Transcript
Dejan: Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Debatable Discussions podcast. Today we're here talking about ah very interesting topic, in my opinion, which is history, the British Empire.
Dejan: So, John, can you give us a quick background on this?
debatablediscussions: Yes, the British Empire was the world's largest empire. It amounted to 25% of the world's land mass. So fairly astonishing.
debatablediscussions: And as many will associate it with, it really stretched across all four corners of the globe. Britain had territorial interests in every continent at one time of its history.
debatablediscussions: And still to this day, one can see the remnants of the empire in the large Commonwealth, one of the largest governmental organisations. And the British Empire itself is fascinating historically.
debatablediscussions: It's the part of history I'm most interested in simply because it combines so many different aspects, religion, trade, politics, domestic policy within Britain, the media.
debatablediscussions: And it really forms to become this really fascinating period of British history and also phenomenon.
Dejan: So how did the British Empire empire actually come into existence?
debatablediscussions: Yes. So this is one of the major questions that underline empires. And Diane, I'll ask for your opinion in a second, because the thoughts behind empires is really that there are two views.
debatablediscussions: One is that they came about via economic reasons. So a desire for the country to be richer. And that comes in two forms of trade.
debatablediscussions: So the British expanded and they colonised other parts of the world for trade or land. That's a common reason for why the British Empire moved to America. As much as it was for this idea of religious freedom, America was economically promising.
debatablediscussions: Why? Because there was basically unlimited land for the people who moved there. And you've got that opinion versus the more modern opinion cited by scholars, perhaps more on the left wing of politics.
debatablediscussions: And that is that it was for more modern concerns such as expansionism on the belief of racial superiority. Or it was for this idea of conquest.
debatablediscussions: The British ah did it because they wanted to win wars. Now, this is an idea which I disagree with, purely because if you if you trace the British Empire and its rise, it's purely economic.
debatablediscussions: British colonies were in areas where were in areas which had the most amount of economic promise. An example of this and the one that always sticks to me is the Gulf of Aden in Yemen.
debatablediscussions: The British had this as a protectorate, the protectorate of Aden. And this was the second busiest shipping port after the Second World War. Yemen in itself doesn't really offer, you know, thing, you know, doesn't offer something very promising from a domestic angle.
debatablediscussions: However, economically it does. And that is why the British colonised this. It wasn't for this idea of conquest. They realised that commerce came first. What do you think, Diane?
debatablediscussions: Do you sort side with the idea of conquest or commerce?
Dejan: Well, I'm going to disagree with you there, John.
debatablediscussions: mean, it's hard, yeah.
Dejan: I'm going to disagree you there. As some of our viewers may know, I'm bit more sceptic when it comes to imperial powers, both historically and now in Russia and the United States.
debatablediscussions: Oh, yeah.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: Both are imperial powers, in my opinion, nowadays. But even historically, I'm not a a fan of empires. couple of reasons why, moral reasons why, but I do think that the purpose of an empire is somewhere of a mix between the two things you've said.
Dejan: I do think there is an obvious economic reason. A reason why India was a British colony, why parts of Asia were British colonies because of tea and other herbs and spices.
Dejan: But I also do think there is this notion of power that the British Empire wanted to exert.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: They wanted to exert this notion of power by conquest. So I don't think you can make the argument that was purely commercial. I don't think that's... strong enough for me. But also think the other argument of, oh, they just wanted to go and, you know, pillage and loot regions of the world. I don't think that's strong enough either, because as you said, there is a clear sort connection between land masses of the British Empire and the economic potential.
Dejan: But also the very reason as to why you would want to to to make that conquest, to conquer that place and not just trade with it, I think is this notion of power that Britain wanting to exert on the world, wanting to have this sort of monopoly spices, of tea, of opium.
Dejan: And this monopoly, yes, it did have some economic upsides for Britain, but also it did exert that notion of dependency upon the empire. Many people were dependent on the British empire, and that's something they wanted, think.
Dejan: My next question for you is...
debatablediscussions: Yes, I definitely do. Oh, no, was gonna say, I definitely agree with parts of your argument there. And I think the idea of power, I think we've talked about this on the podcast before, but power sort of underlines pretty much everything in international relations, we believe.
debatablediscussions: Why do countries do something for power? And my perspective on it is purely power. And I think it's economic power. That for me, it's really economic power, why the British Empire rose.
debatablediscussions: And the example I always like to give is Spain. Britain, we're not the first country to have an empire. the Spanish were.
