British Imperialism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AveChristusRex, Mar 21, 2024.

  1. Hey folks, this thread is a bit of an odd one, being not really about current events but still political in nature. I'll admit first and foremost that I am an American and therefore am not as knowledgeable as one who lives in the mentioned countries or lived through the events. I've just been some doing thinking lately, and some Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia skimming, particularly about the Troubles in Ireland and the independence of former Rhodesia from the British Empire. While I, being a red-blooded American, am obviously (and by default) opposed to the British Empire, I feel like Rhodesia would have done better had it stayed Rhodesia. As I understand it, the "colony" had governed itself since 1923 and was doing as fine as a colony in sub-Saharan Africa could do, with a strong enough industrial economy, though subsistence farming was still widespread. I know many people could say that the governmental structure was somewhat discriminatory, but in all reality, was economically better off. Here is a news article about Robert Mugabe, who was in charge from 1980-2017
    "The late leader, who had ruled the troubled Southern African country since its liberation from Britain in 1980, was largely seen as the author of economic policies that had decimated the livelihoods of ordinary Zimbabweans – a legacy that included hyperinflation that led the country to ditch its worthless sovereign currency in favour of the United States dollar." Now, Zimbabwe was socialist after they became their own nation in 1980 and ever since it has struggled. So, was it really a bad thing for the British to have a colony there? I think a better solution would have been to remove barriers to the black majority and get rid of the segregation and such that was going on, rather than just completely overturning the government. The US had their own civil rights issues not long before, it could have been resolved civilly in Rhodesia. Now, why is the US or Ireland for that matter, different from Rhodesia? Well, for one thing, the US was perfectly capable of self-governing. One could argue that if we had our own "Mugabe" instead of George Washington as our first president, things would have gone differently, but I think our system of government was more what ensured our success. We had freedom which was unseen until then, and, more importantly, we were not Socialist. Now, Ireland. Given Saint Patrick's day was Sunday, it seems appropriate. I've been listening to some IRA ballads (some may say propaganda) and I've got to say, I agree with much of what they have to say. As a Catholic I can't say I approve of their methods, but this was essentially urban warfare, and perhaps even justified. In any case, the British couldn't sit on a high horse as they were parading APCs through the streets of Ireland and afraid that any shadow could be an IRA soldier. As I understand it, they were trying to keep the (Protestant) British from exercising their control over (Catholic) Ireland. Now as I understand it, some (but certainly not all) of the IRA was socialist, but the fact that Ireland isn't socialist right now and is (mostly) independent tells me that they weren't a majority and didn't really get their way, which is a good thing all things considered (see also: Zimbabwe). Now Ireland is mostly independent, with Northern Ireland still being part of the UK, as they are also mostly Protestant. Still today there are IRA groups campaigning for the independence of Northern Oreland, but it seems that Northern Ireland itself doesn't really want independence. A ceasefire between the IRA and the British Army occurred in 1998 and since then the IRA hasn't been very prevalent, but they were successful in securing independence. I think Ireland is better off not being part of the UK, seeing as it was already developed before they came marching in, unlike Rhodesia which needed the colonization in all honestly. The IRA fighters were fighting for their homes and families, and for their right to have a say in their (already developed) nation; the cultural difference between the UK and Ireland was just too vast as well. So, my thoughts in a sentence: nations which are developed and have their own identity have a right to independence and self-government, while poor nations like Zimbabwe may have a better forward trajectory if they are absorbed into a more prosperous commonwealth. Up the Ra!
  2. What U ignore

    What U ignore Thread KILLER

    interesting read.
    AveChristusRex likes this.

Share This Page