The British Empire - How things came to be

 

Although the British seem always to come out as the bad guys, especially in popular culture. All the villain actors of the evil "The Empire" in the blockbuster Hollywood hit film Star Wars seem to have distinctive upper-class British accents. Emperor Palpatine, who reigns over this intergalactic evil Empire, talks with a British accent. British actors have played villains or a role taken by American actors using British accents. The idea is that once you see the leading actor speaking with a British accent in a Hollywood movie, they are likely to be a villain. Although the British could be considered evil in many respects, the Atlantic Salve trade, causing wars, genocide, forcing Opium on the Chinese and the occasionally regime change, to name a few. The book claims that it was also a force for good. It has spread its form of Christianity to millions and is responsible for the widespread usage of English as an international language. The abolition of the Slave Trade which the British took up as a moral crusade and the stoppage of human sacrifices, killing of twins, and female infanticide. Educating the masses via the missionaries and setting up hospitals which extended life expectancy,  the role the British took on civilising the world. As the period of Pax Romana when the old world was at peace due to the Roman Empire, the British would like to believe there was a Pax Britannica due to the British Empire and its ability to maintain peace in the world. The use of financial capital means transaction and parliamentary democracy as a form of government in many countries. In short, the world as we know it has a British legacy in its DNA. 

Britain never planned to build the greatest Empire the world has known and will know, or hated and despised so much. Still, it occurred incrementally, initially as a means of a quick source of income, along the way later to prevent the spread of Catholicism. Also, they ended up taking some places to protect routes to others. Some they took to prevent other European powers from acquiring it. Other sites they ended up with owing as a result of trying to end the slave trade. In some areas, they were actually invited and never left and finally took the role of civilising the rest of the world and ended up with other pieces. The book seems to paint a beautiful summary of the origins, development and adaptation of the British Empire. The British Empire was the greatest by population and landmass that the world has ever seen. Up to a quarter of the worlds land surface and population and dominated all its oceans. The book claims that the British were pretty late into the Empire building game, and running an empire was not planned or such a clear cut at the very beginning. The British loaded themselves with an Empire; because of various circumstances, they "rose up to the occasion" and were able to, unknown to us all. Even themselves that they were faking it or "making up as they went along". They were able to convenience themselves as to all invading armies that they were superior. They learnt from their mistakes and put processes and procedures in place to prevent a reoccurrence, adapt and evolve. Also, the use of superior technology and the fact that they were able to organise themselves quickly. One of the blessings they had was an incorruptible civil service and the fact that, unlike other empires, they were run by democracy and not an absolute power like Spain or Portugal. Hence there was a high degree of accountability to more people. The King or Queen of the United Kingdom was there by the people's consent, and the real power was in the hands of the parliament, the elective body. The stiff upper lip was not so rigid, and the unemotional calm, Brit amid adversity is a myth and was an act and part of fiction, like Phileas Fogg in "Around the world in 80 days". 

The British, more specifically the English, started by stealing from the riches of the Spanish galleons, which were filled with gold and silver looted from their colonies in modern-day Cuba, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela. The British used pirates or privateers, state-sponsored thieves, essentially buccaneers. They fought on their behalf on the cheap after granting them a licence. The land that the British  "discovered" overseas eventually had no gold or silver. But it was just suitable for growing sugar cane, tobacco, tea, cotton, Opium and fishing. One such "privateers" was Henry Morgan and used his plunder to buy land in Jamaica, where he wisely grew sugar cane. When the British turned it into an official colony, Sir Henry Morgan became its governor. Of course, there were wars and Britain was blessed with coal for the industrial Revolution and natural products for these industries aboard. But from their role in the slave trade and looking at their overseas colonies and whether they were presently stable compared to other European territories. 

The British, as a matter of fact, the English first colony was in nearby Ireland. In the 16th Century, which was called a plantation, we would describe it as ethnic cleansing today.  This is responsible for the Ulster troubles today, and the IRA and the sectarian problems in Northern Ireland. This was kind of the test case, and that model they exported to other colonies. With the Treaty of Tordesillas, and Pope Alexander VI, splitting the world outside Christiandom between the Spanish and Portuguese, the British felt it had to go to Protestantism. One surprising thing is that losing their 13 American colonies led them to expand to Canada, New Zealand, Indian and Africa. Looking at it, the loss of the American colonies kind of made the British Empire and the myths surrounding the American Revolution, as a fight for Independence, the way Ferguson put it, was a joke. Most Americans were free and had more power than the average English man, but only male property landowners could vote, and many people were said not to support the Revolution. The French army and navy, backed with some other Europeans, played a significant part in beating the English. This was payback for the 7-year war. This did bankrupt France leading to a revolution. Australia was a penal colony, and America was founded on liberty and freedom.  The irony was that the criminals from the former penal colony were more loyal to the British Crown than the religious pilgrims. 

The report that saved the British Empire was the Durham report, written by Lord John Lambton, Earl of Durham. He said the Colonial Americans were correct in speaking, "taxation without representation is tyranny" for the white colonies. The white colonies should have a representative federal government where the real power should lie and a decorative governor-general as a representative of the Crown. This was instituted in all of the white colonies and did save the British Empire to an extent. The irony is that the areas in America became white since the native populations succumbed to European-African diseases killing up to 90% of Americans and Australia, leaving unoccupied areas, unlike in Africa and Asia, where there had been interactions for hundreds of years.

