Brit Rifles From 1880 Massacre Found

[Zoogster]

Like I said earlier in the thread, I believe imperialism is inevitable as people need more resources for progress than are available within thier borders. Populations grow with no end in sight, and resources shrink.
In the past it was done primarily through military means, today it is primarily done through economical conquest (much more subtle and effective.)
It also beats the alternative, which is seperate classes of people within a world that 'gets along' where powerful upper classes within the society live at the expense of rights freedoms and quality of life of the people below them, instead of at the expense of foriegn entities. If you think you can get rid of both you don't understand economics or human nature.

The borders we know today were defined by conquest. None were set in stone, and they changed constantly over time. Nations came to exist that never did and some populations have no borders that actualy define them (even some that once did in history.)
The concept of unchanging borders is only a modern thing.

That does not make imperialism right, nor the actions of the men helping thier peoples' success and quality of life at the expense of others.
If they do it in military uniform is does not mean when they are killed they are 'victims'. It just is the way it is.
It also does not make the soldiers themselves evil for being pawns and having loyalty to eachother and thier rulers over the people that they dominate.
It does mean when they are killed though that they were killed justifiably by the people that did so.

So I would not use the term "massacre" when describing the killing of such armed soldiers. Instead they are soldiers that died in battle, overwhelmed by the 'enemy'.

Indians fought in Europe, believe it or not, Zulus fought in South East Asia. Frequently, various Afghan tribes fought with the British against their neighbors. During the Indian Mutiny the Sikhs remained loyal to the British against their countrymen. The Ghurkas fought for the British in many wars.

Conquered people throughout history have fought on the side of thier conquerers and in many instances valiantly. Military service in a powerful nation provides many new opportunities to the individual regardless of thier personal beliefs. It can also provide political leverage and credibility with the more powerful conquerers of the conquered people.

 

[meef]

Sans...

Okay, good reply.

You got me with that one.

 

[iapetus]

I don't know much about the British Empire's involvement in Afghanistan, but IIRC they were not there to steal their land (which wasn't particularly productive) nor their resources (which were minmal).

Rather, their interest was strategic. If they weren't there, the Russians would be, and would then have used it as a route to invade India.

Now, you could argue that Britain should not have been running India, and you may well be right. But IIRC British involvement in India began simply with traders setting up trading posts with permission of the local rulers, many of whom after time decided they would rather be subjects of the British Crown rather than the "Indian" emperor. (I say "Indian", because the Mohgul dynasty that ruled India at the time were originally Mongolian invaders, hence the name).

Remember, generally (and AFAIK always), the British Empire wasn't invading free democracies or republics with constitutionally protected fundamental rights. Normally it was finding a feudal-style monarchy/empire/dictatorship, and replacing the Top Man with one of their own.


Now, in objective terms, I'd agree that invading and subjegating other countries is wrong, possibly even evil. But by the standard of the time, it was what everyone was doing, including many of the conquered peoples themselves. The British were just generally better at it (and often sometimes less brutal) than everyone else.

(This also applies to conquests and conflicts within the British Isles themselves. Scotland would not have suffered so much at the hands of the English, if they had not been so prone to attacking England and losing. Or if the Norman lords who owned lands in both England and Scotlans, and owed alligence to both the king o Scotland and the French/Norman king of England hadn't (generally) chosen to side with the English).

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Iapetus,
A good basic summary.

I would recommend that anyone who has an interest in the evolution of the present Afghan conflict read the series of books by Peter Hopkirk, "The Great Game", "Like Hidden Fire", "Setting the East Ablaze" and Trespassers on the Roof of the World". The books are totally absorbing, read like good spy novels, and they are packed with factual information. For example, did you know that Germany had it's own version of Lawrence of Arabia in Persia who was connected with a German conceived plan for Mexico to invade the US should it enter into WW1? That story of intrigue alone makes reading the books worthwhile.

British interest in Afghanistan was strategic. In later years it was carried out with the full cooperation of the Khan who saw British friendship as a way of gaining protection from his local enemies.

Does that sound familiar?

"..... The greatest treason is to do the right thing for the wrong reason"
TS Eliot