Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

UDI

Quite possibly not, but that doesn't alter the fact that they still aren't wanted by the locals. I heard a Maori on TV once saying that since his country would have ended up in someones empire he was glad it was the British and not any of the others. The conversation moved on before he could suggest he might still want the pakeha out.
True. Nobody likes an uninvited stranger in the house. Great windy theses could be written about it.
 
And therein lies your complete failure to understand human beings. They aren't grateful and they never will be. Empires always fall because the conquered eventually get to be able to get rid of the conquerors. China, which is in many ways an empire goes through cycles of strong dictatorial central government and then lapses into civil war as central control breaks down.

Your ancestors came and saw and conquered because they had better guns or shiner beads. Now they don't have better guns and their beads look a bit tawdry, they've been kicked out. As the Germans call it Realpolitik, but to avoid acknowledging your failure you blame someone else.
Apart from the British Empire, and the USA had a big hand in getting rid of the Empire, can you name one empire in which the conquered got rid of the conqueror.
Normally they are taken down or over by outsiders.
 
Quite possibly not, but that doesn't alter the fact that they still aren't wanted by the locals. I heard a Maori on TV once saying that since his country would have ended up in someones empire he was glad it was the British and not any of the others. The conversation moved on before he could suggest he might still want the pakeha out.
Didn't Gandhi say something similar about being part of the British Empire?
 
@twentyfirstoffoot"
As your allegedly so knowledgeable about Central Africa, please enlighten those of us who have actually lived & worked there! How long have you spent there to give you such supposedly encyclopedic knowledge of the place and in what capacity? Or is it by reading/listening to such fonts of wisdom as the beeb/guardian etc?
 
@twentyfirstoffoot"
As your allegedly so knowledgeable about Central Africa, please enlighten those of us who have actually lived & worked there! How long have you spent there to give you such supposedly encyclopedic knowledge of the place and in what capacity? Or is it by reading/listening to such fonts of wisdom as the beeb/guardian etc?
Calm down Ken, you were down there for a very short time, a very long time ago, in a very junior position. Then you left.
 
Me, I am quite happy to say that though I refuelled at Dakar on the way to Ascension on 5 July 1982 I have never set foot in Africa so my knowledge comes from reading books and talking to people who have.
It has not come from the bbc or the grauniad.
So, following your logic I am vastly more experienced than you but I have already explained my locations in Africa and clearly stated that I do not think anyone becomes an expert on the entire continent due to their own limited personal experiences.

Supplementing limited personal experience with research is more than valid. For example read this (not to my knowledge on the BBC or in the Guardian :) ) https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....-ac-man-scw:273400&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF
 
So, following your logic I am vastly more experienced than you but I have already explained my locations in Africa and clearly stated that I do not think anyone becomes an expert on the entire continent due to their own limited personal experiences.

Supplementing limited personal experience with research is more than valid. For example read this (not to my knowledge on the BBC or in the Guardian :) ) https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....-ac-man-scw:273400&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF
I'm not trudging through somebody's dissertation on Zambia (which I know little about), but a couple of points are quite revealing (on a very quick scan); Chapter 2 p75 shows the headings in a 1904 BSAC Proclamation to the people there:
“We come from the Great White Queen. We are fresh from conquering the Agoni.”
“First, in this country there shall be no more war.”
“Secondly, in this country there shall be no more witchcraft.”
“Thirdly, in this country there shall be no more slavery.”
“In regard to all other things, men shall do as they have done, and as their fathers have done before them.”
...which are fairly positive demands, given the local unwillingness to give up any of the particular items listed - and especially 'slavery'.

The other point of interest is the author's immensely negative view of the British presence in the region, expressed all through the few parts I've read; hardly a dispassionate appraisal of his subject. Interspersed in the headings above in the paper are comments such as:

('...no more slavery') This was frequently unpopular as African leaders were often sustained through the unwaged labour* of villagers. Abolition of slavery was a key moral lodestone for British imperialism, its benevolent nature demonstrated through its clamping down on slavery. It was also a feature of international treaties and an obligation for colonial powers (The Berlin Conference, 2003). However, this can also be seen as a restructuring of labour and property relations – the thin end of the wedge of constraining certain forms of economic practice and notions of property. Slavery was but one form of property and economic relation which BSAC rule targeted for control and suppression.

