Friday, 22. May 2015
The sugar-coated view II
annika heinze, 16:17h
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.
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.
... comment
