This is an archive of past discussions about British Empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
No mention of the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland. The enduring policies for construction and maintenance of the empire were set right there, from Tipperary to Templecrone. Ireland is mentioned in passing in the Norman section (and I agree, that period has nothing to do with this subject), but entirely overlooked when considering Drake and Raleigh, California and Roanoke and Jamestown - it was back in the Land of Ire those projects were rehearsed, and botched.--shtove00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
a third to a quarter
the area of the british empire was at it's greatest extent 37 million square kilometers.
37/148 = 0.25, this is a quarter of the total land area. I have changed the original "a third".
Warniats23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
So, it's 14.3 million square miles?
That's 37 million sq km.
The total land area according to the cia world factbook: "land: 148.94 million sq km"
37/148.94= 0.248
I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Can you please look into this? Warniats01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Check this. Various serious reference books give land area of the Earth between 148,300,000 km2 and 153,295,000 km2. 37,000,000/148,300,000=24.9% whereas 37,000,000/153,295,000=24.1%, so Warniats is correct, it is one quarter of the land area of Earth. 81.64.90.17313:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes but that does not include inland water, which takes up a lot of space...Did you even look at the reference I sent you...
Yea I did. So in the "14.3 million sq miles" figure, the area of lakes and rivers is excluded? If that's the case then I agree with you to use 45 million sq miles as the world total land area. However, it wouldn't be fair to include inland water to get "14.3", then exclude inland water to get "45". This would artificially make the division higher. Warniats23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
37 million sq km
So, how did the people exactly get this number? from
Because it is 14.3 million square miles. It had previously said 14.1 square miles, but that was not including Afghanistan, so I changed it because yes in 1919 Afghanistan was part of the British Empire.....If you look at one of the first posts it explains why it isn't 23 million sq km....because the pwerson who was converting it went from square miles to kilometres, not from square miles to square kilometres.....Please don't make the same mistake...Arthur Wellesley19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we all know that Spain lost the anglo-spanish war concluded in 1604. This article seems to suggest that spain won however. Can someone cite a source for this which actually names these supposed royal naval defeats? The only one I can of is the Revenge (which wasn't a huge battle, the Revenge was just separated from the rest of her squadron and captured by the spanish). Also the Drake-Norris expedition didn't see much action at sea but rather was a ground campaign. It was a defeat for england but they later succeded in burning down Cadiz. So two points here,I think the implication that spain won the war (the opposite is in fact true) should be dropped and unless these royal naval defeats can be named and sources provided for them, I think the mention of these should be dropped as well.
The war ended with a peace treaty in 1604 - neither side was victorious. Are you sure the article suggests a Spanish victory? Insistence on English superiority at sea in this period is a Victorian delusion. It is obvious that Spain remained the dominant power, until overtaken by the French in the 1640's. As far as I know, the Revenge was sunk in the Azores battle during a storm, along with many Spanish vessels. Please sign your contributions (I know Wikipedia can log-off unexpectedly).--shtove02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well okay, I can admit when I'm wrong but I'm still curious about these supposed royal naval defeats. Drake-Norris expedition was not a naval battle. Drake's final expedition involved him being beaten back from puerto rico (he was beaten back by the fort, not ships). But the implication here is that spain's NAVY remained superior. Can anyone name these supposed battles where spain's navy beat england's? (I'm the guy who started this section)
Related articles seem to support the claim that Spain remained the dominant naval power in the beginning of the 17th century. As for English losses against the Spanish in the 1590s, a few are mentioned in Anglo-Spanish War (1585). Piet14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that the Royal Navy has not been beaten by the US Navy, yet surely no one would deny that the US currently has naval superiority. So I question the need for anyone to name a battle where Spain's navy beat England's in order to prove that the Spanish Navy was superior. Superiority isn't always a question of who beat whom. -- Derek Ross | Talk16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the period of transition in your example was one of an alliance between the two. England beat spain's navy in the battle of gravelines. I don't see how you can say Spain's navy made a comeback without at least being able to cite one naval victory for them in the period between the armada (1588) and treaty of london (1604). The purpose of armed forces are to fight. The way in which they are measured is by their war record. And Spain had plenty of opporunity to do so considering this was a fairly long war. (Guy)
I've spruced up Anglo-Spanish War (1585) with a blow-by-blow account of what happened at sea (it's generalised and not exhaustive). Details of the land campaigns in the Netherlands and Brittany need to be added there, and perhaps the style could do with some tweaking (help welcomed). Guy (still unsigned) makes a good point, in that the English navy was superior in almost every single fight with the Spanish, but then it was inferior at the more grown-up task of bringing back the bacon and patrolling an empire. In the light of the 19thC., perhaps the English can be said to have learned from the Spanish?--shtove21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
After reading some of the related articles and their links, I think I see the point the pro-spanish side is making. While the SKILL of the royal navy was unmatched at the time, the overall power of the spanish navy and the relatively small size of the royal navy prevented them from challenging spain for absolute control of the seas. When they finally did, the Dutch were their main competitors having displaced spain. I guess this is similar to the war of 1812 where the americans emberrased their royal navy counterparts in terms of skill (check out all the one-on-one duels) but obviously didn't have the overall strength to challenge their naval dominance. (Guy)
A few points. I think the Spanish navy in this period is better described as Royal (ie. centrally controlled and funded) - Elizabeth's navy received much of its funds from investors, and her admirals had a tendency, once out of the old dear's sight, to charge off on their own chaotic courses. I don't think their skill was superior - whereas the Spanish sailed around the world as a matter of course, the English had ships and cannon that were designed for smash-and-grab raids: they were effective in that sense, but only when their commanders could agree with each other, rather than acting like a bunch of blow hards. Under James I, the English navy suffered a severe decline, most likely because of the loss of urgency upon the peace with Spain. Don't know about the point on the war of 1812 - but good to see that, in a discussion on the Anglo-Spanish War (1585), America has the last word. BTW - revolutionary America still doesn't get a serious look-in here. Nor does Tudor Ireland. I am not John Bull, but shtove00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Map showing France as an English "possession" and axis territories as British
Including parts of France that English kings ruled over in a discussion of the British Empire is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever come across. At best it is misleading, at worst downright incorrect. The rules of the game then were completely different - this was not the age of European imperialism - and both parts of the term "British" and "Empire" make no sense whatsoever in describing that period. So I have removed English regal possessions in France from the map. I also strongly disagree with the idea that Axis home countries under military occupation post WW2 should be listed as British imperial possessions, even with a disclaimer. Imperial possessions of the Axis powers, perhaps, but certainly not the Axis countries themselves. For starters, they were not administered as colonial possessions. Anyway, for now, I have just removed France. Gsd200018:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I see someone has already raised the subject of Axis countries above in "Axis occupied territories". There seems to be a tendency amongst some Wikipedians to try to be complete to the point of anal retentiveness. Technically, yes, the British administered them for a while, but no serious discussion of the British Empire (e.g. http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/British/Since1945/?view=usa&ci=9780198205647) includes discussion of them. I have never seen a map of the British Empire (outside of Wikipedia) that includes Aquitaine or Austria, Burgundy or Berlin, Calais or Cologne. Gsd200021:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute...Gsd2000, can you give an exact starting point for the British Empire? Was it 1707 with the Act of Union, or was it with James I/VI when the crowns were united in 1603? And since the United Kingdom and her Empire evolved out of England and Scotland and their empires then why exclude the French possessions (especially when they are clearly identified as being former English possessions)? The book that you provided the link for has a lot of glowing tributes, however although it is a serious discussion about the British Empire, it "deals with the interaction of British and non-western societies from the Elizabethan era to the late twentieth century, aiming to provide a balanced treatment of the ruled as well as the rulers, and...". According to wikipedia the Elizabethan Era is the time associated with Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled from 1558 to 1603 as Queen of England only. Thus if the Empire is said to begin in 1603 (or worse 1707), that book deals with some of the period before that. So what is the difference between that book's aspect and the map's? If after reading the caption and looking at the colour coding, some people still interpret the image to mean parts of France were parts of the British Empire, then there is not much that can be done for them. And why not google in "Angevin Empire" for either websites or images and you can be sure that you will get information on English "regal possessions in France". The fact that they are regal possessions does not mean they the relationships were not imperial in some way. After all, what would you consider the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? They are not simple dependencies, nor are they parts of the United Kingdom proper. They are crown possessions (regal possessions), but are they or were they never considered to be part of the British Empire? And if you have never seen a map outside of wikipedia with austria or burgundy etc in a map about (not a map of) the British Empire, then what of it? Oh and see http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/History.html , http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/BritishEmpire/Britain-20centuries.html, http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/BritishEmpire/Britain-20centuries.html#1403 (all three are from the same website, but just click the last one to go directly to the map) and http://www.worldstatesmen.org/COLONIES.html. And if no serious discussion of the British Empire includes discussion of a few territories that you admit were technically administered by them, then again is wikipedia only supposed to ape those discussions and not compile knowledge? I doubt anyone has ever seen any map with white borders (negative space) on grey landmasses outside of wikipedia either. And if a map that is clearly identified as being a map of English and British possessions cannot show the possessions in France, then why does the article contain a short "background" to the British Empire that details the English and Scottish Empires and starts out with the conquest of 1066? And what is to be made of the Kings and Queens of the UK also having the title of "King (or Queen) of France" up until 1801 (long after the British Empire had been established? Although none of the claimants since the end of the Hundred Years War could ever be considered in all seriousness as monarchs of France, the title still existed and had a history behind it and map was able to help explain this peculiarity.
---anon 12:07 March 16, 2006.
English crown possessions in France were not imperial. There was never any attempt to "colonise" France by the English. If anything, England was a Norman colony, Normandy became part of France, so by your logic England should be shown on maps of the French empire. Ridiculous. James VI of Scotland became King of England. Does that mean that England then became part of a Scottish "Empire"? What about William of Orange, did England become part of the Dutch empire then, because we had a Dutch monarch ruling over England? Did we become German when George I became our king? English imperialism began with attempts to colonise Ireland, period. And at least have the courage to sign your own rants (I do). Gsd200022:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Was there ever any attempt to colonize The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? And then what type of colonization are you referring to? They type in the Americas and Australia with settlers or the type in India and the East Indies where states became dependent upon the UK? I never said England was never a Norman colony and if you wish to denote that England was a Norman colony on the maps of the French empire then go right ahead. As for being ridiculous, I don't recall ever saying that you were being ridiculous, only pointing out that you were being rather arbitrary with regards to the map (and by extension the article): if the remnants of the English "crown possessions" in France are considered to be dependencies today and as part of the British Empire (and their relationship with the Crown having changed little in the hundreds of years) then why are they included in the article and why should the English crown possessions in France be excluded entirely?