*
I love this euphemism.

In reading not much more than those few pages, it's clear that the author has a granite-solid idea of what his conclusions must be (and in the bold sentence above, he is not merely ambiguous, but actually intentionally misleading). Be very, very careful in choosing yer academic to support yer views.
 
I'm not trudging through somebody's dissertation on Zambia (which I know little about), but a couple of points are quite revealing (on a very quick scan); Chapter 2 p75 shows the headings in a 1904 BSAC Proclamation to the people there:
“We come from the Great White Queen. We are fresh from conquering the Agoni.”
“First, in this country there shall be no more war.”
“Secondly, in this country there shall be no more witchcraft.”
“Thirdly, in this country there shall be no more slavery.”
“In regard to all other things, men shall do as they have done, and as their fathers have done before them.”
...which are fairly positive demands, given the local unwillingness to give up any of the particular items listed - and especially 'slavery'.

The other point of interest is the author's immensely negative view of the British presence in the region, expressed all through the few parts I've read; hardly a dispassionate appraisal of his subject. Interspersed in the headings above in the paper are comments such as:

('...no more slavery') This was frequently unpopular as African leaders were often sustained through the unwaged labour* of villagers. Abolition of slavery was a key moral lodestone for British imperialism, its benevolent nature demonstrated through its clamping down on slavery. It was also a feature of international treaties and an obligation for colonial powers (The Berlin Conference, 2003). However, this can also be seen as a restructuring of labour and property relations – the thin end of the wedge of constraining certain forms of economic practice and notions of property. Slavery was but one form of property and economic relation which BSAC rule targeted for control and suppression.

*
I love this euphemism.

In reading not much more than those few pages, it's clear that the author has a granite-solid idea of what his conclusions must be (and in the bold sentence above, he is not merely ambiguous, but actually intentionally misleading). Be very, very careful in choosing yer academic to support yer views.
You got a lot further than I did.
 
It's a very apposite point. I conducted a full safety/security due diligence on a major diamond mine in Angola some years ago, after Global Witness, acting mainly on a report by Rafael Marques de Morais, accused the owners and security department of randomly killing garimpeiros:
View attachment 429762

in and around its license. It became quite clear that the mine's security department, headed by a fairly rough Irishman, were not to blame; instead, the contract security organisation, Alpha5:
View attachment 429763
View attachment 429764
which were not under the security manager's control in any real way, were indulging in some very nasty practices indeed. The contract security organisation was under the direct control of one of Angola's large coterie of Generals, staffed by an all-star team of former(?) UNITA army people, and there was no other choice but to use them. The General and his friends, who included most of the Government (also mostly Generals) were very displeased that such a due diligence was taking place, but luckily only found out when I was at 30,000ft and heading for Lisbon.

As the corporate officer responsible for compliance with the Kimberley Process in my previous employment in Zimbabwe (where it had been thoroughly abused by the obvious suspects), I had hoped to see evidence of a Government actually taking it seriously. I'm really such a pure innocent.

(Edit: the garimpeiros were mostly down from the DRC, and wouldn't have been missed by anyone with enough pull to get any sort of investigation going. The Rio Cuango is fast and deep:
View attachment 429768.)

mmmm, Bailey still doing its job!
 
Unfortunately it comes down to a single issue in Africa - starvation.
Was UDI wrong? In many ways yes.
Was apartheid wrong? Definitely.
What have they been replaced with? A kleptocracy, where 'loyal cadres' and 'heroes of the independence struggle' have their snouts in the trough.
I have no problem with majority rule. I do have a problem with corruption, poverty, starvation and a failure of all infrastructure.
Is the majority better off now? Probably not. You cannot eat votes.
Then we have really have nothing to disagree over. I too have problems with corruption, poverty, starvation and a failure of all infrastructure, but I don't white man's rule as a practical alternative that would generate improvement.
 

Latest Threads

Top