racist claims when he says that "in Empire times the British were no more racist than anyone else, and a good deal less racist than most". In my opinion this is a stupid claim. It does not matter if you are a bit racist or less racist than anyone else. Racism is racism, no matter what. Even if they were less racist than some other countries that does not justify what they did or makes them saints. He claims that the Indians "with their caste system" were racist even against their own people and he refers to "the massacre of Arabs by Africans in Zanzibar in 1964". He tries to make the British appear like little innocent school children, who didn't mean it. But claiming others were worse, does not excuse your own crimes and faults. That is how it might work if you are seven years old, or rather how you think it works. but this is the adult world, where acts have serious consequences from which you can't escape by blaming someone else to be worse.