As for England becoming part of the "Scottish Empire", the question can be reposed to you "James VI/I united the crowns of Scotland and England. Does that mean that Scotland then became part of a English "Empire"?" If so then why is this article entitled the "British Empire"? And if England did not become a part of the Scottish Empire and Scotland did not become a part of the English Empire then what happened? In answer to your question, no England did not become a part of the Scottish "Empire" insofar as Scotland did not become a part of the English "Empire", but both countries remained separate, with one common head of state. As for William of Orange, according the personal unions site, England, Scotland, Ireland and most of the Netherlands were in personal union. The same thing happened in 1603 between England and Scotland. The only difference was that the Netherlands had a rather unique political system at the time, so whereas when England and Scotland united it was a straightforward personal union between two kingdoms, William of Orange represented a personal union between a hereditary kingdom and a non-hereditary republic. Had the office of stadholder been hereditary before William III's time (instead of almost half a century later), then it is possible that the Netherlands would be united with the UK today in some way. When you ask "did we become German...", who exactly is "we"? The English? The Scottish? The Welsh? The British? The answer of course is no that you did not become German, since a German-speaking head of state does not make you German, just as how an English-speaking head of state does not turn the Scots into Englishmen. Also, you misuse the word "German" since George I's nationality was Hannoverian. "German" was an ethnic term before 1871 and only then could it have been properly applied as a nationality, just as how "Germany" was a term denoting an area before 1871. You say "English imperialism began with attempts to colonise Ireland, period." but then this again shows that you are being inconsistent. What does "English" imperialism in Ireland have to do with the British Empire in the strictest sense (which is how you were defining it in relation to occupied and administered territories and the crown possessions in France)? And when does the history of English imperialism in Ireland begin? If you say it began with the papal bull in the 1100s then how can a papal land grant/gift to the English crown, which turned Ireland into a possession of the Crown be any different from the crown possessions in France? What was so special about the crown possessions in France? Didn't the English monarchs claim them as their right of succession and in so doing were monarchs over those areas, just like all English monarchs after King Henry II did in Ireland/ And again, I have to ask, what did you find so wrong with the crown posessions and former personal unions being on the map if the key explained it? Are all maps supposed to be so simple as to be self-explanatory and if so what is the purpose of the key? Now since I have answered your questions how about answering those that I posted to you both in the original message and this response (and no more baiting, if you don't like my opinions, you don't have to call them ridiculous or issue challenges, it doesn't make you more knowledgeable or more right).---anon 18:50 March 18, 2006.
Gsd is right, including Angevin territories as part of the "British Empire" is ridiculous. So is showing the British occupation zone in Germany. As to the beginning of the British Empire, I think the 17th century and the foundation of English colonies in the New World at that time would be the clear starting point. English rule in Ireland was a precursor to the British Empire, but should not be confused with it. At any rate, I think the "British Empire" can only exist after the personal union between England and Scotland - prior to that there were two British states. BTW, the "German Nation" most certainly existed before 1871, and "Germany" was a well-established concept with a well-established political meaning. The only time there was no German political entity in European history was between 1806 and 1815. john k02:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Those territories as certainly not commonly understood to be included in the British Empire, but let us not forget the literal meaning of empire. British monarchs only dropped the title King of France under the Hanovarians - indeed the monarch continues to be Duc de Normandie, the last existing dukedom of France continuing to receive official recognition (in the Channel Islands where the British monarch holds that title - the monarch also being formerly King of France). So whilst it is incorrect to so colour the English kings French territories as a part of the "British Empire", it could certainly be said that those lands were a part, once, of an "English empire".--jrleighton 07:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppport Gsd2000 on this matter, I recently changed (ie removed) the Netherlands from the map in question, simply because we¹ were never ever we ruled by the English as wel as from England. Yet the Netherlands were shown on the map, the excuse was that William of Orange had a "personal union" with the English ... the defender presumed that a stadholder equaled a King (which still doesn't justify the annexation of the Netherlands into the British Empire) which is not true, the Netherlands were a republic at the time and a Stadholder is simply an very important person in charge of the defense of the republic, and the only reason he got in to the english royal family was because the Dutch were at the time the world superpower and in the passed Anglo-Dutch wars had nearly destroyed the English naval and merchant fleet.
All I'm saying is that the persons who made the map in the first place were more filled with pride and nationalism than good sense.+ I believe the "British Empire" should start in 1707 as there was no "Britain" before that time.
A clear starting point for what is known as the British empire is 1541, when the Irish parliament passed the Act for Kingly Title, converting Ireland from a lordship under the authority of the English crown to a strange little kingdom in its own right ie. H VIII of England then became H I of Ireland. With the Protestant revolution, Ireland was used as a sort of hunting ground for colonists (hope I'm not betraying bias - the history of Tudor Ireland is quite unbearable in parts - often like a Greek tragedy). There's a lot of literature on developing colonial ideology (beginning with the Portuguese, Italians and Spanish) in the 16thC, and on English absorption of continental ideas - these gave form to a committed policy of colonisation of Ireland from about 1550, which culminated in the Plantation of Ulster in 1610. By that time, the concept of Britishness was explicit in Stuart politics (eg. the first version of the Union Jack dates from the reign of Ja I). The Plantations of Ireland (and especially that of Ulster) were the templates for the British empire, and several people involved in Irish colonisation also had a hand in the early colonisation of NE America eg. Humphrey Gilbert, Walter Raleigh, Ralph Lane etc. Look up Tudor re-conquest of Ireland. An article on the British Empire that fails to examine its root is flawed. The inclusion of Angevin territories prior to 1541 strikes me as daft (as does that of post-WWII Axis territories).--shtove11:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The former map clearly identified that the Angevin territories were under the associated with England alone, so how can anyone say that they were included in the map of the British Empire? Also there is most certainly a difference between the "German Nation" and "Germany". Replace those terms with "Kurdish Nation" and "Kurdistan" and then identify anyone alive today who has a passport identifying them as a Kurdish citizen. Yes Germany was a political concept, but it was not a unified nation, same goes for Italy. I pointed out however, that having a Hannoverian king did not automatically make the people of the British Isles members of the German Nation and that to be more clear the use of the word German in that instance was ambiguous (just imagine how it would look to someone stumbling across this that didn't know that George I was German-speaking). As for their being no German political entity between 1806 and 1815, technically there was a German entity during those times, several in fact. But if you are referring to the time between the Holy Roman Empire and the German Confederation, then what of the Confederation of the Rhine? Also, I stated that Germany as a unified country did not exist until 1871 which is true. The German confederation was composed of independent states and it was not nearly as unified as say Switzerland. So implying that the German Confederation (and its predecessor The Holy Roman Empire) were unified nations as in the sense of Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom (1707), France and Austria (which was a member of both German entities) is a stretch (although it is true that the Holy Roman Empire evolved from being a unified state into a confederation of independent nations). And as George I was not born in the Holy Roman Empire, but in Hannover in the German Confederation, his nationality (not in terms of "German nation", but independent state) was Hannoverian and his ethnicity was German. That is all I was saying. And if the German Confederation can be considered as such, and were the sole German political entities, then why are the crown possessions in France treated differently? And why does a map that shows the Netherlands have to mean the Netherlands were ruled from England or that the Netherlands were annexed into the British Empire? Did the map state that? Just because it is coloured on a map does not mean that it was annexed. And the former map was not the first map that I have ever seen depicting it (see http://www.euratlas.com/time2.htm and more specifically http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1700.htm). So unless, the people who work on Euratlas are quacks then why can't it be shown? Euratlas is Swiss by the way and thus, then people who work cannot be filled with pride and nationalism for the British Empire as opposed to good sense. Plus those maps are among the most detailed and accurate that I've ever come across, I didn't even know about the Republic of Cracow til I glimpsed those maps. Conversely, it could be asked why doesn't the Dutch Empire map depict the former personal union? And if personal unions cannot be depicted then Scotland and Ireland should be removed from the map as well. And a stadholder was a very important person, but they were not "simply charged with the defence of the republic" as then they would simply be army chiefs. According to the articles on stadholder and the politics of the Dutch Republic, they were involved in governance. And then look, Shtove and Sander can somehow agree that the Angevin territories are not to be included in the map (even though the map clearly stated that they were connected to England solely) but their proposed dates for the start of the British Empire differ by 166 years, with Sander of the mind that nothing was British prior to 1707 (in which case the association with the Netherlands had already ended), but Shtove advocating 1541. So now I must ask Shtove, what was so significant about the act passed in 1541? And while I agree that the plantations in Ireland were a template for settler colonization and political colonization (to an extent) elsewhere in the world (Ireland was the first settler colony), I wonder if the Union Jack can really be considered a product of the feeling of Britishness, or if it is a case where the flag came before the country. If I recall correctly, at that time the Union Flag was not really a national flag (in terms of a flag for use by the people) as a state or royal flag and that its use was restricted for quite a while. The Tudor re-conquest of Ireland, by the way also makes mention of English settlers (peasants and labourers) that had displaced the native Gaelic inhabitants in the east and south-east during the Anglo-Norman conquest. As Shtove said, an article that fails to examine the roots of the British Empire is flawed. As to how far back those roots go, it is apparently debateable, however, considering that the British monarchs continued the numbering system from England and Scotland (so the current Queen is Elizabeth II of England and Elizabeth I of Scotland and William III/II and William IV/III, etc.) then it would appear that at least in the minds of the rulers of the kingdom that roots stretch back to at least the Normans and their descendants (hence Edward I, although he was technically the fourth Edward to rule England).--anon 9:51 March 19,2006
Whoops, my mistake, George I was born in the HRE (so just ignore that part).--anon 10:05 March 19,2006
The Dutch situation is pretty complex and I'm not qualified to comment on the technicalities. But in logic, doesn't William's accession to the English, Scottish and Irish (etc) thrones render Britain and Ireland part of the Dutch empire? (Another point that annoys protestant nationalists in Britain is the assertion that the Glorious Revolution came about from the last successful invasion of the country.) A useful analogy may be Phillip II's acceptance of the offer of the Portuguese crown in 1581 - did that make Portugal part of the Spanish empire (or vice versa)? See Struggle for the throne of Portugal. On the Irish point, the constitutional situation under the 1541 Act was a mess - a large part of Tudor Irish historiography since the 1970s has been asking the question Kingdom or Colony? and getting the unsurprising answer A bit of both. But the main point is that the policies and methods of colonisation (which underpin the concept of the British Empire - as well as the Spanish and French empires, but not the American) were set and pursued by the English in Ireland from about 1550, in imitation of the Spanish. By 1600 the term British was being used in political discourse in preparation for the accession of Ja VI - I think Robert Cecil was active in this regard - so there is substance behind the example of the Union Jack. The Norman invasion of Ireland is tricky terrain - some insist on referring to the invaders as Cambro-Normans: so you can refer the British Empire back to those origins, but only if the term British means Welsh! Which, historically, it does!! From a WP point of view, I think it's sensible to discuss the Irish roots of English and British colonialism and to take the Irish plantations as the beginning of the empire proper. Inclusion of earlier polities mixes up the terms of the debate, as does inclusion of post-WWII Axis territories.--shtove15:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The accession of William to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones most certainly does not render them part of the Dutch Empire. William was not the monarch of the United Provinces, which were a republic. Furthermore, the Portugal/Spain business is not a valid analogy, because Spain and the territories it controlled before 1580 were much, much bigger than Portugal. When William received the English throne, England was much, much bigger than the United Provinces. Including personal unions as part of "the British Empire" is quite, quite problematic. This includes Scotland - the details of the union of 1707 have very little to do with the formation of a British Empire. john k17:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I think some contributors are too ambitious in trying to include every territorial authority ever held by English monarchs, so I made the mischief-making points to help point this out. The article is written with emphasis on the mid-18thC to late-19thC, and doesn't pay enough attention to the origins of the colonial empire.--shtove17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding material on Ireland, and its connection to the foundation of England's American colonies. john k18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
"The accession of William to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones most certainly does not render them part of the Dutch Empire." I agree most whole-heartedly John k! I wouldn't say that the Portugal/Spain business is completely invalid. Yes England and Scotland are bigger than the Netherlands, but England and Scotland were experiencing troubles with the government which basically weakened them enough for William to be invited to land in England. So in terms of weak state-strong state relationship, it is partially valid. Although the Spain/Portugal business also is somewhat unclear as the struggle for the Portuguese throne article notes that Portugal was not to become a Spanish province and its colonies were not to become Spanish colonies, but then the related article on the Iberian Union gives a slightly different tone (although I did notice that this map in question did not attempt to show the Dutch colonies as being English/British colonies). I also agree that including personal unions is problematic, but it seems to be more because of inconsistency in dealing with them and outlining them. As I already mentioned the Swiss mapmakers of Euratlas must have done a lot of research and seemed to have no problem showing that the Netherlands were in personal union with England and Scotland and showing the feudal domains of the English Kings in France. Then looking at the articles personal union and dynastic union, there is the example of Austria-Hungary which apparently was a personal union, yet I have never seen a map that showed only Austria without Hungary (although, just because I have never seen it does not mean such a map or maps do not exist- I just haven't come across them yet - I have to wonder why some persons seem to believe that if they haven't seen it on traditional maps then its wrong). If the map seems too ambitious, then how about a series of maps? One for each section, including the background material on the Anglo-Norman kingdom, feudal domains in France (which still go a long way to explain why British monarchs until the 1800s still styled themselves Kings/Queens of France), English colonialism prior to 1707 and various points in time from 1707 (when the term "British" Empire could be applicable, because before then there was no state formally named "Britain")? That way, none of the information in the previous map would be lost simply because (and for no other reason than) it was styled as being "ridiculous" (I mean, seriously did anyone know where the British Commonwealth zone in Japan was before this map? Or did anyone ever see a map depicting the British Commonwealth Zone?).
