UKC

What do you think you would have been? A slave user or an abolitionist. I am certain I would have been against slavery, and I'm pleased it was the Brits that led the world wide anti slavery campaign, even though it ultimately led up to the breakdown of the Empire and sparked the American revolution.
I am equally certain I would have supported the Sufferage movement, of course women should have equal rights, thank god in most of the civilised world that has been acheived too.
The point is what do we do about the rest of the world, generally Muslim that still holds women as chattels and second class beings? I think we have tried education and that doesn't seem to have worked , so what do we do?
How about sanctions on countries that are still clearly not giving their womwen equal rights. This might make life a bit difficult for western countries that trade with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and no doubt the soon to be Taliban held Afghanistan, plus the African countries with Muslim extremists threatening sharia law. But the old British Empire would not have stood for such things. The equality of people means the equality of all, not just men, we should take a more pro-active role on worldwide womens rights.

In reply to Al Evans:

That's a bold statement. Rather dependent on your upbringing, surely!

In reply to Nutkey:

Possibly.

If you are currently challenging the norms and socially accepted things you don't think are on, then it is likely you would have done then. If you don't do these things now, it is unlikely you would have been forward thinking in previous years. I reckon.

In reply to Al Evans:

An interesting question for me. Nowadays I believe in completely equal rights and abhor the concept of slavery.

However, I was brought up in Rhodesia at a time when it was normal to have coloured servants - and my family did. Clearly these were employees rather than slaves but their wages were apparently peanuts and there was no question of a white person doing the same job.

In reply to Al Evans:


What a bizarre thing to say. Empire was taking control of land by military force and maintaining political control of that land by military force. People who didn't want British rule got shot. Where are the equal right there?

In reply to TobyA:

The same rights that the British people got, behave or get killed (Peterloo, various Luddite uprisings, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, West Country et cetera ad infinitum).

I am a very distant relative of Granville Sharp and I have a fair drop of Mauritian blood in my makeup so I guess I have an equal chance of being either abolitionist or slave...

In reply to TobyA: That certainly was true of the early and primitive Empire builders, latterly I think if you delve into the history of the Empire it was based mainly on trade and in the end fairness as far as could be managed with primitive society. They tried their best with India and Pakistan, unfortunately partition hasn't worked , mainly due to the Muslim hords taking over Pakistan, I really don't see what else the Brits could have done though.I was thinking more of pillars of the Empire like William Wilberforce who was one of the originators and mainstays of the liberation of slaves.

In reply to Al Evans:


Haven't we done quite enough of trying to make others think like us for the time being?

In reply to TobyA: If you genuinely rose up against the government of your country, whatever country it was, you'd end up either shot or in prison (depending on how far you get with your uprising).

In reply to MG:

No, we haven't. It's not about 'our' views versus 'their' views it's about equality for anyone who happens to be born female. Why put these artificial divides between groups of people? If women were treated as second class citizens in Chipping Sodbury, would you say we shouldn't be imposing 'our' beliefs on the people of Chipping Sodbury? What if girls were routinely castrated there - should we still leave well alone?

In reply to Alyson:

Well clearly it is!

it's about equality for anyone who happens to be born female.

That's only a view that has been widespread even in the west for maybe 50 years. What makes you so certain that it should be universally applied? And by "us", even if we could. And anyway, imposing "our" views on people tends to result in lots of them ending up dead one way or the other. Sometimes this can argued as beneficial in an overall sense but after the disaster in Iraq and semi-disaster in Afghanistan, I think we should be rather cautious in future about trying to impose our world-views on people.

In reply to Al Evans: I came across this article last week... Found it interesting that in India it still happens, where the female is found to be the lesser being...

http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/4f7b0d114c0c0ae917000000/indian-pa...

In reply to TobyA:


Tut, tut! They each got an equal lump of British lead tax free... how can you be so ungrateful (on their behalf) ?

In reply to MG:

The fact that I'm a decent human being.


Iraq and Afghanistan were military situations - you know... war, guns, soldiers etc? Yes, people do die when shot at. I'm not sure that's in quite the same league as applying political or economic pressure, nor campaigning to spread a message of equality in countries where it's lacking. Are you arguing that the latter will lead to people dying? Because I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that one.