Dr David Livingstone started as a missionary but later became an explorer because he believed that the slave trade prevented him from having converts. If he could introduce commerce into the areas, people would settle down and turn their hearts to God. Meanwhile, in Indian, the British intervention with their religious traditions was just limited to the prevention of Sati, in which the widow voluntary burnt herself as the husbands body was burning on the funeral pyre. Also, the thuggee, a group of organised, professional killers who attacked travellers and female infanticide because of the high bride price that parents will have to pay the groom's family, was brought under control by the English. India was always considered the jewel in the Crown, and while they avoided Anglo-Indians, they preferred the Maharajas and Indian Princes. It was known as "Tory-entalism", and it was not restricted to Indians, also in Africa ", educated natives" and "hereditary Chiefs" were treated differently. 

Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim, and they have not.

In Indian, the English initially came for strictly business via the East Indian Company and were not concerned with the traditional activities of the Indians. On the contrary, the English dressed as Indians learned their language and even took Indian wives in their traditional dresses in traditional Indian weddings. Still, due to the British "religious awakening" of the 19th Century and after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the Crown took direct control of India. The British now saw it as their direct duty to civilised the "world of barbarians". This new role can be understood and expressed by Rudyard Kipling's poem called "The White Man's Burden". This is a Victorian imperialist view that the white man's role is too civilised to the world and Christianise it. This did cause problems, as the initial traders were strictly business, and the English did not meddle in Indian affairs except with Sati, thugee and female infanticide. They were essentially left to their own devices previously, but now the government was involved, things must be done correctly. Before, the general belief was that missionaries were seen as bad for business, acting as their modern equivalents NGOs. Under the East Indian Company, this was understood. Missionaries were kept under check as in Nigeria, they were prevented from going to certain areas. The government tried to stay distant and oversaw an indirect governance role with a district officer overseeing and advising a local ruler and avoiding what may be interpreted as interference in Indian affairs. With increasing pressure from homes and churches that helped end slavery, they saw another challenge in Christianising Indians. This many people believed to lead to the Indian Rebellion or, as the Indians called it, their first war of Independence. Still, because Indian was a creation of the British for administrative purposes, the rebellion was not well organised and not centralised. The British were able to put it down ruthlessly. Later, the Indians began to demand Independence, and they formed political organisations. The British did not know how to deal with Gandhi, although he trained as a British trained barrister and a decorated veteran of the Boer war. He called his fellow Indians to harness "satyagraha", a form of passive resistance, nonviolent non-cooperation. The British would have met this with brute force if he was violent, but this was difficult. To the British credit, they did follow the rule of law, and he was successful. One could imagine that other Empires would have just killed him off, but the British were more experienced than that and knew if they killed him off like that, they would have to deal with someone worst. Maybe that is the reason why those empires did not last that long and were not as big. The British knew when to fight and when to use diplomacy. There was a section of runaway slaves that the British failed to beat in Jamaica. They lived in the mountains - the maroons, after losing a series of wars. When they lost, they signed a treaty with them to return runaway slaves for a price and hence they did not have another Haiti on their hands, i.e. a freed black independent republic.

.

The model continued throughout the Empire with the traders, businessmen, missionaries and explorers initially going in, set up as functioning infrastructure, and later the government taking it over. This was copied in Africa, where the Royal Niger Company (RNC) was the predecessor of the Nigerian government. The RNC dealt mainly in timbers, palm oil, etc., consisting of Liverpool and Manchester businessmen. Palm oil was used to grease the machinery of the Industrial Revolution.

Those who compared the British action in the alternatives, especially with the Japanese in Asia, the rape of Nanking with various atrocities which can see as ethnic cleansing. The Germans on the Eastern front with a similar clearing of the land, a war of elimination and the Herero and Namaqua genocide in South-East Africa. Although the British have their own evil actions from the slave trade, famines in 1820's Ireland and 1940s in India, their inaction and what seems to be. The turning of whole continents white after the eradication of the native populations. But when compared to the others, they seem to be calmer than the alternative.

The US dominate the world in the way the British used to, but more so, the US spaces up to 14 times more than China on defence and 22 times more than the Russians. British used Gunboat Diplomacy where the parking of 2 or more Royal Navy ships off the coast was enough to convince anyone to have agreed with them. Now, the US need not to, as any foreign country is entirely are aware that the US can rain fire down upon them precisely from anywhere, via bombers, rockets or drone strikes. As we have entered a period of Pax Americana

But the argument could be made that the Japanese, Italians, Belgiumese, and the Germans were late to the game of empires and believed that they had to enforce their will on other people; hence, they appeared unnecessarily evil to achieve what the British already had. The author himself is a son of the Empire, and hence it makes it difficult to make an objective assessment as he said there are trophies of the Empire all around his house. Although there would be many things that many people would be grateful for, the British crusade stopped the slave trade. However, they need not do it, and they just recently finished paying obligations to former slave-owning families and organisations in 2015. The argument that the British were better than the other Empires can be seen as a "Whataboutism" fallacy, although the author did own up to the evils of the Empire. But if these kingdoms were left alone, and with all their resources would lead to alternative history scenarios, if the British Empire did not exist - would the slave trade have stopped? Would there still be some countries or kingdoms? The irony is that the British Empire ended due to American pressure and the financial burden of running an educated native populace. Whom they educated to run the Empire as the natives then wanted more say in running their own affairs, "taxation without representation" - Deja vu all over again. Are these countries better off as a result?