So John and Shtove, you both seem to know something about Ireland and the plantations, why not add the relevant stuff into the article?--anon 19:17 March 19, 2006
Austria-Hungary was considerably more than a personal union. Foreign affairs and military affairs were explicitly run on a joint basis, and it should be recalled that the Ausgleich was a compromise between Hungary and the Emperor, not between Hungary and Austria. The post-1945 stuff, while interesting, is most certainly not really related to the British Empire. I don't think 1707 is a valid date for anything. In 1707 the "English Empire" became a "British Empire," I suppose, but there was no substantive change in the Empire itself, and it seems silly to insert one because of an utterly unrelated issue with respect to relations between England and Scotland. john k00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point about Austria-Hungary. And also about 1707 not really being one of substantial change for anything (except formalizing the United Kingdom of "Great Britain" and thus turning the "English" Empire into the "British" Empire). This was one of my earlier points, that there is no real date for the formal establishment of the British Empire and that it just kind of evolved out of England and Scotland and that when Gsd2000 decides that simply including the royal domains in France is ridiculous because they were not a part of the British Empire (even though the map's caption and explanation key never claimed any thing as silly as that), then Gsd2000 is in effect declaring : 1) that map was claiming something which it didn't (at least from what I read and know of English) and 2) that there was a date for the British Empire's establishment which he/she would not or could not specify, but of which he knew that anything involving France was rubbish (even though as I pointed out English and then British monarchs almost continuously claimed the French throne for almost 450 years). I believe it is silly to insert a date partly because of a partially related(not utterly unrelated) issue of relations between England and Scotland (if you are referring to the coronation of James VI/I or the Act of Union as I suspect you are). It is also silly to insert one, because there is no universally accepted date to insert (1541, 1500s, 1603, 1707..). The post-1945 stuff may not be traditionally considered as related to the British Empire, but then again, the British Military Government did have rather extensive control over its zone of occupation, probably even more control than Britain had over some of its Gulf protectorates or Indian princely states. Also, tradition does not equal gospel. Look on the internet for maps of the CSA and you would be hard-pressed to find a map that showed Indian territory as being allied to the CSA (much less a map showing Confederate Arizona territory at all). Most of those maps also show Indian territory as constituting all of current Oklahoma, however today's Oklahoma "panhandle", was never a part of Indian territory during the American Civil War (it was Public Land or something), but that never stops "traditional" maps. So, do you want to reorganize the article slightly and detail the necessary information about Ireland as template for Empire? How about those series of maps? (which could be less confusing and would add more depth). By the way, how long does the discussion page have to get before parts of it are archived?--anon 9:08 March 20, 2006
Anon - I have to disagree with you. The "British Empire" means British power asserted on a colonial basis. This begins in the 16th century in Ireland, sort of, and continues in the early 17th century with the establishment of colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America and the Caribbean. The feudal dominions in France are unrelated, and it's just confusing to have them on a map of the British Empire. john k18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, point taken re: colonialism. I have to disagree with the feudal domains being simply unrelated. They may not have been highly prominent or relevant, but they were related as I already mentioned in the fact that the various monarchs who presided over the Empire styled themselves as monarchs of France. The previous map however, from what I remember was a map of the British Empire and England, not the British Empire alone, so how can it be confusing (unless the colours were too close) unless the caption and key weren't being read?--anon 19:07 March 20, 2006
Anon - again, can you point me to some serious historical texts (not some dodgy URLs that you found in Google) that cover feudal domains in discussing the British Empire? As was pointed out above, the British Empire has its beginnings in the colonisation of Ireland. It is not cogent to argue that something should be included merely because it is informative (re: your quotes (1) "I mean, seriously did anyone know where the British Commonwealth zone in Japan was before this map?" and (2) "if no serious discussion of the British Empire includes discussion of a few territories that you admit were technically administered by them, then again is wikipedia only supposed to ape those discussions and not compile knowledge" which seems to be where you are coming from). You seem to have your own opinions in this area which do not conform to the consensus in academic circles, which I would say that Wikipedia should very much "ape" (or at least summarise eloquently), rather than branching off into a soapbox for your own ideas. I also note that you seem to be in a minority of one here. Gsd200006:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I sometimes find discussion on Wikipedia far more stimulating that anything I ever had during my degree course. I think the traditional interpretation of the term "British Empire" is what is causing the problems here. Personally I don't see much point in following academic opinion slavishly as it tends to categorise through segregation. That's fine for a modular history course or a book, but Wikipedia allows us to chart the development of a topic much more thoroughly. We would be remiss to ignore that opportunity. So where do we start, what do we include and in how much detail?
Clearly the article really has to focus on the main period of British imperialism between ~1700 and ~1950. In lesser detail I think it should also cover the main evolutionary stages from the slow build up started by Cabot in 1497 through to the dissolution and eventual handover of the last large colony, Hong Kong, in 1997 (as per Niall Ferguson). AND I would also include a brief introductory section covering what happened in the period between the unification of England and the Elizabethan era. We should not take a topic in isolation - the territorial ambitions of English monarchs and their people did not suddenly and randomly manifest themselves for no reason (in 1541, 1707 or whenever...). Wiki-Ed12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum for original thought though. If you wish to argue that the origins of the British Empire lay in territorial ambitions of monarchs hailing from the Norman era, that's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Talk page, yes, but not main article. Gsd200006:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it too simplistic to set colonisation as the basic criterion? If not, then Ireland again marks the dividing line: pre-1541 it was a derelict version of the feudal domain established by H II - in 1541 it became a kingdom, and 10 years later a method of colonisation was in use there that was to be applied to NE America in 1584, at Roanoke. On that criterion, Norman feudal domains should be omitted.--17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that colonialisation is probably the best criterion to use because it requires all sorts of other developments (which we'd associate with "Empire") to sustain it. But surely Ireland was something that simply carried over from era to another. If we're trying to divide history into little segments and say that the British Empire came about all by itself then, as the article says, this started anew - even if it failed - in 1497, not 1541. Henry VII gave Cabot letters patent providing him and his sons: "full and free authority, faculty and power to sail to all parts, regions and coasts of the eastern, western and northern sea... to find discover and investigate whatsoever islands, countries, regions or provinces of heathens or infidels, in whatsoever part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to Christians ... [and to] conquer, occupy and possess whatsoever towns, castles, cities and islands ... as our vassals and governors lieutenants and deputies therein, acquiring for us the dominion, title and jurisdiction of the same..."
To me this looks like a cross-over between feudalism and imperialism... or oops... is that "original thought"? I doubt it, but since I cannot recall reading anything suggesting a link I guess we'll have to pretend that is for now and leave it out. :) Wiki-Ed11:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realise Cabot was given that remit. But on the agreed criterion of colonisation, what did the English colonise before 1550? As for Ireland being a carry-over (from feudal to colonial, I guess you would say), interestingly 1497 is another significant year, as it was then that the English began to reassert themselves in that country (Poynings' Law and all that). The feudal period of English rule in Ireland didn't entail wide-spread colonisation, and in fact pretty much ended up country-wide with Norman-origin landowners becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves" (adopting language, customs and laws). The only real hold-outs were the municipal corporations and parts of the Pale. By the end of the colonisation period 1550-1610, that had changed quite violently - so the effect of, rather than mere aspiration to, colonial empire-building had hit home. Ireland's constitutional status does muddy the water, but its experience of settlement and plantation in the 16thC is the clear origin of the colonial empire.--shtove17:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Gsd2000, what exactly do you define as "serious historical texts" (and which professor are you to make such a judgment anyway)? If you wish me to find a book specifically on the British Empire from the union of the crowns then as we all know, no such book exists which would discuss the feudal domains. But that is simply because, as everyone knows (and as the previous map stated), the feudal domains were attached to England. You still appear to think that somehow, because something is coloured on a map then automatically it must be associated with the main content of said map. Now is it not true that the prior map was entitled Anachronous map of the British Empire and England? And if so, how is it ridiculous to display the English feudal domains on such a map? And how is it incorrect? There were English feudal domains under the direct rule of the King of England, were they not? And as for serious historical texts, would you care to point one out to me that discusses the history of England and Britain in its entirety which does not include discussion of the English feudal domains. As to URLs being dodgy, well that is your opinion. You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If Euratlas is so "dodgy" (provided you actually looked on it), then where do suppose they obtain the information they put on their maps? By magic or word of mouth? They probably obtained from those very same "serious historical texts" you like to refer to. And please note that it was only recently agreed upon in the discussion that for all events and purposes the model of British colonialism began with the English colonization of Ireland. Nobody prior to that actually agreed on when the British Empire started and as been shown recently. even the agreement over the model is not concrete. Thus far I have seen the dates 1497, 1541, 1603 and 1707. Of course, any date prior to 1603 is an anachronistic application of the term "British Empire" (just like the term "Angevin Empire"). Back in 1541 people would probably thought you had too much to drink if you referred to England's empire as the "British Empire". As Wiki-Ed pointed out, the territorial ambitions of the various monarchs did not just appear out thin air. You say that "it is not cogent to argue that something should be included merely because it is informative". If that is true, then by the same logic "it is not cogent to argue that something should be excluded merely because it is 'ridiculous'" because what is ridiculous is subjective. I know you have a good knowledge of English, so is it not true that the prior map, in its title and caption, never actually stated that the feudal domains were ever a part of the British Empire?