In reply to Al Evans:

Before we get any more abusive and wrongly stereotypical about Islam, it is a minority of Muslims that see women as lesser class, probably about the same as Christianity.

In reply to Dahinchl:


I doubt that you are right world wide, concerning heritages, for example, where women only get half what men do. Things have got worse over the last couple of decades.

In reply to Dahinchl:

And yet all the evidence points to the contrary, difficult innit?

In reply to Alyson:

And the vast majority of humans prior to about 1950 (and many today) weren't because they didn't regard women and men as equal? I am not sure it's that simple. Clearly in any modern democracy and economically developed country it makes sense to insist on equality for a whole load of reasons. I am not so clear that telling, say, subsistence farmers in Africa that they are terrible people because they don't let women hold property is so obviously correct. We are after all just another animal species and very few other species have equal roles for males and females.

league as applying political or economic pressure, nor campaigning to spread a message of equality in countries where it's lacking. Are you arguing that the latter will lead to people dying? Because I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that one.

Well there are plenty of documented cases of sanction leading to the everyday lives of the majority of the populace becoming worse while having little effect of the politics of a country. Iran right now for example is suffering from rampant inflation that is affecting the livelihoods of much of its population while its government carries on developing nuclear weapons.

In reply to Alyson:
Are you arguing that the latter will lead to people dying? Because I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on that one.

Over a hundred thousand here according to UN estimates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Effects_on_the_Iraqi_pe...

In reply to MG: The latter on my list was campaigning to spread a message of equality!

In reply to MG:

I take it you are not a woman, if you were then maybe you would see things differently!

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I thought you were against imperialism.

In reply to Al Evans:

It is isolated communities which act in a sexist manner. 1 in 4 people on this planet are islamic. You only hear about those extremeists and those in very outdated and despicable sexist/racist communities.

In reply to MG:


What reasons? I disagree, there are probably many reasons why it would make sense not to push for equality but we (or at least some of us) do it anyway.

In reply to MG:

I'm afraid this simplistic and twisted logic doesn't actually work. It's a complete non-sequitur. We are talking about equality of treatment and rights, not roles!

In reply to Alyson:

Eh!? So you think there are plenty of reasons not to have equality even in the UK but are happy to tell the rest world that they must make their societies more equal!

The main reasons I would give is that in developed economies "thinking" tends to be more important economically than physical work and this is an area where men and women are most equal so to have the most successful economy it makes sense that everyone in society can contribute fully.

In reply to MG:


This to me sounds a lot like you're saying women are naturally inferior.

It also sounds like you have very little understanding of the natural world, wherein you can find every conceivable reproductive strategy - strong females and weaker males; males who mate with lots of females; females who mate with lots of males; species which mate for life; males which raise the young alone; females which raise the young alone; species which share the responsibilities equally; animals which change sex; females who raise hordes of sterile males to do the work for them - and many, many others.

In reply to Rockmonkey680:
We are talking about equality of treatment and rights, not roles!

Well the same applies to treatment and right in most species.

In reply to MG:

And the relation with the subject is what exactly? Maybe you think that no other countries respect women?

In reply to Alyson:

No, where have I suggested that? And what do you mean by inferior anyway?



I know all that, which rather makes my point, that assuming it is natural and the best thing for women and men to be equal in society is rather strange given that it is so rare in other species. Why are humans so different, and why has this only become apparent in the last 50 years to a subset of humanity?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The OP was suggesting that we should try and force others to behave and think as we do, with particular reference to how the British Empire would have behaved.

In reply to Alyson:


I think that he is arguing that we should conduct surveys of how other species behave when we are trying to decide what is right, what is ethical and how we treat each other. You have to concede that it is at least a novel approach!

In reply to MG:

Yes, I can think of reasons you could use, if you wanted to, to argue for keeping women at home. I also think those reasons are outweighed by the fundamental principle that everyone should be born with the same opportunities in life as the next person.

The main reason I would give is exactly the one I've just given. Fundamentally we should all be given the same rights. I couldn't give a flying f*ck whether it makes economic sense for you that I'm working! You're talking about women's rights like it boils down to what's best for the country, not what's best for women. Jeez, it's hard to read such utterly backwards, phallocentric nonsense.

In reply to Alyson:

There is also the idea that humans are thinking beings are capable of going beyond their instinctive behaviour. Male humans undoubtedly did treat women as inferior until quite recently. I don't think it's a question of efficiency just simple justice.