Dejan: Yes.
debatablediscussions: Well, the Spanish weren't the first, obviously, was the Roman Empire, but in that modern period, the early modern period, Spain was the big kid on the block. They had access to the lucrative trade of the New World.
debatablediscussions: And the British Empire rose from actually pirates trying to rip off the Spanish in the Caribbean. And from that, they managed to form trading posts in the Caribbean, simply with this one aim, to rip off the Spanish and become richer.
debatablediscussions: yeah
Dejan: Now, you've talked about the Spanish Empire there, and there's another thing I want to mention about the Spanish Empire, which is Columbus in late 15th century.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: He established trade of people, so the slave trade, between the New World and parts of Europe.
Dejan: How much of a role did slavery play into the British Empire?
debatablediscussions: So yes, slavery is associated with empires and fairly rightly. Slavery is absolutely heinous. It's obviously and clearly accepted as being universally morally wrong and heinous.
debatablediscussions: And it did play a large role in empires. You gave the example there down of the Spanish empire and there's another one sort of also from the Iberian Peninsula, the Portuguese empire.
debatablediscussions: these were two empires that were actually trading slaves before the British, the Portuguese in particular, because many other empires like the French, like the British, actually adopted the trade of slavery from the Portuguese who were using it from the coast of West Africa for their plantations in Brazil.
debatablediscussions: And slavery played a very important economic part in particular in the Caribbean colonies of the British Empire. And it made, unfortunately, some people, plantation owners in the Caribbean, extremely rich.
debatablediscussions: So, yes, slavery played an undeniable huge part in all the global empires of that time. Millions of slaves were transported. Many scholars such as Nigel Bigger, we've had on our podcast.
debatablediscussions: He's tried to to slightly, in my opinion, excuse the role of slavery in the British Empire. That is something, in my opinion, which can't be done. But biggest arguments are mainly that other empires did it or slavery, the phenomenon of the slave trade already existed.
Dejan: Okay.
debatablediscussions: However, I believe they they they are weak arguments. What I do believe is a stronger argument, but this shouldn't justify slavery, but it should be placed alongside it, is the British role in the global abolition movement.
debatablediscussions: This is something which the British Empire was a figurehead for, in my opinion, and the global leader. The British Empire abolished slavery in 1807 domestically, then across their empire in 1830.
debatablediscussions: And then from there was really committed to this idea of abolitionism. The West Africa Squadron was a a squadron of Royal Naval ships up to about 42 who were committed to stopping slavery in the Atlantic Ocean to the extent of actually if there was a French ship or if there was a US ship with slaves on board, they would stop the ship eventually.
Dejan: At.
debatablediscussions: and actually transport the slaves back to Sierra Leone, which at the time was known as Freetown, a free colony for slaves.
debatablediscussions: The British Empire also played a vital role in the global abolition movement. Diplomatically, they stopped the slave trade in Brazil in many other countries. like They led to ending in France through the Vienna Congress.
Dejan: So mentioning the role that some people played in the abolition movement there in the Atlantic Ocean brings me to another question, which is, did naval supremacy play a big role in the British Empire? Was that the sort of defining factor that i i made it the the the biggest empire in the world?
debatablediscussions: So yes, wholly, in my opinion. I believe that really what should be synonymous with the British Empire is naval supremacy. If you look at 19th century naval history, the British Empire wholly dominates it.
debatablediscussions: And if the British wanted to do something, the easiest answer and the easiest way of them doing it was using the Navy. Under Queen Victoria, we dominated the waters.
debatablediscussions: HMS Warrior is the ship that comes to mind.
Dejan: Thank you.
debatablediscussions: This was a world leading ship, primarily because it seized the power of steam and coal. And it was very effective, the British Navy, in the Opium Wars.
debatablediscussions: The British, frankly, managed to belittle China. Why? Because they had such a strong navy that they could just send in chips. Similarly, the British blockaded Greece in a matter of days when, I think it was a Gibraltar-born man, claimed that the Greek came authorities were doing something like harming his rights. It was rather unclear.
debatablediscussions: But the British sent in their navy and, well, the Greece sort of said, OK, it's fine. We'll leave you alone. Similarly with Brazil. How did British end the slave trade in Brazil?
debatablediscussions: They sent in a ship known as gunboat diplomacy, this method. And the Brazilians, terrified, said, OK, we'll leave you to it. So I think British Navy was a defining characteristic also in the 20th century with the World War, with World War I, World War II. But in the 19th century, British naval prominence was absolutely linked with their role in the empire and in the empire growing.
debatablediscussions: do you have to say about this, Diane?
Dejan: Well, I'll be very honest and that sort of the particular aspects of the British Empire are my most familiar. However, it does seem sort of logical.