The discussion so far has basically been trying to simplify what was a complex imperial system. Colonies are a good place to start, but were the Native States of India ever colonies? Were the Arabian Gulf states ever colonies? Were any of the protectorates, "colonies"? and if so why the different terminology? And what exactly constitutes a proper government? Are military governments to be excluded from that definition and if so why? Some of those areas occupied by the British had governments set up by the British which had more control over the area than the British ever had over some of their protectorates. As for being in a minority of one, that's not a problem. There is not minority or majority when discussing facts, only when discussion opinion, which is what you seem to be doing. Anon 11:48, 13 March 2006
I feel as though we are going round in circles here. I've made my point already and would just be repeating myself. Gsd200023:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Circles? How so? If anything I am confused as to what your point really is for in this article you say it is silly to include the possessions in France in a map entitled "Anarchronous Map of the British Empire and England", but then in the Evolution of the British Empire page (which admittedly was incorrectly named considering the first few sentences) you say "This article is about the empire that was British. Because England had begun establishing overseas colonies before the union with Scotland, it is fair, accurate and reasonable to include those possessions in this article. As the second paragraph says, 'The rise of the British Empire has its origin in the 15th century during the reign of King Henry VIII of England.' So why on earth are medieval English regal possessions in France listed in this article? It is utterly ridiculous and highly misleading to do so. Neither word, 'Britain' nor 'Empire' makes absolutely any sense whatsoever in this context. If one is going to include them then the article should be renamed to 'Territories ruled by England and Britain'." So if that is to be so, what was wrong with the previous map? However your statement is self-contradictory as by the first line in your statement the article should be solely about the "British" Empire and therefore a separate article should be made for the overseas empire of England from the 1400s to 1707. After all, the empire could not be properly British since there was no British government before 1707. Remember Scotland had a separate government which could chart its own policy (like the Darien scheme) and Scots as far as I recall were not (and could not legally) be involved in some of the English colonization efforts like the English East India Company (setting up their Company of Scotland instead) and there were still separate royal navies and customs controls at the border. Anon, 3:11 pm April 14, 2006
Outside our purview
The article covers a vast empire with hundreds of millions of people over many centuries. It should not get bogged down in trivia. Thus "The last colonial expansion of the British Empire was the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, begun in 1938 and abandoned in 1963. The last territorial expansion of the British Empire was the annexation of Rockall to the west of the Outer Hebrides in 1955. The Royal Navy landed a party on the isle and officially claimed the rock in the name of the Queen. In 1972 the Isle of Rockall Act formally incorporated the island into the United Kingdom." When we use "colony" we mean a legal entity with a regular government--a governor for example. It is not the same word as "birds colonized island X". The Phoenix island business was not a new colonial venture. It happened inside a colony. The Rockall had nothing to do with people or government. So let's stick to real colonies. Rjensen19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This it is not "original" research. Both of these events happened. Your contention that the Phoneix Island scheme was not a "proper" colony is your opinion and one that is not shared by Maude, the chap who set it up. By your definition lots of "colonial" ventures would be disregarded because they don't meet [your] certain criteria at an early stage in their history. As for Rockall, well a large number of small rocks and proper islands that have been claimed by the UK are very similar. Do we ignore them too? Yes. They are trivial. Rockall is not. It was an unusual land-grab at a time when the British Empire was being dismantled and therefore (in addition to having economic and cultural relevance) as an anomaly it is significant for the record. Wiki-Ed20:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
. No legitimate sourcee considers these expansions part of the expansion of the british Empire. Somebody named Maude thinks so? No--we need a legitimate source on the British Empire that considers these episodes part of the history. I did some checking and none do so. (see the Bibliography). All or most of the colonies at one time or another expaned into previously unsettled areas (that's the history of Canada and Australia etc), but that expansion is always treated as part ofthe coloby's history, not as an expansion of the Empire. Rocks are not colonies or Empires. Rjensen21:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen. It may have happened, but it's trivia, plain and simple, not kosher imperialism. I removed the paragraph. Gsd200023:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. It's not about whether it's significant, or interesting. It's about whether it is original thought. The onus is on you to provide a source to back up your argument before putting it back. I reverted again. Gsd200001:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Not "kosher" eh? Thanks for sharing your opinions guys. Maude is the guy who started the Phoenix island scheme. This article is a broad-brush approach to the British Empire. It needs to start somewhere and it needs to finish somewhere. Or, more properly, it needs to show the evolution of the process. By removing this "trivia" you prevent it from achieving that. That the traditional ("legitimate"???) sources skip over it and focus on punchy bits for their populist/student audience is not important. Wiki-Ed00:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed, again, Wikipedia is not a forum for original thought. The alleged original thought in this case is that Rockall etc constituted a mini expansionary phase of the British Empire (rather than whether or not these events actually happened). If this is original thought, it should not be on Wikipedia. To prove it is not original thought, as Rjensen says, you (or Maude) need to provide a legitimate source from mainstream academia on the British Empire that considers these episodes part of the history. It's that simple. Gsd200001:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
No, that's your interpretation of the content of this section. However, the section makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. Since we cannot plagiarise secondary sources the very act of writing articles is to some extent original. However, from Wikipedia:No original research: This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. You argue that we should not include a specific event in a specific context because a favoured academic has not specifically written about it in that way. Such an anarchic practice would destroy most of the content of this article. Even the layout could be debated as being "original thought" as most academics use a theme-based approach while Wikipedia's historical articles tend to be chronological. It is therefore necessary for us to come to a consensus and place facts in a logical order.
There is no contention that Rockall was a "mini expansionary phase" - which would be original research and wrong - it is simply a record of the fact that the UK made its last (and somewhat bizarre) territorial acquisition at a time when the trend was to divest itself of the territory it had acquired. There were particular reasons for this act which we can see, with hindsight, were not "imperial". However, at the time it attracted (usually sarcastic) comments about empire-building. Published sources do make this link: [[1]] or [[2]].
The Phoenix Islands resettlement - for the third time - Maude was the chap who ran the scheme. He does not need to "provide a legitimate source", what are you talking about? He was there. I believe the University of Adelaide has his papers [[3]] and if you look around you might find some more of them online. Not that it's relevant - you seem to want to refute the fact that this was the last colonisation enterprise within the British Empire. Since you cannot you will need to explain why you think this factual statement is not significant, bearing in mind that nearly all of the other sections of this article - taken in isolation - could be regarded as equally "trivial" or their placement questioned.
As I said above, this is a historical article which uses a chronological structure (unlike "mainstream academia"). It uses facts to show what happened and when. Various colonies and annexations have been passed over for reasons of space, but events at the start and end are included. Newfoundland goes in at the start... something has to go in at the end. This is not original research, it is an expanded timeline. Wiki-Ed13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Rockall is an extension of the UK in effect and not an addition to the Empire per se and certainly not a reversal of the shrinking Empire. It is really too minor to get bogged down in detail within the main article. GraemeLeggett15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed, for the second time, it's not about whether or not these events actually happened, it's about whether discussion of them in the context of the British Empire is valid. I agree with GraemeLeggett that it's minor, but I would go further and say it is downright misleading to mention it. This is an article on the British Empire, not an article on every piece of territory ever ruled over by a English/British monarch, government or military administration (although unfortunately silly and pointless lists to that effect have been tacked onto the end of the text of this article). For the same reason that we should not include French feudal fiefdoms in an article on Britain's imperial past, or militarily occupied Axis territories in Europe (see above discussion), because their acquisition was not imperial, we should not include these rocks. Gsd200023:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, does anyone else think a series of maps (in the same format) say in 1500, 1707, 1800, 1921, 1945 and now would be better than several different maps interspersed far from each other? This rather large debate (which I didn't read in its entirety) could be resolved by using different colours for what could be "considered" as a British possession in whenever, i.e. the personal union stuff with other monarchies, and then the WWII "possessions". 219.77.98.2204:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't personally, for the same reason I mention above, that this is an article on the British Empire, not an article on every piece of territory ever ruled over by a English/British monarch, government or military administration. The two are not equivalent. In fact, I think a new article should be started for the latter, and those lists tacked onto the end of this article moved there. Gsd200011:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I had also suggested a series of maps, however apparently there would be some problems differentiating between when the colours on a map represent English possessions as opposed to British possessions or differentiating between the various forms of control (which is partly what Empire is about). Gsd2000, how a can the article stand as it is if it is "not an article on every piece of territory ever ruled over by an English/British monarch..." but you still seem okay with the article using the 1500s as a starting point when there was no British Empire to begin with until 1707 (strictly speaking)? Either the article really is on the British Empire (1707 - present) or else it combines information on the English (and Scottish) and the British Empires (in which case, as you pointed out in another article), the title will have to be changed. As Wiki-Ed pointed out, this is an online article in Wikipedia (with Wikipedia having many styles), academic styles are nice, but they serve a specific purpose (which is to be read in a book that has to be limited in content and cannot be expanded and have sub-articles and links to other articles being made as Wikipedia can). If Wikipedia was to conform to these academic styles in all instances then a great many articles would have to be deleted (and if you insist on academic style then you should start deleting or re-organizing all of those that do not conform). Wikipedia's historical articles can be both chronological and theme-based, but I don't see why the article has to be exclusively theme-based simply because you favour the academic style and think we should "ape" the academic references. Also if military administrations are to be completely excluded then we would have the confusing situation where a good number of colonies would not have been "officially" controlled by any of the colonial powers since military government was instituted in a number of areas which were later officially ceded by Spain, France or England. And how exactly is "kosher imperialism" determined and what happened to the consensus? Can you give us references for what kosher imperialism is, and therefore show us why and how, say Rockall does not fall within the definition of this kosher imperialism? (By the way these are all serious questions, I'm not being sarcastic in case that is why you didn't answer some of them earlier). Anon 3:42 pm April 14, 2006.
Anon, clearly "Kosher imperialism" is GSD2000's opinion of what should be in this article due to some confusion between British imperialism (a historical term for a particular period with particular characteristics) and British Empire (dictionary definition: "group of territories under the rule of one state or person"). I prefer inclusive articles whereas other people appear to prefer exclusive articles which are pruned to suit their own interpretation. The lists and maps were the most helpful feature of this article. They were factual whereas the text is littered with secondary analysis and judgements. Wiki-Ed10:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
According to strict interpretation of that dicdef, discussion of Sussex and Kent should also fall under the British Empire. Hmmm. You are absolutely right that Wikipedia is self-correcting - that is exactly what happened in this case with the removal of this misleading paragraph which spoiled an otherwise excellent article. Gsd200010:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
What I still don't understand is how Wikipedia can be self-correcting if the outline of an article is determined by only one editor without any attempt at reaching consensus or at least answering some fundamental questions. Sussex and Kent as parts of England by definition were also part of the British Empire (unless we exclude Britain from the British Empire), but again you indicate how you would prefer the article by saying discussion of Kent and Sussex should also fall under the British Empire. Kent and Sussex need only be discussed under the British empire inasmuch as other subnational territories such as the counties of Australia, Canada and New Zealand or the parishes of England, Scotland, Australia, Canada and Barbados. I (and I assume Wiki-Ed) take it for granted that other persons reading this article are not simple-minded and therefore easily mislead and thus do not require us to segment history into little boxes for them or to discuss such obvious things like provinces, counties and parishes for them when outlining territories that fell within the British Empire (they can just click a link to see those subnational entities). I don't believe this stuff is actually worth starting some edit- or revert-war over, but perhaps we should bring the topic to some appropriate forum for voting or bring in someone from admin. By the way, I still await some answer to the questions I posed, especially what kosher imperialism is. Anon 7:07 am April 15, 2006.