As these forums show, quite a few men would be quite happy to continue in the old traditions

In reply to Markel:

It certainly is. I'm going to be a queen honey bee, ripping out the genitals of everyone I mate with and leaving them to die!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Now that's just crazy talk!

In reply to Alyson:

Sorry, our posts crossed, I was replying to a previous one... I realise that you don't think this way yourself.

In reply to Dahinchl:


Is it true that in Saudia Arabia women's testimony only counts for half of that of a man in court? And that women aren't allowed to drive? And that Saudi Arabia won't include any women in its Olympic team? Etc etc.

Is Saudi Arabia, home of 27 million Muslims and of Mecca and Medina, the sort of place you were thinking of as "isolated", "extremist", "very outdated" and "despicable"?

In reply to Al Evans:

I'm not sure it's accurate to say Brits led the world in any sense. I think it was abolished first just within the UK itself (1700s?), France abolished it with the 1789 revolution, 50 years before the Act in the UK, but they re-instituted it for the colonies.

Russia replace it with serfdom 100 years before.

Even Bishops had slaves in England, so you would have to have been going against the established church to have not supported slavery. I'm sure many people who were not wealthy enough to own slaves and were little above slaves themselves, would have been against slavery.

In reply to Alyson:
fundamental principle that everyone should be born with the same opportunities in life as the next person.
>

So you keep asserting, in various ways. Why should that be a principle when it goes against all human history? And why when probably a majority of the humans disagree with you are you so certain you are correct that you think we should impose it on the rest of world? (The idea that we could do this even if we tried is rather laughable).

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I knew what you were saying and that you weren't meaning me! I was just being lighthearted; I agree with you.

In reply to MG:

No I'm not, I did suggest that the BE was important in getting rid of slavery, mainly of black people, now maybe the West should look at universal emancipation of women is all I am saying.

In reply to winhill:

Is serfdom much better than slavery? As far as I can make out the difference was that the serf was tied to the land rather than to a person. When an estate changed hands the serf went with it.

As for Britain's "leading role" against slavery I'm a little suspicious of this too... the French tend to claim they were too. As Britain was a major player in the slave trade amongst European nations it seems natural that opposition to slavery would also grow first there. It is could also be due to Britain becoming a manufacturing power rather than a plantation one so the use of slaves became less useful.

None of which means Wilberforce and others are not to be credited with what they did, all the same.

In reply to MG: Is the idea of a progressive culture completely alien to you? For much of human history the world had slavery, that doesn't mean we should carry on having slavery. For almost all of human history there have been wars fought, that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for peace.

In reply to MG:


And yet it is a fundamental part of the United Nations charter which the vast majority of countries in the world adhere to.

I think you may be a little out of date on this one!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And in fact Bruce, white males treated black people as inferior, so thats one hurdle we have got over. Well not all of us of course, and to a lesser extent but wider ranging many white and black males still think women are inferior and still think they should 'know their place'. Fortunately we have more or less got over that one now in the civilised west, though a few religions still hanker on to it.

In reply to MG:

Because we are supposed to learn from history!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well the UN has managed to avoid nuclear war and get rid of small pox but otherwise as far as I can see there are still wars, famine, different roles for men and women, etc etc the world over so I stand by my statement that it is laughable that by applying political pressure all of sudden the whole world will think like us. On other threads you are very anxious to emphasise that other people think differently to those in the west, why are you singing a different tune now?

In reply to Alyson:

Isn't that just another form of hierarchical society, as humans form anywhere?

For almost all of human history there have been wars fought, that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for peace.

Don't know. Wars as you say are pretty natural. Maybe the odd conflict is beneficial.

You are somehow making out that women get a raw deal generally. Yet it is somehow always men who end up fighting wars, getting killed in mines, drowning at sea or maimed as farmers. Don't you think women have done pretty well overall?

In reply to MG:

Chapeau Sir, I haven't fallen for a troll in quite sometime and was nearly on the verge of biting again.

(You're not serious, right?)

In reply to MG:

To who?

I think you need to play catch up, there are lots of females in our armed forces.