Dejan: One could almost say that the British Empire hugely relied on the Navy as an island nation.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: You know, one of the, frankly, I think the only island nation to ever have an empire being the British Empire with Spain, Rome, Persia, e etc. all being continental empires.
Dejan: I do think that the British needed this, Davy. Otherwise, they would have been in big trouble, both offensively, but mostly also defensively. And
Dejan: Perhaps the most famous
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: person that came from the British Navy is Horatio Nelson. He was an admiral in the in British Army.
Dejan: And of course, being an admiral, was in the Navy. So he's very well known for basically beating Napoleon in Napoleonic Wars.
Dejan: And the question, another one for me that I have for you is, ahead.
debatablediscussions: Yes, and that...
debatablediscussions: Oh, no, was just going to add in there, that victory in the Napoleonic Wars was purely because of the Navy.
Dejan: Yes.
debatablediscussions: And that does demonstrate that 19th... Well, not purely, but a large role in it was because of the Navy. And that does demonstrate that 19th century British naval prominence. Yeah.
Dejan: And my last question for you before we come on to the sort of decline of the empire is how much oppression was there in the British Empire? lot of people sort disagree on this.
Dejan: Some are more apologists.
Dejan: Some sort of, in my opinion, maybe over-exaggerate. But the answer is how much oppression was there?
debatablediscussions: So yes, there was simply to say a short answer, lot of oppression in the British Empire. Whether that was anti-colonial movements, which were suppressed, or whether that was things such as massacres, the most notable one happened in 1919, the Amritsar massacre ah ah in India, in which I think it was around 380 people were killed.
debatablediscussions: There was also the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, There were several famines that occurred across India. So it is linked that there was a loss of oppression in the empire politically, religiously.
debatablediscussions: Also, religiously, there are more niches to be made because there were benefits of one can say the word benefits of Christian missionaries coming into the empire in the sense of providing services such as health care.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: or ending cannibalistic and other inhumane rituals such as infanticide which occurred. However, that does not excuse the fact that there was basically undeniable and inexcusable oppression that occurred in the British Empire.
debatablediscussions: And I'll ask you for your opinion on this in a second, Diane. But a major question that surrounds this is how should we remember it? Should we forget about it?
debatablediscussions: Some people, think, especially on the far right in the UK, are somewhat proud of it, confusingly. However, in my opinion, we've sort of got to accept it and move forward.
debatablediscussions: There is no empire in the world in which oppression did not occur. Examples of oppression, even countries like Sweden, for example, who are known to have slightly more peaceful histories.
Dejan: Thank you.
debatablediscussions: Oppression occurred in Swedish history. Oppression occurred in almost every country's history. There are things to be ashamed of in global history, wherever you look.
debatablediscussions: that means that I think, in our opinion, we've got to move on and accept the past. There is no point trying to forget it or trying to sort of rewrite it. We've got to move on and accept it.
debatablediscussions: How do you think we should deal with sort of legacy, Diane? Yeah.
Dejan: Well, that's a very, that's always a sort of loaded question, I think, because there's a lot of emotional... ideas there, both on the different sides of the sort of empire spectrum.
Dejan: But my main thing is that forgetting is a bad idea. And going to link this actually to something I saw yesterday, two days ago. two days ago, which is a recent survey that 65% of Romanians think that the communist regime was good.
Dejan: Now all the people who voted, mostly, were either very young or did not live at the time of the communist regime which ended in 1989.
Dejan: And especially, very few actually lived in this sort of mature period. In the time of 1945 to 1965, which was the worst time in Romania, one might say, that was the harshest period of communism.
Dejan: And that doesn't get mentioned anymore because people have forgotten about it. People only focus now on the and have forgotten about Everything else.
Dejan: I think that's a really bad idea for the reason that if people do forget the British Empire, maybe in 50 years' time, there will be a lot of people who will claim, you know what, it was so much better under the British Empire.
Dejan: And I'm sure people will. I'm sure people do that now, actually, but... I'm sure in the future, some politician will use the British Empire as a tool to gain more votes. And they will say, so much better under the British Empire. We didn't have immigrants.
Dejan: People didn't steal your jobs. People didn't sort of... You had places to live. We were rich. We were wealthy. We had freedom. And they're going to use the British Empire together with some fear-mongering in order to gain votes.
Dejan: I think that's a bad idea. I think the British Empire should be told in its... in its fullness, you know, both the bad parts and the good parts. And hopefully people should learn why, it wasn't sustainable and why ethically it's not good idea to go back to those times.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: And as you said there, we should openly confront and acknowledge the past. Because, before the episode was telling me about this example of Romanian history.
debatablediscussions: And if you wrongly confront history with with a sort of wrong interpretation, which only focuses on certain parts, it comes back to bite you in a way, doesn't it?