You are misrepresenting the situation by claiming that it's just me advocating this position. Read the above debate again, see comments by GraemeLeggett and Rjensen, and then please retract that falsehood. Gsd200012:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
A rock.
I'd just like everyone to see what we are arguing about here (see picture on right). That's it. A rock. The British Empire is a heavyweight topic that had a profound and irreversible effect on the course of history and hundreds millions of lives. Come on people, lets leave trivialities and technicalities out of it. Gsd200013:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
So what if it's a rock? I think you're being pretty arrogant here, deciding what does and doesn't fit in this article. Let me remind you, the article is entitled British Empire, not Imperialism or anything else. As such, the last extension of the Empire seems pretty noteworthy to me. Guinnog13:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
How dare you accuse me of vandalism or suggest that removing this paragraph again is vandalism. (see this user's edit comment). That is the lowest of the low. Provide a legitimate source that includes Rockall as imperial British expansion, or contribute something of substance to the discussion beyond adding two brief sentences. Gsd200013:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
You are bang out of order. Stop reverting disputed content without contributing anything of note to the discussion on the talk page. My reverts are no more vandalism than yours are. Gsd200014:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Gsd2000, I saw the comments by Rjensen and GraemeLeggett, and if it will help, I am sorry if it appeared as though I was falsly accusing you of solely advocating the position on Rockall. However, my statement was not only on Rockall, but the article in general including the map and your position that we need to copy the style of academic literature. Read it again and point out where I mention Rockall. I simply pointed out the fallacy in your argument for excluding Rockall (which from 1955 to 1972 was a possession and not anything like a county Sussex) and that your example again indicates overall how you would wish the article written.
As for Rjensen's comments, maybe he should then explain the various uninhabitable rocks possessed by Australia, the United Kingdom, and in particular the United States (e.g. Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Rockall, Baker Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, Navassa Island and all the other United States Minor Outlying Islands). Empire does not only deal with people and governments it also deals with territory and the status of the territory in relation to the possessing country.
Guinnog, as I said before, this stuff is really not worth starting an edit war over. If Gsd2000 wants the article a certain way and others support him, then they have every write to edit the article. Of course, considering that they can hardly answer any questions or points we may bring up (or maybe they just ignore them) nor actually give definitions to what constitutes kosher imperialism, trivialities etc then we should bring this debate to some forum or bringing in an admin (although by Gsd2000's comments he (or she) seems to be or thinks he (or she) is admin). Anon 7:05 pm, April 15, 2006.
Oh and Gsd2000, I believe Wiki-Ed already provided one source that refers to Rockall and the British Empire, but more than likely you wouldn't see it as legitimate. Anon 7:09 pm, April 15, 2006.
OK, I may get bitten for this. I have done two drastic things, mainly because of the huge and unwieldy lists that followed the main article. (1) I moved "personal unions" into British Personal Unions, and added a "see also" link to it. Personal unions are not empire per se, and don't really belong in this article. (2) I completely snipped out the "extent" section, because it is duplicating the Evolution of the British Empire article. I'll don my flame retardant suit and wait for the fallout... Gsd200014:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Very good idea! I like it, though maybe there should have been a couple stub sections (like the various "History of..." and "Demographics of..." sections in articles on various countries). The article was rather large. The extent section wasn't exactly duplicated in the Evolution of the British Empire article, so maybe any info (apart from the lists, such as explanations, etc) that was in that section, but not in the other article should be added to the Evolution of the British Empire article. The same kind of reorganisation should probably be done for the various other Empires (French, Spanish etc). Anon 3:49 pm April 14, 2006
Rockall
Here are my arguments against including discussion of Rockall in discussion of the British Empire. (1) it was not a colony, as it is uninhabited (2) it never fell under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies which was the governmental body for administering the empire (3) it is claimed as part of the United Kingdom itself and was never considered an "imperial" posession (4) its acquisition arose when decolonization was at its height, any suggestion that Britain was on a mini-imperial binge is downright misleading (5) its acquisition cannot be deemed to be a result of imperial designs (6) no serious discussion of the British Empire that I have read ever talks of Rockall (7) until someone can cite a source that refutes in particular (6) I will hold this position. Gsd200017:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
1: Irrelevant - Antartica is also uninhabited as are the majority of the British Virgin Islands etc.
2: Nor did Ireland. I suspect that there are other instances too.
3: Same with Ireland.
4: The timing is irrelevant.
5: Its acquisition was to prevent it being acquired by another power, which was what an awful lot of British expansion was about.
Finally this is what the plaque nailed into the rock said - "By authority of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith etc, etc., etc., and in accordance with Her Majesty's instructions dated the 14th day of September, 1955, a landing was effected this day upon this island of Rockall from HMS Vidal. The Union flag was hoisted and possession of the island was taken in the name of Her Majesty. [Signed] R H Connell, Captain, HMS Vidal, 18 September 1955." - It sounds like a unilateral imperialistic gesture to me. Jooler17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It's also just the sort of thing come to Wikipedia for (e.g. to settle a bet or find the answer to a quiz quetion etc). Jooler17:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Jooler - please don't my revert my attempt at a compromise. The paragraph in question was under the heading "impact of the first world war" and had nothing whatsoever to do with this. It's now in the "See Also" section, with a brief statement summarising why, even though I think it has absolutely no place in this article whatsoever (see - I'm compromising). It's there for people that want it, and it's no longer an irrelevant and out of place paragraph in the WW1 section. And there is no "consensus" here. Some people are for its inclusion, some are against. Read the full debate. Gsd200022:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well done GSD for attempting a compromise. This tiny mention does not do it justice though, but I agree with you the WW1 bit isn't the best either. Let's continue to arrive at a compromise we can all live with. Guinnog23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, there were certainly other instances of territories not falling under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office. India is a big one with its own Office (which could very well mean that direct British possessions in India don't qualify as colonies and should be removed from all discussions in the article). I also doubt that many of the protectorates fell under the Colonial Office (e.g. Bahrain), but I could be wrong. Again, it seems that there is little appreciation for the complexity of the British Empire (or the French Empires).
Anyway, good work on compromises, perhaps we can arrive at compromises in other areas as well. Anon 7:33 pm April 15, 2006.
Gsd2000 - your "compromise" is to remove the entire para and add replace it with a weasley worded footnote. Not acceptable. I have Moved the para to later in the article as a compromise, uinder the heading ::The last gasp:: - perhaps it is worth mentioning this along with the Falklands War which some people (particularly the Argentines) view as a British Imperialistic war. Jooler10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely cannot live with a heading "Last Gasp". My main objection to including Phoenix/Rockall at all is the thought that someone would get the impression that Britain, at the height of decolonization, attempted a mini expansion of Empire-proper. "Last gasp" gives the impression of the last breath before death in an attempt to stay alive. That is absolutely not what this is. Portugal's wars in Mozambique and Angola were last gasps. Holland's war in Indonesia was a "last gasp". I have changed the heading to "Footnote" (after all, Jooler, you said yourself it is a "footnote to be sure") and I have changed "territorial expansion of the British Empire" to "....United Kingdom" because that's what it was. The compromise I ask of you guys is not to accord a bigger weight or significance to this than it deserves, in order not to mislead. Jooler, you may think that Wikipedia is a place to settle a bet or find the answer to a quiz quetion - I happen to believe it to be a serious encyclopaedia that adults and children alike come to learn, and what we teach should be a succinct summary of mainstream academic thought. If you want to go beyond mainstream discussion of a topic and add an interesting fact, fine, but don't make it a bigger deal than it is. Gsd200012:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we not just run it as a short para at the end of the previous section (Decolonisation and decline)? Along with, yes, a mention of the Falklands. I certainly don't like footnote as a section heading. Gsd, doesn't giving it a section of its own accentuate its prominence in the article anyway? Guinnog12:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point, that would be better. Can we make the font white too? :-P I hope though we aren't going to add words to the effect of "the last war fought by the British Empire was...". "The last record listened to by the British Empire was...." "The last beer drunk by the British Empire was...." etc etc. I know the headline at the time was "Empire Strikes Back", but that was a British war, not an imperial war. Argentina may have considered it imperial, but insurgents in Iraq think Britain is there for imperial purposes too. Gsd200013:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a mere mention (a one sentence summary) would be appropriate. After all, we've got the Suez crisis in there, as we should, even though it wasn't really an imperial war either. In spite of my strong anti-Iraq War POV, I wouldn't support mentioning the Iraq War either. Guinnog13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, although the Falklands War was nothing on the scale of the Suez crisis, which was a pivotal event in the empire's history - it was the final nail in the coffin of Britain's status as a true go-it-alone world power. Quoting Eden after the event, "we must review our world position and our domestic capacity more searchingly in light of the Suez experience, which has not so much changed our fortunes as revealed realities". Gsd200013:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was when, as Eden acknowledged in the quote, understanding caught up with reality. 1,650 dead in Suez versus 1,001 in the Falklands, not that huge a difference. The FW arguably underlined Britain's capacity to fight a colonial war (albeit in defence of a colony) in a postcolonial era, just as the Suez crisis arguably brought home the end of pretensions of genuine world power. Guinnog13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Gsd2000 here, the Falklands War was a British war, not an imperial one (the last wars truly fought by the British Empire (and Commonwealth) would probably have been Korea and Suez). Adding this to the Decolonization and Decline section is a good idea. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I cannot live with a section entitled Last Gasp (since I, nor anybody else, has exclusive rights to the format of this article), I also think "Last Gasp" is an inappropriate title for such a section. At the very least, if there is to be a new section, maybe it could be called "Post-colonial era" or something like that. The amount of info presented might'n warrant its own section anway. And certainly the Falklands War was much smaller than Suez geopolitically. After all the Falklands was basically just the UK and Argentina, while Suez had the UK, France, Israel and Egypt as active participants and the USSR and USA threatening to do something about it (not to mention the war was over control of a strategic waterway - very much unlike the Falklands). Anon 12:13 pm April 16, 2006.
I don't accept that the Falklands War was a colonial war but that is not a view shared by the Argentines and others such as Marxists etc.. It deserves a mention, if only to make the assertion that it wasn't imperialistic. I think I'm happy with what the article currently says. Jooler19:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Rockall & Phoenix Islands Scheme - Request For Comment
After further thought, I would like to open this up for a request for comment. This is the first time I have done this so apologies if I get the procedure wrong. See above for discussion to date - some are for, some are against.