Other than that, you're completely right of course. How stupid of me to trivialise losing your finger in a combine harvester by daring to compare it to being abducted, trafficked and made to work as a prostitute, or being forced to marry a man who has raped you, or having your clitoris cut out as a child, or being unable to earn a living and support yourself because you were born with a vagina. Yes, women are doing well the world over and I'm sorry for suggesting otherwise.

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

In reply to Coel Hellier: there's a lack of equality in huge sections of the world Coel including in Saudi Arabia. Islam is something to do with that, but not everything - somehow the 150 000 000 Muslims of Bangladesh and and the 200+ million Indonesian Muslims have somehow dealt with having female leaders for instance - some form of democracy seems to help regardless of majority religion. Meanwhile in predominantly Hindu India, baby girls are killed in considerable numbers and hundreds of thousands (millions?) of female foetuses are aborted.

Some Muslim men treat women like crap, so do some Hindus, so do some Christians, Jews etc etc and so do some non-religious people. It would be great if suddenly Islam became a major promoter of sexual equality, but it would do nothing (or very little) to deal with the structural inequality faced by women in in non Muslims societies based on male primogeniture like India and China.

In reply to Alyson:

I think anyone who thinks women are treated fairly in this world might read 'A Thousand Splendid Suns' for starters. I am quite comfortable 'inflicting' my liberal Western morality on the dark corners of the globe.

In reply to Al Evans:

I really don't know where to start here, so perhaps it's best if I just leave it with I very fundamentally disagree, and beside Niall Ferguson you'll be doing well to find many historians who agree with you.


Huh?

Are the Muslim hordes different from Pakistani Muslims?

In reply to Rockmonkey680: No of course not - I was was trying to think of what on earth I was going to say next to outrage Alyson! Although I do think there is a limit to what is possible and how we (loosely the west) go about trying to persuade others of our point of view require a lot more care than previously, particularly given our waning economic and political power.

In reply to Al Evans:


Any evidence for the above Al or as I imagine believing that the British Empire was based on bringing civilization, justice and propriety to the fuzzy wuzzies and not merely stealing their land and resources.

Cameron/ U.K. plc is doing business with Karimov in Uzbekistan & most the less savoury middle eastern countries, supplying arms to corrupt military dictatorships with large mineral reserves is our M.O . Trade is the most important factor in U.K. relations with the rest of the world - the rights of anyone in these places are just window dressing to the FCO and part of the whitewash the government uses at home for foreign policy decisions - often ones that result in the death of thousands of brown people. Business as usual then.

D

In reply to Al Evans: obviously dependent on your upbringing i would have thought ,bit like Labour and Conservative diehards ...

In reply to MG:


Some values are universal - to take the obvious one: thou shalt not kill, I don't recall I've ever suggested that we should encourage people who think the opposite! Others such as equality, either between races, genders or whatever are also values that the majority of civilised people at least claim to support, as I do. If you don't, or consider that it's reasonable to have normal relations with states that don't then I think you are wrong.

To compare this with respecting different values or being against imperialism, which means domination by armed force is rather silly.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Actually Bruce, the original Commandment wasn't that, it was "Thou shalt not do murder".
David killed Goliath, Mohammed was a soldier, etc..
There's a world of difference between killing to defend your family, village, country etc. and murdering.

In reply to fred99:


I presume you have an argument from the original Hebrew (or Greek or Assyrian or whatever the hell it was written in) to prove this is the correct interpretation?

In reply to fred99:

I expect that even back then people knew how to take context into consideration

It was just an example, I think there are such things as universal values, that's all. This is not just a theoretical idea, it corresponds to my own experiences with people in various countries. I've always noticed more similarity than differences once you can communicate with them on an individual basis, away from group effects.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




I found this article quite interesting, by Princess Basma Bint Saud Bin Abdulaziz, the youngest daughter of King Saud, of Saudi Arabia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17446831

I note, however, that she lives in London, not Saudi Arabia, and I wonder how that interview would be received by the cleric who stated that women drivers would lead to an increase in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce.


see my thread http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=485008

In reply to Dominion: WAs it the Algerian, or Morrocan woman who won the Olympic gold medal at I think 5000mts, she recieved death threats for running in shorts and team vest, even though she carried the national flag on her victory lap.

In reply to Al Evans:


Algerian, I think, and 1500m...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassiba_Boulmerka

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16962799

"I remember it well," she says. "It was Friday prayers at our local mosque, and the imam said that I was not a Muslim, because I had run in shorts, shown my arms and my legs. He said I was anti-Muslim."