Dejan: It does. It definitely does.
debatablediscussions: Because you you have people misrepresenting to sort of achieve in this case a political goal.
Dejan: Yeah.
debatablediscussions: And that's totally wrong because you can learn less from history. And as you gave in the example of Romania, it's, you know, to me, it just seems totally bizarre.
Dejan: I mean, if you go back to 1990, just after
debatablediscussions: And I'm sure, and it does to you as well, Jay-Anne.
Dejan: the revolution, coming to see there at the time, Ceausescu said, the young people in remaining future will mention in my name.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: And everyone said, you're crazy, no one's going to mention your name, and they shot him. Now, bizarrely he was right, because that period in time wasn't properly taught, it wasn't properly explained what actually happened, and there was a lot of nostalgia.
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: Why? Well, frankly, I was 20 years old, And then 50 years later, I was 70, I was old, I was maybe ill, didn't have much access to sort of a social life anymore.
Dejan: Of course I would look back when I was 20 and I'd say, oh, that was the best time of of my life. Was the best time of my life because the the political regime? Because how the world operated? Definitely not, no. But there is that level of nostalgia that hasn't been combated because history hasn't been taught properly.
Dejan: I think... British Empire is at risk. I mean, I'm becoming sort of a bit bored of repeating
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: this attack on the far right, but I feel like I have to, especially nowadays, which is that they are so used to using the past and using better time as a way of getting across their views.
Dejan: To get that coupled with the fact that they are basically instilling fear in the voters, I don't see why in 20 years' time there won't be an argument made such as this.
Dejan: Oh, nowadays, you don't have jobs, you don't have a way to support your families, one's proud of British culture, we need to go back to the Empire when everyone was proud of being British because we were the best power in the world.
Dejan: And frankly, I think a lot of people are going to fall for that because... They're not going to have great job prospects. They're have great social prospects. The NHS is going to be more failing than it is now.
Dejan: And going to say, you know what, everything in this country doesn't work anymore. How about we give these people a chance to take us back to our glory days? And that is incredibly dangerous. That is incredibly, incredibly dangerous.
debatablediscussions: Whether you agree with that or not, your your your clear idea is very true. History can be weaponised, especially interpretations of the past.
Dejan: And my final question, John, now that we've come to an end, is how did the Empire fall? What happened? When did it happen?
debatablediscussions: Yeah.
Dejan: And why did it happen, almost?
debatablediscussions: Yeah. So as I've described, the British Empire, this empire which governed over 25% of the globe, so obviously the largest empire that ever occurred, and throughout the empire there was, I think...
debatablediscussions: There was this idea of exponential growth throughout. saw there were some losses such as in 1776 when America declared independence and then finally won that independence in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris.
debatablediscussions: But aside from that, the British government actually granted more concessions to what were known as the white settler colonies. And with this, the the empire basically grew up to World War I. However, World War and World War II, despite the British winning these wars, they were extremely costly.
debatablediscussions: and i i've got the figure here of two trillion was the cost of world war ii that's the modern day cost that it cost the british that's in money obviously there was a huge personnel lost so this huge economic loss had dire consequences for the british government simply because it's hard to manage 25 percent of the world with not very much money
debatablediscussions: And so coupled with nationalism movements such as the Indian Independence Movement in 1947, notably led by Mahatma Gandhi, this led to effectively the empire, in my opinion, internally imploding.
debatablediscussions: And the reason why, like the empire's rise, is economic. The British could not afford to effectively manage this global empire and therefore it slowly sort of dismantled.
debatablediscussions: And also it was before there was this greater sense, in my opinion, of economic dependence upon the British. However, this sort of started to sort of end towards the end of the empire. The white settler colonies, as i previously described, these are places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada,
debatablediscussions: these as their own entities started to become economically viable. And with the British being in an unfortunate and poor economic state, these countries then decided with the British, I think, that they were able to govern themselves and they slowly sort of progressed upon this path of separation.
debatablediscussions: That is to say, though, the king is still the monarch in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. So there is this still sense of attachment and a sense of unity that exists amongst the Commonwealth countries.
debatablediscussions: However, want a sort of one sentence answer to why did the British Empire fall, I would say it imploded due to economic reasons after World War Two.
Dejan: Thank you very much. And if you enjoyed this episode, do go back and listen to the episode with Nigel Bigger, as well as our other episodes on history in the past, the podcast.
Dejan: And see you next week.
debatablediscussions: See you then.