My request relates to a paragraph about the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme and Rockall. Whilst the fact that these events happened is not in any way in question, I propose that they are irrelevant to discussion of the British Empire. No reputable publication Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F has been cited that discusses these events in the context of the British Empire. The reason for inclusion is that some contributors consider them "significant" because they were the "last" colonial expansion and territorial expansion respectively, when the Phoenix Islands were already in a British sphere and (uninhabited) Rockall was annexed by the United Kingdom rather than the Empire. I therefore put forward the view that their inclusion constitutes original research Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_original_research.3F: ie an interpretation of these events that they were significant occurrences in British imperial history. Specifically I am suggesting it falls under the following definition of original research: "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" I believe this paragraph to be a "novel narrative or historical interpretation", and unless a reputable publication can be cited, it should be stricken from the article. Comments welcome. Gsd200013:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't quite see what you're getting into such a bother about. Jooler
Relevant comments welcome. Please don't comment if you don't care (though I'm surprised you don't given that you reverted my revert claiming that I was acting against a non-existent consensus, and are therefore involved in this particular issue). Gsd200018:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Please. Do I care? Of course I care. That is why I reverted you. But What I don't understand is why you are getting so steamed about the issue. The majority opinion (a consenssus) i.e. all opinion bar your own, is that this is relevant and worth inclusion. You asked for compromise and a compromise is what we got, but now you have decided to take the matter further, and judging by the comments below the general consensus is still that this is relevant and worthy of inclusion. Now please respect that. Jooler22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to clarify something for the record. Jooler's statement that there is a consensus and that I am in a minority of one is factually incorrect. As the debate above will show, Rjensen first removed this paragraph. I then got involved. GraemeLeggett echoed our opinion. Wiki-Ed, Anon, Guinnog and Jooler were against. That was three versus four, which was not a consensus. Jooler, please do not attempt to weigh the debate in favour of your own viewpoint by claiming a consensus when there is no consensus. Gsd200022:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess this goes back to the confusion over what constitutes the empire. My understanding is that it includes only colonial ventures. There should be a definition in the introduction. Does there have to be an administration in situ? The Falklands War is included, which was waged solely for a strategic purpose; I suppose the Phoenix Islands and Rockall have similar strategic significance. Irish republicans still get steamed up about the claim to Rockall, seeing it as a flexing of imperial muscles.--shtove18:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Gsd2000, I agree that no reputable publication has been cited regarding the Phoenix Islands settlements, but for Rockall, what about the link provided at http://www.sages.unimelb.edu.au/staff/pdf/Rockall.pdf? Doesn't it count since it is a PDF version of a physical (university) paper submitted to the Journal of Historical Geography in February 2004? It was a paper in a reputable journal. All that needs to be done is to put the citation for it beside the relevant text. If you want another reference, then I do remember seeing a book in the pharmacy by Simon Winchester (I believe the title was "Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relics of the British Empire". I am almost sure it dealt with Rockall. So if you or anyone else has access to the book you can check it out.
With the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, if you have access it to it (I don't, since Amazon doesn't have it in print) maybe the "Report on colonization of the Phoenix Islands by the surplus population of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands." by Harry Maude (the fellow who came up with the scheme) would be useful. It was published as a government report on January 1, 1938. I have a feeling that the person(s) who wrote the article on the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme had access to the report or materials that made use of the report. Plus if anyone can go to a library and find any good book on Kiribati, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands or more specifically the Phoenix Islands, we will probably have a number of sources.
I disagree that the Phoenix Islands represented the last territorial expansion, but they would represent the last planned colonial expansion (since colonization does not always equal annexation of territory). So you are partly correct there since the Phoenix Islands were already under British control, but all that needs be done is remove "territorial expansion". You cite that (your quote): "Rockall was annexed by the United Kingdom rather than the Empire." as a reason for excluding Rockall, but I know you cannot find any reference to any territory that was annexed by the Empire. All territories that were previously included in the Empire (and were not protectorates) were annexed to either England or later the United Kingdom (just read any of the treaties that followed some war in which the UK gained territory). Anon 2:44 pm April 17, 2006.
I actually have a copy of Winchester's (very readable and enjoyable) book and you are right that it does mention Rockall - although I would say two things (1) his book is not a historical writing on the British Empire - it's a travel essay about Britain's overseas possessions with a sprinkling of history (2) Rockall's mention is tucked away in parentheses into the chapter on the British West Indies, not even afforded its own chapter. I'm not arguing that Rockall never appears in print anywhere, only that no reputable publication on the British Empire discusses it. For example, I have James' Rise and Fall of the British Empire, Ferguson's Empire, the Oxford History of the British Empire and Smith's British Imperialism to hand. None mention Rockall whatsoever, and they have a fair amount of combined page space to do so should they have wished. We need to be even more tight in our editing given the short amount of space, yet here we are devoting a similar wordcount to these inconsequential events as to the independence of Malaysia. Re the PDF - it was submitted, but was it ever published? For all that though, at least Rockall is mentioned somewhere. The only source for the Phoenix Islands that has been cited is a text by the bloke that thought it up. The Phoenix Islands sentence should definitely go - no question about it. Gsd200000:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
From RfC: I see nothing wrong with including either of these, at more or less the present scale. They serve as a useful reminder that Britain did not simply and steadily shrink from 1921 onwards. Septentrionalis21:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously keep. The distinction between British Empire and the UK seems a rather meaningless one, as Anon says above. Guinnog22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposal: Move Phoenix Islands settlement scheme back to See Also, because the only source that has been cited was a report on the actual event, and it is not that the event that was in doubt but its interpretation as a significant event in the history of the British Empire. (Anyway, it's not that far removed in principle from resettling a village to land previously uninhabited because you are constructing a reservoir, and as pointed out above colonization != colonialism). Leave Rockall where it is, but reword slightly so the paragraph doesn't stick out like a sore thumb as it does right now (that's another objection I have at the moment). (Constructive) thoughts? Gsd200011:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph we are arguing the toss over currently says "The last colonial expansion of the British Empire was the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, begun in 1938 and abandoned in 1963. The last territorial expansion of the United Kingdom was the annexation of Rockall to the west of the Outer Hebrides in 1955. The Royal Navy landed a party on the isle and officially claimed the rock in the name of the Queen. In 1972 the Isle of Rockall Act formally incorporated the island into the United Kingdom." -- What exactly is wrong with this? -In what way does it "stick out like a sore thumb"? I still don't understand what your objection to this para is. Are you saying both ventures are too insignificant? - As I said earlier, people come to Wikipedia to find the answer just this sort of quiestion. I don't see why you have such a huge objection to these 80 odd words which give verifiable information in the correct context. As far as I can see a compromise has already been reached on this, and you now want to move the goalposts. Jooler13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I must admit I was irked by this as well. Having spent large amounts of my time and patience reaching what I thought was a decent compromise, here we are in RfC just as if we hadn't bothered. Moving the goalposts is right. Guinnog15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It occurred to me that the eventual "compromise" was in fact no compromise at all. I moved it to See Also, so it was still in the article - that was the compromise - but it was subsequently deemed "unacceptable" and it was put back word for word in a different section. How was that a compromise? The words say exactly what they said before. My, and the other two contributors' objections still stand. The reason I opened it up for rfc was because I wanted other people's opinions, outside of this little circle of argument, preferably qualified people, not people who think that the criteria should be whether or not the information can settle a bet. Are you irked by the possibility that someone might contribute to the debate who has differing views to your own? Gsd200016:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Quoting Guinnog on a user talk page: "I'm pretty annoyed too that after all our efforts to accommodate him he has gone to RfC, presumably to get the result he wants". I'd just like to say again to everyone concerned that I want to open this debate up for constructive comment, because I feel one side is incorrectly claiming a consensus and at the end of the day have not actually compromised one iota. That's what RfC is for, no? If users can't agree. I haven't asked for arbitration. I'm following Wikipedia policy here. Gsd200016:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
When I read the line for the first time, it seemed to be establishing contrast, i.e. an adjustment of the territory of the UK that explicitly did not qualify as an expansion of the British Empire, but was instead a UK-only affair. Its value is in illustrating what is and is not the British Empire. If that is the intent, then underlining the constrast might make it a little clearer. Peter Grey15:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
My understanding (though I don't have an authoritative reference handy) has always been that the 'home' territory is everywhere that elects members to the British House of Commons. Everything else is a province/colony/dependency/whatever. That has the wonderful advantage of making for a nice, objective, precise legal definition. Peter Grey17:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That would make sense. Otherwise (arguably) many of the territories mentioned here would not be, as already pointed out. Guinnog17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Gsd2000's Quote: "For example, I have James' Rise and Fall of the British Empire, Ferguson's Empire, the Oxford History of the British Empire and Smith's British Imperialism to hand. None mention Rockall whatsoever, and they have a fair amount of combined page space to do so should they have wished."
But as I outlined earlier, books are finite. All of those books you mentioned were single volume, one-off publications, except for the Oxford book of course. As I mentioned earlier, if any of the rest those authors were to go into the real minutiae of the British Empire, they would have volumes of books (just like Oxford). Just look at "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (3 volumes) and "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" (8 volumes) and I doubt those books even deal properly with the Byzantine Empire which is greatly connected to the old Roman Empire. Just look on Smith's work. It the "British Imperialism: 1750-1970" right? In that case, Smith's work has to deal with 220 years in less than 150 pages. In that case, he is going to have to skip some stuff. Do any of those books write about Antarctica, South Georgia Island, Christmas Island, Anguilla's rebellion or the United Suvadive Republic? And how much about each of those places, if any? I'll bet Oxford's volumes will say something on Antarctica, as for rest, I wouldn't even venture a guess. In Wikipedia, if an article gets too long, then you can simply create a sub-article which will deal with the lengthy information while the main article has a summary. I'm rather surprised that more of the sections in the article do not have links to a sub-article or related article (only 4 of the 10 sections have any links to more lengthy articles).
Gsd2000's quote: "We need to be even more tight in our editing given the short amount of space, yet here we are devoting a similar wordcount to these inconsequential events as to the independence of Malaysia." I don't think we need to be tight in our editing since we are not writing a book that has to be published, but of course if the article gets too lengthy then we just need to create a sub-article to put all the extra info. The word count doesn't mean that much when you consider that decolonization in Ireland alone gets its own little section, whereas India is lumped in with every other colony (and of course no other area gets its own little decolonization sub-section).
Quote: "Move Phoenix Islands settlement scheme back to See Also, because the only source that has been cited was a report on the actual event,"...and "The only source for the Phoenix Islands that has been cited is a text by the bloke that thought it up." Actually, I was hoping that other persons out there would find a book on those general Pacific Islands (rather like how you nicely provided us with 3 or 4 British Empire book), but that aside, what is wrong with a government report by the fellow who started it? I'm sure articles aren't prohibited from using references composed by the persons who were there, e.g. Winston Churchill and World War II, any biographies, The accounts of other historical figures, etc.
Re the PDF - the fellow who submitted also left his email in the PDF, so if we really want to know we can just ask him politely. In addition if anyone has access to the Journal of Historical Geography (or at least access to an index for the 2004 volumes) whether or not it is published can also easily be checked.