In reply to Dominion:

...and as a sort of addition, if you read the interview up above with the Saudi Princess, one thing she stresses is that she thinks the process has to start off with education, and that at the moment in Saudi Arabia, children are taught that women are subordinate, and have to obey their menfolk

For one, our young are taught that a woman's position in society is inferior. Her role is strictly limited to serving her family and raising children.

Without changing the education system, she suggests, women can never be free, and so on. Just allowing a woman to drive a car, for example, will lead to women being attacked and harassed by extremists thus providing a "I told you so" scenario for the clerics...

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

Well, that's all well and good as long as you acknowledge that this is a modern form of cultural imperialism in much the same way as the British Empire embraced a C19th cultural imperialism rooted in its contemporary understanding of Christian morality.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Absolute nonsense - it depends how it's done, exchanging ideas, persuasion etc is not the same as sending a gunboat, or "creating a no fly zone" then bombing shit out of the whole population, to cite the modern day equivalent.

Ideas, not bombs.

In reply to Al Evans:

That's impossible to say. I am a product of this time, culture and mores.

I may have been some one who was happy beating people with a big stick for their own good.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well yes. And when people don't accept your ideas, what do you do? History suggests it tends to lead to problems and often violence. The OP and others above suggested that they regarded modern western ideas as intrinsically better than others, and that economic and political pressure should be applied to those who disagreed. Presumably the Chinese also think their ideas are intrinsically better. It is perhaps worth stopping to think what our reaction would be to China, say, imposing sanctions on us because we allow a free internet, something they disagree with. Not, I would guess, very positive.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>
19thC Christian missionaries tended not to be armed with Maxim guns. There were, of course, C19th imperialists with maxim guns but as you have pointed out, there are modern day equivalents flying F15s.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's was often the way it started, when they were knocked about by the locals that was the pretext for more pressing methods.

The difference today is that what are called "Western ideas" are not just Western, some values go beyond that and appeal to populations who aspire to a bit more equality or freedom etc. The problem being that as such ideas have often been twisted - freedom to exploit or freedom to live in peace and so on - that the question is obviously quite difficult.

Perhaps looking at concrete examples - the death penalty for women "adulterers", stoning to death, cutting hands off thieves for example can clearly be seen as practices that have no place in a civilised world. Bombing villages with no care for the "collateral damage", use of drones in general, execution by helicopter gunship of "suspected terrorists" (and those standing nearby) or anti personnel mines scattered over whole zones and so on are examples of practices that are just as bad.

It's not only the supposedly uncivilized who are uncivilized.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I acknowledge no such thing.

In reply to Postmanpat:


not directly (although there are some cases of army officers running a sideline in conversions) but they had the peeps with the guns standing behind them if the conversation got difficult in many cases.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Sometimes it was. Sometimes it wasn't. A bit like today then.

Ah, right. And we know that these values, many of which have become the dominant ones in Europe only in the past fifty years, and are still in the minority in much of the world, are actually universal values how exactly?

And were we to agree that they are actually important universal values what action is permissible to spread them universally?


Exactly.

In reply to dissonance:


That's very simplistic. Sometimes the authorities were trying to undermine the missionaries, sometimes protect them, sometimes support them.

In reply to Al Evans:

Presumably you are referring to things like the enlightened approach to concentration camps in the Boer war; the partition of Iraq after the first world war; the summary killings and imprisonment in Kenya in the 1950's or the crack down in Malaysia in the same decade? To name but a few. All very fair and even handed by the 'old empire'.

I am not sure if talk of 'Muslim hords' helps your argument either.

I think if we look at how human rights continue to be abused today it is partly through the ability to gloss over history and objectify the 'other' as being of less value, perhaps 'primitive'.

So we all have to be careful about framing over simplistic questions.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The ideas that find takers elsewhere will be adopted elsewhere, it's not a question of forcing them, although I think that a certain degree of pressure, refusing to trade with countries like Saudi Arabia, for example, or Israel, to give another where human rights abuses are particularly flagrant would be quite legitimate - boycotting rather than bombarding.

As for justifying it, it's my opinion, nothing more. Similar notions are present in the UN charter or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well, but maybe you think these are just propaganda sheets written by Western propagandists?

