Imperial Delusions

[boberoni]

You can read the full article on this Archive.is link:

https://archive.is/ZhAxp

[KaiserPro]

how the british justified their empire, in the 1930s. that last bit is important.

Like most things, the justification changed over time. In the 16th century, it was all about the king trying to finance his massive spending habit.

Then it was about trade. Then it was about re-enforcing that trade. Then the east india company fucked up, and india because a colonial possession. Then the missions tried to convert the heathens.

after that I'm not sure. We don't teach empire at all. The problem is that nowadays its difficult to find readable history that isn't there to either totally damn or justify the empire. Even less so ones that draw on first party sources from the british and locals.

[rovek]

I feel this about anything I read about empire in the last few years.

I enjoyed Paxman's book Empire for the very reason that he mocks the self-righteousness of the "heroes of Empire", their "divine mission", the way the country at home responded (or didn't care at all anymore) but doesn't shy away from giving the same critical eye to the colonised people.

[mutatio]

I think you're missing the main reason, competing empires on Britain's doorstep. The British Empire didn't exist in a vacuum. Much like American Imperialism vs. Soviet Russia.

[hrh]

https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Niall-Ferguson/dp/0465023282

Solid author, genuine attempt objective history, the causes, the justifications, the sins, the benefits.

[hhs]

> how the british justified their empire, in the 1930s. that last bit is important.

> after that I’m not sure.

This review covers some contemporary themes by discussing a book, “Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination”, which may be useful.

[mbrodersen]

The book “Sapiens” does a good job of balancing the two views. In other words, like most things in this world, empires had good and bad consequences. You choose how much you value/dislike the good/bad.

[lordoftheknow]

>>While he was only a peasant, not a professor of history, the Mahatma responded coolly

Is the author as ignorant as the target of his article ? Gandhi was a lawyer.

[ripe]

The author is Niall Ferguson, so I am guessing that the reason is not ignorance, but prejudice in support of the author's agenda, which in this case is an apologia for Britain's empire.

Ferguson writes good stories but will often bend the truth. For example, in 2009 he wrote in Newsweek about the US administration's economic policies. His facts were mostly made-up. See his takedown by economists, for example:

Krugman, Paul (2 May 2009). "Liquidity preference, loanable funds, and Niall Ferguson (wonkish)". The New York Times.

[Tycho]

This is the central theme of Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad.

[dgregd]

It is worth to add the Joseph Conrad was a Pole whose family fought against Russian colonialism.

[mgh2]

Nonpaywall link please?

[derriz]

Well it's very incidental. The EU is a completely voluntary association. There are those that left freely and there are others who want to join and its powers and purpose is driven by treaties agreed by all members.

Being a colony of the British empire was nothing like this and the quote explains a justification for expansionist military imperial behaviour which has no analogue that I can see in the way the EU was formed.

[locallost]

I'd say almost all countries hold this view that what they do is justified by good intent, their higher moral values etc, whereas it doesn't apply to others. But it only becomes relevant if the country has actual power. The colonial Britain obviously had a lot of power so it's easy to find examples of "imperial delusions". The same is true for other countries today, or a union of countries. But the actual countries that are delusional change based on how much power they have at that time.

[mwfunk]

As long as "money" means "everyone's money" and not "money for oligarchs", then that's infinitely better than what nations and empires have historically been built on: ethnicity, religion, geography, tribal identity, etc. You basically described every modern nation since 1776, and explained the purpose of international trade agreements. Governments (ideally) exist to allow everyone to coexist and peacefully do business with each other and not hurt each other, and ideally the only points of contention are drawing the lines at which people are considering to be hurting one another. Ideally. In practice everyone falls short of course, but that's why ideals exist, to have goals to try to live up to.

[croes]

Great Britain conquered other nations because of their ideology, that's completely different to the EU or which country did it conquer?

[Bronze_Colossus]

I do not see the EU even close as an empire. Are you perhaps British? Or Greek? The EU don't even have a common foreign policy or a cohesive monetary policy across its member countries. The EU is imo a protective "members only club" if you're in you get good deals if you're not then tough luck.

[throwawaygh]

> economic hostility towards outsiders

Completely incomparable. Economic protectionism vs. invading, colonizing, and enslaving huge portions of the world.

[bserge]

Yeah? Heard of the USA, China, India, Russia and pretty much any other regional and world power ever?

[mustafa_pasi]

I am no great fan of the EU, but the EU as a whole does not engage in much imperialism, besides that forced on it by the US.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

The EU is an interesting creature. It's not exactly an empire, but it's not quite not an empire either (both when you look at intra-EU relations and relations with third countries), and it is definitely a club of many former imperial powers who get to collectively set global policy.

[hardlianotion]

The British Empire was a pretty good go at building a money-focussed empire

[somewhereoutth]

"Peace and prosperity from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Sahara to the Arctic Circle. A new Rome for a new age."

[hkt]

It tells me really quite a lot that your response to an article about the British empire is to bash Europe.

There is no "EU Empire" any more than the US is an empire composed of its states. The fact is that the EU is a political entity which confers (nominal) equality on its members. There's no colonial style relationship there at all. Nobody is being robbed of their rights except British people who can't use the ECJ anymore.

[lucian1900]

That’s certainly part of it.

But the EU is certainly an imperialist block in the purely economic sense as well, just like the US or Britain. After all, wealth is extracted towards the centre through the low wages of workers in the periphery (especially Eastern Europe).

[Mizza]

How is this any different than how the US maintains its empire now?

David Brooks' column in the NYTimes this week is the same thing - using the excuse of LGBT rights to justify American colonial projects in Iraq, Afhanistan and Palestine, with an eye on Iran, China and Cuba. Use force to show the savages how it should be done. Empire has always been forged in the name of social justice. See the (racist) 1899 political cartoon, "The White Man's Burden."

As I read Adolph Reed say recently, ideology is the mechanism that harmonizes the principles that you want to believe you hold with what advances your material interests.

Same old story.

[rvba]

When we talk about Britain and their former empire, it is worth noting that times might have changed, but they still plunder their former colonies by providing tax evasion services.

If you are some warlord, dictator or just dirty businessperson, Britain will gladly launder your money through one of its multiple territories such as Jersey, Guernsey or whatever - which is some island whose sole export is providing "tax advisory" (which means not paying any taxes at all).

There is also the City of London Corporation with its secret laws and treaties, which doesnt seem to be controlled by UK government, basically group of friends with everyone in each pocket - instead of sending gunboats to plunder countries, they now use the banking system: dirty money comes in, clean money comes out, with minimum taxation.

Yet they sit on moral high ground, about supposedly helping third world. Books like "Treasure Islands" tried to shine some light on this - author even claimed that if Britain and its various island stopped the money laundering, then Africa wouldnt need external help - the untaxed money would be taxed and used for own people.

Sadly the topic of rampant and blatant tax evasion is swept under the rug, since multiple countries provide it (UK, Cyprus, Ireland, even Delaware..). There are some movements to get some common CIT rate, but those tax havens will probably find ways.