Anyway, currently this article is a "good article", which is nice and means that it is well written, accurate and verifiable, stable, contains images and is broad in its coverage. Of course the main thing separating a good article from a featured article is mainly (but not solely) that a featured article is more than broad in its coverage, it is comprehensive. I rather doubt deleting stuff (as opposed to trying to re-write it to fit into the article) is going allow this article to upgrade. Now Peter's proposal is nice and constructive, although it depends on there being an actual difference/contrast to the status of Rockall from 1955-1972 and any other piece of territory (like the uninhabited Phoenix Islands) that were considered a part of the Empire. I doubt there is much of a difference, since the adjustment of the territory of the UK (as an entity separate from the other polities in the Empire) seems to have happened when Rockall was incorporated into the UK (via a county of Scotland). Anon 11:11 am April 18, 2006
I'm a bit late for the event, but Fraser Macdonald's article, 'The last outpost of Empire: Rockall and the Cold War' AKA 'the pdf', is currently listed as 'in press, corrected proof' at doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2005.10.009 (use http://dx.doi.org/ to resolve the doi). Mr Stephen11:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hong Kong
Am I alone in finding this: "The sun finally set on the British Empire in 1997 with the lowering of the Union Jack at a ceremony marking the handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China under an agreement made thirteen years earlier. Britain was left with a scattering of far-flung rocky outposts, the British overseas territories, with which to remember an empire that spanned five hundred years and a quarter of the world's surface." a little flowery? Would anyone else like to make it a little more encyclopedic? Guinnog17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Chris Patten was in tears! :-p I'll try not to take this personally given that I wrote this and given our previous conversations both on talk pages and above, as I know the spirit of Wikipedia is that one must expect one's edits to be edited mercilessly. However, it's a closing paragraph relating to the end of an era - I just thought it nicely closed the article - and it is still factual. Encyclopaedic doesn't have to mean cold and heartless. Gsd200018:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it would count as one reasonable, though not the only, landmark event that could be considered the end of the British Empire. I'm not sure how to qualify it as a symbolic event without invoking weasel words. Peter Grey18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, but may still have a crack at toning it down towards a more NPOV position. The BE is not universally remembered with affection, nor is it yet utterly extinct, Guinnog18:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
...although the HK handover is conventionally seen as the end. The remaining territories are either too small or too unwilling to govern themselves, or too unwilling to be incorporated into their nearest geographical neighbour. It's no longer an empire. I don't see how the last paragraph indicates "affection", myself. At least can you pls wait to see what others think, seeing as you have offered it up for discussion? Gsd200018:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I have attempted to fit the Phoenix/Rockall business better into the flow of the article. The wording is slightly altered and some words snipped out, but if someone wants to read more about these particular antics they can click on the link - no need to get bogged down in unnecessary detail in a high-level article on the BE. Phoenix Islands was human colonization rather than "colonial expansion" (the latter conjures up images of Royal Navy landing parties, when really this was a resettlement - ie colonization like life colonizes) so changed accordingly. Gsd200001:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I am replying to this message left on my talk page: "I must say, I find it highly ironic that you are claiming OR (in your edit comment - "Nuclear missile test? sounds like OR to me") for a fact in the very piece of research cited to disprove my claims of OR: http://www.sages.unimelb.edu.au/staff/pdf/Rockall.pdf. Despite participating in a debate relating to OR and someone coming up with this source in the talk page debate to prove it was not OR, you must not have even opened it and read the abstract on the first page: "Rockall was annexed in September 1955 because it was situated within radio-electrical range of a test site for Britain’s first nuclear missile, the American-made ‘Corporal’.", for if you had, you would have cited that if you needed to prove this to yourself. I do not mean this to be antagonistic or arrogant in anyway, but how can I take you seriously as an editor if you are not even prepared to read the very sources that are being cited to settle the debate that you had such strong opinions on? Just because Wikipedia is mainly contributed to by amateurs does not mean that lower academic standards are justified. Gsd200011:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)"
I was actually being far kinder than you deserved. I know for a fact that no nuclear missile test ever took place from the South Uist test facility. The source you quoted was in error, and you have copied the error. Now, if you were to say 'nuclear-capable' missile, that would be accurate. Once again you have flown off the handle; in fact, the epithets you so carelessly throw around ('amateur', 'lower academic standards') certainly do not apply to me in this case.
I have not flown off the handle. But I am now puzzled. If you knew this for a fact, why didn't you simply change to "nuclear missile-capable" or remove "nuclear", as you eventually did? That would have been the obvious thing to do. Gsd200022:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You're quite right, that would have been better. Anyway, please don't take any of this too personally! I was leaving the rewrite for a day or two as requested. I think it looks much better now, with nearly all you wrote retained, the less significant scheme de-emphasised, the Rockall thing mentioned, and the significant Falklands war summarised. This, of course, is how Wiki improves and evolves. Guinnog23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. I take back my statement about the article looking better. I hadn't realised you'd reverted my changes. I really don't like the flowery concluding sentence, and I really must insist on the inclusion in the Falklands of at least the casualty figures and the unique post WW2 naval warfare fact, as they are noteworthy. The parts about not taking things personally and the message I left on your talk page still stand, and I am resisting the temptation to revert, for now. Guinnog23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, lets try to resolve this amicably. If you check carefully, I did make the last sentence less flowery. "Remembering" empire is now the "remnants of empire" (subjective now objective), and it is important to mention the British Overseas Territories at the end because they are all that's left of it - I wasn't sure why you excised this sentence completely. Re quoting military details, they need only be quoted where they are relevant to the article at hand, for the reader can click on the Falklands War to see the military details. The effect of the Falklands War on Britain's international status is very relevant to an article on the British Empire (you snipped this out), yet how many people died and which battalions did the fighting is not. It is, however, vital to mention this in the Falklands War article, and any failure to do so would be utterly crazy. So I'm absolutely not disputing your facts, or the importance of your facts, or whether they should be included in Wikipedia, and I'm not demeaning the deaths of the soldiers involved, I'm just disputing the relevance of those facts in this particular article. Gsd200000:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Source supporting the claim that the Falklands War reversed a downward trend in Britain's status as a world power
Lawrence James, Rise and Fall of the British Empire: "The reconquest of the Falkland Isalnds at the end of May 1982...gave a fresh lustre to national self-esteem... Overnight Britain had been transformed from a passive nation, an international has-been, into a power to be reckoned with. What had been, in effect, Britain's last imperial war... reversed a string of humiliations going back to Suez."
Daniel K Gibran, The Falklands War: Britain Versus the Past in the South Atlantic, p115: "The fight ... boosted Britain's international standing.... Alan Clark..told an interviewer that in his view the Falklands War 'has enormously increased our world standing. You asked about world opinion - I mean, bugger world opinion - but our standing in the world has been totally altered by this. It has made every other member of NATO say "My God, the British are tough"'".
I'm a fan of Clarke, but I wouldn't rely upon his world-vision: "Japanese will become the language of the élite" (c.1985). The passages from James and Gibran quoted above have a Sunday-supplement ripeness about them - anyone for a book-promotion? They are perfect Sunday Times gibberish (the organ for dissemination of "intelligence-lite", as described in evidence to the Hutton inquiry). State the facts and let the reader decide.--shtove00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, but this article begins "The British Empire was, at one time, the foremost global power". Is this a fact? Who says it was the foremost global power? Further on, "During the long period of unbroken Whig dominance...the Empire became less important and less well-regarded". Is that a fact? By whom was it so regarded? Is "white settler colonies in Canada and Australasia whose British or European inhabitants were seen as outposts of the "mother country" a fact? Who saw them as that? How factual is "The British East India Company was probably the most successful chapter in the British Empire's history."? Again, who says so? If you wish to strip this article down to bare bones facts it will read like a list of dates. Gsd200000:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
True, but a balance needs to be struck. There is a slightly Anglocentric tone to quite a lot of this article; let's try to trim this and make it more encyclopedic. Whether Alan Clark is regarded as an authoritative source on the subject is certainly debatable too. Take out the POV, without making it a list of dates, and this will be a better, leaner article. Guinnog00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
How does the sentence read now? BTW I don't view Alan Clark as encyclopaedic either, it was more the bit before he was quoted, and I missed out an intermediary sentence saying words to the effect of "this was not lost on some of Britain's politicians". :) Gsd200000:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The wording "The British Empire was, at one time, the foremost global power" is what emerged after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with the old wording which was something like "The British Empire was the world's first global power" (i.e. able to exert power on a global scale). It kept getting removed by people wanting to assert the prior global scope of the empires of Portugal or Spain. Jooler09:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Defence of Australia
According to Simon Smith in British Imperialism (referring to another text), the British Dominions Secretary Clement Attlee informed Curtin that "Your greatest support in this hour of peril must be drawn from the United States" after the fall of Singapore. In the article though it says that Curtin wrote in a national newspaper the year before that Australia should look to the US for its defence. Can a source be provided for that? Gsd200020:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a bit of an agenda going on, primarily from User:24.9.78.176 (check his comments here and here) from what ive seen, which persistently makes changes to the List of largest empires, Mongol Empire and now the British Empire (see here ) with the aim of placing the Mongol Empire erroneously as the largest empire in history. Neither Empire or indeed Empires generally are my area really i just stumbled across the suspect changes while reading casually so i thought it best to bring this to the attention of users who are probably more involved/concerned with these pages than i am so that an eye can be kept on them. siarach14:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Ireland
I think it is a mistake to include information about Ireland in this article. Because it was an important constituent nation of the United Kingdom and was actually represented in the British Parliament, where it elected its own members. I know that it did not have full equality with England and Scotland in the U.K. to the extent that the different states in the USA such as New York and Pennsylvania have full equality with each other. And I know that the union was unpopular with most people in Ireland and the British were harsh on the people of Ireland sometimes. But since Ireland was represented in the British Parliament and the Irish people could vote in elections for seats to Parliament it was certainly not a mere British colonial possession like India was.
FDR | My Talk 1:16 AM May 24, 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the discussion, but it does not fully address the point I made.
FDR | MyTalk 2:24 AM May 24 2006 (UTC)
Ireland only became part of the UK on the Act of Union in 1801 - before that it had it's own parliament. Before 1541 it wasn't even a kingdom, but a lordship. The reason it's included in the 16thC context is to show how the colonial empire undertook its first "adventure". So I think it's not a mistake to include it in this limited way - if the impression is given that it continued as a colonial possession (certainly post-1801), then that should be corrected.--Shtove14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the section about the end of British rule in Ireland does give the impression that the island continued as a British colonial possession and that section should be removed.
FDR 11:40 AM, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure - I try to stick to history and avoid politics. It won't go without a fight. Maybe Jdorney will be helpful.--Shtove23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Forget that I brought it up. Its not important.
FDR 10:59 PM May 24 2006 (UTC)
Well, FDR, your point may not require substantial changes, but as Shtove said, if the impression is given that Ireland was still a colonial possession after 1801 then a correction should be made. As Shtove said, that section will not disappear without a fight, although I don't understand why the "end of British rule in Ireland is given its own section", while the 50+ colonies and protectorates are all lumped under "decolonization and decline". Kinda strikes me as being a bit unbalanced, especially when the independence of India is regarded as the loss of the Jewels from the Crown. However, that is another (related) issue that should be dealt with. As for the "End of British rule in Ireland" section, perhaps you could insert a sentence or two, clarifying that Ireland at this point was not a colony (even if all the Irish thought so), but a part of the United Kingdom itself since 1801.72.27.55.4622:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
New Empire?