In reply to MG:

Here you are, complete text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which all members of the United Nations are supposed to respect and promote :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Text_of_...

The preamble is quite clear:

"Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."

Seems clear enough, any country not respecting this should be kicked out of the UN... I won't hold my breath though.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Somehow I suspect a UN of about three countries might not be that effective.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I rather thought that might be what you thought

Put it this way, in the absence of Western "propagandists", if they existed at all do we really think they would read like this?

It must be really satisfying to know that at whatever point in history you transport yourself to, you would always have taken the side that is, at this current point in history, regarded as 'right'.

In reply to Al Evans:

Really?! Partition was nothing more than a classic attempt at divide and rule. We knew we were losing control so we screwed them over. And Pakistan wasn't 'taken over' by muslim hordes - it was set up as a muslim country. That was the point. By splitting India along religious lines we created conflict where there wasn't really any before. Which isn't to say that none of the native population wanted it - Jinnah was all in favour - but then there are always blinkered idealists in every population.

In reply to El Pato:

Drivel - Islam & Hindu had been raping, pillaging and generally exterminating each other for centuries before we got there, if fact it still goes on within the borders of India without adding Pakistan into the equation.

D

In reply to El Pato:

Divide and rule my arse. Partition was agreed after the decision to leave had already been made. Cut and run more like.......

In reply to Dauphin: I was rather under the impression that it had for the most part calmed down rather by the early-mid 1900's - on further reading, it looks like I was wrong... And for what it's worth, the Sikhs seem to have been fairly good at the raping and pillaging too when the mood took them!

I realise that there is still religious conflict in parts of modern India, but the point I was (rather badly) trying to make was that the division of India (along religious lines), the resulting mass-movement of people in both directions and the subsequent violence have had a significant and lasting negative impact on the relationship between India and Pakistan. It isn't the only thing by any means, but it appears to be a large part of their inherent distrust.

In reply to Postmanpat: Yeah, OK, good point!

In reply to Al Evans: ' and I'm pleased it was the Brits that led the world wide anti slavery campaign, even though it ultimately led up to the breakdown of the Empire and sparked the American revolution.'

Christ Al, can't you read just a bit about history before you post your musings here?

Britain's stand against slavery took place before the 'Empire' was even established; can't be bothered to look it up now but it was in the early 19th C from memory - well before the Empire was a recognisable entity. And issues over slavery took no part in the American revolution (which PRECEDED the British ban, Brits were still happily profiteering in the Caribbean while it was taking place) other than to offer some hope for slaves who fought in the British cause and were offered freedom as a result.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Actually Britain had an empire as soon as it came into existance in 1707 but I'm not sure its stand on slavery had much to do with the breakdown of the empire as that continued to grow and reached its peak well after slavery had, at least nominally, been eliminated.

I agree that slavery had little to do with the American Revolution. As I understand it, slavery was the one issue that the likes of Jefferson were a bit ashamed to have left out of the declaration of independence - slaves were somehow forgotten about when came to 'all men created equal' (and women for that matter). It wasn't until the civil war that this was rectified.

In reply to alanw: 'Actually Britain had an empire as soon as it came into existance in 1707 ' ??? Anyway, you're wrong. The concept of a British Empire and all that entailed evolved only gradually as an outcome of industrial and military strength after the 18th C; talk of an Empire in the C18th wouldn't have been understood.

Anyway, where's Naebrains when you need her, to argue that all slavery was result of British capitalism ?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Hmm. I guess it depends on how you define empire. I would have have said the concept was as old as the hills, going back to persia, rome, etc and later the Angevin empire of the 12th and 13th centuries. Maybe it took a while to really formalise the idea of the British Empire post Napoleanic wars when Britain ruled the waves but earlier than that the Seven Years' War was global, fought in Britain's colonies around the world. So, as you say, it evolved over time but I would put its roots much earlier than the 18th C back when it was competing with Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands. Anyway, complicated and fascinating stuff with few simple truths.

But yes, obviously slavery was a result of British capatalism as are all other of life's evils. Surely that point is obvious

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Britain (England at first) had two empires, the first was much weakened after the American War of Independence and the second one, the one you refer to, reached it's peak after that. However Al's chronology is a little out as Wilberforce came along just after the independence of the USA.