Can we all learn from Century of Compounding British Empire's Biggest Mistake? 1

Comments for item 1

chris macrae  12-29-2004 05:29 AM ET (US) Just in case it matters; I am a British citizen but both my parents grew up in parts of waning British colonies; I have spent 25 years surveying over 35 country's views of each other; and can see a lot of human good sense at people levels, so would prefer we tried to find some conversations 6 billion people can testify in, because we all share one world as well as participate in different geographical places.

chris macrae  01-30-2005 09:12 AM ET (US) I was talking to my 81 one year old father whose knowledge of history of Europe is pretty encyclopaedic. It turns out that almost every European Empire took a piece out of Africa and then hurried away from its nations without leaving them sustainable constitutions. You can color the ignomious map of Empire your way- but the British messed up most of the South (not helped by their apparent success in beating the Dutch down south); the French messed up some of the North though it seems to me (well I lived in Paris for 8 years and always thought the French had more humor in their battles than the Brits but maybe it was just that the French language sounds more fun when shouted) less so than the Brits; then in some extraordinary entente cordiale the Belgians were gifted Empire over the Congo (and did perhaps worse than either the Brits of French would; heavens knows why we then went on to permanently place an EU empire in this same country, tghough Belgians could correct that at a stroke if they had a bonfire of the EU Agricultural policy- some Brits will come dressed up as Guys if you need any help in lighting fuses peacefully); and then Portugal didnt do much for Angola; Italy not much for Libya;etc So yes if the European leaders (the large caucus as the World Economic Forum of 2005) are seriously/transparently up for 2005 as year we repair Africa, then that's Europe's job number 1 this year, and having found a sustainable start on that why not transfer the 30000 project learnings from 2006 through 30 Networks-for-womankind on to every other region where extreme poverty's divide needs bridging.

 

As the British Empire waned, the ruling politicians hurriedly made short-term decisions with no understanding of what future consequences might compound globally and locally over the century to date. 2

 

We will assume for reasons of focus that the biggest mistake was randomly allocating Israel a territory in Palestine – decision made on the hoof around 1917. If you want to log up other biggest mistakes please do so here 3

Comments for item 3

chris macrae  12-30-2004 08:59 AM ET (US) Whilst not fundamentally a British mistake, the extraordinary tales of American Empire building rotating around Economic Hit Men seem worth keeping a google on. Doubtless there are exagerations but for a long time now debt a a control instrument has bothered me; it seems particularly clear that some dictators have been tolerated by large banks as a perfect loan (charge high rates of interest to these spendthrift corruptors and hold the country in kortgage fopr something the people had no contract over anyhow). It seems like global devilry to me and one that some large finaciers have used as what is tanatamount to virtual slavery

 

Regarding the biggest mistake we invite you to add to the timeline of when it compounded another conflict or not so good consequence from the perspective of peace for all 6 billion beings as well as developing economic harmony worldwide and locally 4

 

2000 on 5

 

1990-2000 6

 

1980-1990 7

 

1970-1980 8

 

1960-1970 9

 

1950-1960 10

Comments for item 10

chris macrae  01-02-2005 12:20 PM ET (US) Although I still find a lot of inspiration in quotes from John Kennedy, I prefer those ones that were about humanity beyond individual nations. At least as clustered here, these ones could be construed to have compounded half a century of partiality - any comments?

chris macrae  01-02-2005 12:25 PM ET (US) Unlike the first John Kennedy quotations I referred to earlier (which came top when I googled) these are ones that play a more harmonious tune with my mind. (At time of googling their selection came third)

 

1940-1950 11

 

1930-1940 12

 

1920-1930 13

 

1910-1920 14

Comments for item 14

chris macrae  12-29-2004 09:34 AM ET (US) I hear that the 1995 book "War & Peace in the Middle East" by a British/Israeli Citizen Avi Shlaim where you judge how devoid of humanity and short-term nn perspective the the Balfour Declaration was An even deeper read may be: David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace: Creating the Modern Middle East 1914-1922.

 

This is the vague preceeding history of an Empire whose power exceeded its future wisdom; we welcome your editorial connections to on the roots of how this compound mistake spun, as well as any lessons in case global empires every again become the main reconciliation challenge of 6 billion people simultaneously. In the 1700s India became the jewel of the British Empire because spices were the modern day equivalent of oil. With no refrigeration, spices were seen as the main way to preserve foods, and so any trade in them. Because of the primacy of British interest in the world trade route of the sea channels between India and Britain, odd things all across the far east, middle east, near east and Africa started compounding in the late 1800s because of short-term fixes made by the British. These included:
Buying the panama canal from the French (sensible) except it started all sorts of geopolitical strategies including:
-needing allies with ports in the region, so Greek Cyprus and Britain became allies
-when the Turks entered the first world war with the Germans, Britain now had to side with Greece/Cyprus; and when the Turks/Germans lost their former empire in Palestine was put into play
-around 1917 a wealthy Jewish lobby petitioned Britain with the idea that Jews should have the opportunity to return to biblical lands, and the Balfour Treaty declared that his majesty George The 5th favoured this in principle (oddly this never went through parliament but was one of those declarations that the upper class network did policy by handshakes) 15

Comments for item 15

chris macrae  12-30-2004 03:32 AM ET (US) Interesting analysis of how the India-Pakistan conflicts went back to British decisions in early 1900s here extract:Pakistan was created by M.A.Jinnah on the basis of two nation theory. Jinnah theorised, more out of political expediency than conviction that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations. He maintained that religion, culture, language and historical heroes of the two communities are different. Such superficial theories do not stand any critical examination. The underlying assumption of two nation theory is that a community can be homogeneous on the basis of religion alone. However, the fact is that no human grouping can be homogeneous on the basis of religion. Religion, at best, is one important factor for unity but not the only factor. The Pakistanis are discovering this today. The Bengalis discovered it yesterday. In fact the seeds of two nation - and I say it without any exaggeration - were sown by the Britishers in the 19th century itself when they began to treat, more out of ignorance than mischief and later on out of political mischief, Hindus and Muslims as two homogeneous communities. And in the beginning of twentieth century i.e. in 1909 they introduced the separate electorate on the basis of religion. The very idea of separate electorate on the basis of religion is not sustainable for any nation state. But the Britishers deliberately created separate electorate to keep Hindus and Muslims divided. In fact before the Britishers introduced the category of religion in their censuses and created the myth of religious communities no such clear concept existed in Indian society. Castes and communities were referred to by their castes or professions or regions like the Bengali qaum or Mali qaum or Ansari qaum or Rajput qaum and so on. Each religious community was sub-divided on the basis of caste, region or language. There never was any concept of pan-Indian religious community with one language, culture or even political interests. Jinnah's two nation theory, on the other hand, assumed that Muslims and Hindus were one in every respect, be it culture or language or history or political interests. This was grave error on his part, if at all Jinnah believed in this theory sincerely. Perhaps he did not.

Tom Wayburn  12-31-2004 08:00 AM ET (US) In the last comment, does not the writer mean the Suez Canal rather than the Panama Canal?

chris macrae  12-31-2004 08:30 AM ET (US) Edited by author 12-31-2004 08:32 AM Absolutely - you spotted the not so deliberate mistake - the British at one time bought the Suez Canal - sorry, and by darn bad luck this is one of the few texts in this whole space that I don't know how to edit- hope error hasnt spoilt the rest of the confessions for you By the way if anyone wants to subscribe as confessions update from any contributor