There's been quite a bit in the English press about a reassertion of Britain's imperial role - this time "benevolent", according to government thinking. Is there an article on this resurgence/recrudescence, or should it be addressed here?--Shtove21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely it's a bit difficult to have an Imperial role when the Empire currently consists of ... the Isle of Wight? -- Derek Ross | Talk23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Bit more than that Derek. Anyway, if this story merits a mention then it should probably appear here, although I can see it might irritate certain people. Can you provide some links? Wiki-Ed09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe a little more: the Falklands, Diego Garcia and sundry other bits and pieces, but nothing as big as the Isle of Wight... <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
A worthy document but, according to our article on it, its authors intended it to promote liberal democracy rather than imperial hegemony. I note that our article also manages to describe it without using the words "imperial" or "empire" even once, so, to say the least, its connections with the British Empire aren't strong. "Imperialism" is used by its opponents but that is a much more generic term used to describe (or attack) a behaviour rather than an entity. -- Derek Ross | Talk14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the two maps about. The one at the top of the page is the one with red areas, with the scan of the pink map further down the page. I did this so that the page conformed to the other Empire pages in which the same style maps are used at the top. Also, the red map that is now at the top is clearer in marking out the territories that are included. Any problems at all? Xtrememachineuk15:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. You've put the 1897 map in the 1920s section. Also, I'm not sure that putting a 1920s map in the intro for stylistic reasons is valid. In my humble opinion a primary source looks better (even with cartographical errors). Wiki-Ed08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed 'em back. The 1897 map started off the article for a very long time and looked great. The 1920s map is horrible. I don't understand why people can't leave a good thing alone... Gsd200016:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been more than reduced, it's evolved beyond being an Empire. At least it had more positive and classy ending than most empires. Peter Grey04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Aside from any sort of misguided British nationalism, it is true that de jure the empire still exists and perhaps this should be reflected slightly better in some areas of the article?
What can technically be considered an empire does still exist. Although realistically its a lose empire of mainly former colonies and states which fall under the category of Crown colonies. However the major elements of the empire such as Australia, India etc. are all autonomous now. But also consider that the Queen of England (HRH Queen Elizabeth II) is also the Queen of Australia. So in many senses elements of the empire survive and I agree that these should be more appropriatley represented.
People need to realise the recent years of the British Empire aren't like the fall of the USSR where one day it all ended. Its never officially been ended, its just slowly been dismantled. And thats the key word, the empire wasn't lost or ended - it was 'dismantled' because it was in the interest of the United Kingdom to no longer have to sustain a costly overseas empire for very limited gains. In just the same sense that in the 1800's it was in the interest of the UK to hold such territory.
I supose in many senses one can look at the empire as a big buissness buying out and asset stripping a smaller one. Now nations like India have limited assets remaining due to hundreds of years of asset stripping and as a result require large amounts of investment to bring them up to speed with the rest of the world in the 21st century. The UK couldn't foot that bill and so pulled out. Lack of popularity in India was just one reason for withdrawl, people too often look at only the former colonies side of things in these matters and not the fiscal, poltiical and social aspects both in the UK and the colony. Most of the empire was dismantled on a modus operandi with the former colonies that it was in the best interests of both groups. I'd very much support this being added to the article to more accurately paint a picture of the recent years and the empire.
Someone asked me why I removed the sentence about the US "joining the scramble...." The reason is that US actions in the Philipines need to be understood as a continuation of the war with Spain. That's not to say no one in the US wanted territory in Asia, but the sentence, as it stood, contained an inaccurate description of US actions in the Philipines. I wouldn't object to a rephrase, one that captures that US involvement there is viewed, at least by many historians, as a continuation of the war with Spain, which was started far closer to home (Cuba), not as a joining in the scramble for territory. But the paragraph would also be fine as it is, in my view. --Cultural Freedomtalk 2006-06-20 21:39 (UTC)
That was me that was. I have no expertise in this area, but if it was only part of the war with Spain then how come the garrison is still in place 100 years later? Perhaps it's an issue for discussion on American Empire (God bless WP), but empire is empire, in all its forms.--Shtove23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it was only part of the war with Spain, but the phrasing -- "joining in the scramble for territory" suggests 1) primary U.S. motivation was to expand, and 2) it felt the need to "scramble" (for competitive reasons, or whatever). That's just not how it was, if only because the U.S. was far larger than Japan, and the small European nations who really did, indeed, need more territory to remain powerful. It got involved in the Philippines because of the war with Spain. (And the garrison remained because it was useful.) --Cultural Freedomtalk 2006-06-21 07:44 (UTC)
Albion
Is this an ancient name for Britain, or for England? The article gives both as alternatives - I suspect one is wrong.--Shtove23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Theoretically for the Island of Britain, although the ancient nomenclature really only referred to the South. The word means "the white" and is a reference to the chalk cliffs of the southern coastline. It's an important imperial mythology though; British claims to the Pacific Coast of North America were steeped in Drake's voyage to "Nova Albion", a name often featured on maps right up to the seizure of California by American adventurists in 1848-9, and partly because of that semi-mythical heritage and also in direct reference to England, one of the earliest non-native settlements in British Columbia's Lower Mainland (before it was British Columbia, c.1828), was Albion, British Columbia, directly across the river from the Fort LangleyHudson's Bay Company post.Skookum121:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Its the name for a rubbish football team in the midlands :P --w2ch00
British enforced the Monroe Doctrine?
Can some explain what is meant by this statement:
The Americas in particular (especially in Argentina and the United States) were seen as being well under the informal British trade empire due to Britain's enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine keeping other European nations from establishing formal rule in the area.
First of all, the Monroe Doctrine is an American principle. While it is true that the British sought some of the same objectives as those in the Monroe Doctrine, I find it very unlikely that they would have seen themselves as "enforcing" that doctrine. Is there a scholarly reference for this?
Secondly, the sentence does not seem logical. How is the British' perception that the Americas were under their economic control a logical result of the British preventing other European nations from establishing formal rule in the region? The statement doesn't preclude those nations from establishing informal rule of the type apparently excercised by the British, so how should the British be so confident in their control due to the lack of competing formal rule? I do not question that the British felt they had informal control through trade, but I expect that came more through their status as the "workshop of the world" than any attempt to enforce American foreign policy! Joel Bastedo19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"Enforcement" is a wholly inapprorpriate term. The British may well have separately decided that the independence of Latin American countries was the best strategy to promote imperial interests. Outside the United States, the Monroe Doctrine has never been considered meaningful foreign policy, but was rather considered a wishful declaration of a sphere of influence. The British (and everyone else) were merely ignoring it. Peter Grey22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
When the Monroe Doctrine came out it was declared by a second rate country with a rather laughable navy compared to most of Europe so Europeans just ignored it... That was until the British all of a sudden signed on. Now the British has a navy that by law was as large as the next 3 largest navies and they had an Empire that was the largest ever known with an economic might to go along with it. When the Britsh signed on thats when other European powers took notice and listend to what it had to say! Check out the Encyclopædia Britannica for more info on this. UKPhoenix79
I fail to see the text in that article which you think backs up your argument. The British never "signed on". Quoting "International Law and the United States Military Intervention in the Western Hemisphere" by Max Hilaire, "With its victory over Spain [in 1898] recognized, the United States moved to intervene in a dispute between Venezuela and Britain over the boundaries of British Guiana. Britain initially refused any US intervention unless her territorial rights were recognised. However, Britain later agreed to US intervention in settling the dispute, and by so doing gave its tacit consent to the authority of the Monroe Doctrine. With British acceptance of the Monroe Doctine and the US victory in the Spanish-American War, the US became an unchallenged power in the Western Hemisphere." Note the words tacit consent. The British were not "signed on" and they never "enforced" it. Gsd200001:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no authority of the Monroe Doctrine to consent to - the doctrine is more a mythology than something that can be "enforced". And mediating between a European state and a South American state is hardly reinforcing the doctine's premise. The article could say something to the effect that the US ideological and British commercial interests converged on roughly compatible foreign policies in Latin America. Peter Grey20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The doctrine is quite clearly something that can be enforced if you have the military might and the will to do so. I think you are getting bogged down in an irrelevant argument about "enforcement" though. I am arguing in agreement with the original (anonymous) poster against the suggestion that Britain enforced the Monroe Doctrine. Gsd200022:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a complete side argument, but... enforcement does not necessarily imply that it is a law. Enforcement can also mean compelling to behave in a certain way. Check out the US Dept of State's own article about the M.D. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm - "In the late 1800s, U.S. economic and military power enabled it to enforce the Monroe Doctrine") or an NBC article headlined "Pope appoints American to enforce doctrine" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7845420/). Doctrines can be enforced, period. But the Monroe Doctrine was never enforced by the British, even if they had shared interests with the Americans. Gsd200022:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The article ends on a note saying that in order for the US to join the second world war there was an informal agreement for European powers to dismantle their empires? - this is totally new to me and i'm pretty sure its not true at all. In the 1940's the US was incredibly isolationist, I find it hard to believe they really cared that much about European powers having overseas colonies. Infact having all the nations rich with resources (basically the former empire states) all under one banner would have been good for trade standardization. Equally the US extensivley used British overseas territory in what was effectively its war with Japan. Its been flagged as citation needed and I suggest that failure to provide a suitable citation within a week of me posting this should warrant its removal until such a time as it can be proved. Its too significant a thing to have without backing it up with citation. Anon
(Please sign your posts!) The last paragraph was poorly written, out of place and factually dubious as you suggest. I'm always suspicious of "article creep" at the end of articles - it suggests that the adder has not thought how the information can be integrated into the rest of the article. There is a whole section on decolonization and decline, information about WW2/the Cold War should be integrated at the right place, not at the end after a paragraph on HK when the Cold War was over. Gsd200017:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The British Pacific - section needed
Gotta say I'm awfully tempted by all that Monroe Doctrine stuff above, and the previous item here on the US "forcing" the end of Empire, but I'll restrain myself. Except to say, because it's Canada Day (which I still "feel" as Dominion Day, but then I'm fifty), that one analysis of post-war Canadian history is we were part of Britain's repayment of the war debt to the US; that there would be a slow engaging from Britain's longtime patronage of the First Dominion, which protected it from overweaning US pride more often than not - more or less; I'm thinking of the unsatisfactory but better-than nothing Oregon and Alaska treaties...which like the Nootka Conventions have a "Foreign relations of Canada" category tag; but it struck me imediately that these matters were British imperial relations, esp. Nootka and Oregon (both 1818 and 1846); they are not part of Canadian history per se, nor is anything in that region until 1867, in an absolute sense. What's the appropriate tag for British imperial diplomacy/treaties?
I read through the main article looking for, rather than mere listings, any discussion of the British Empire in the Pacific. The challenging of the Spanish Sea by the opening of the fur trade between the California-Oregon-Washington-BC-Alaska coast and Canton, which helped fuel the China trade between there and India and Britain. The competing rivalry of the Russian and British Empires/navies for influence with the Kingdom of Hawaii has always struck me as a marvel of extreme geopolitics, and the HBC's long tenure there and Britain's patronage of the Kingdom (only to turn their backs when Hawaii was annexed by the US). Settlement, such as it was, of British Columbia and its predecessor colony, Vancouver Island, was accomplished from the Pacific, as much via Sydney and Suez as via Cape Horn; Callao and...Panama?...were part of the "grid"; and of course there's all those islands out there. I'm not skilled at overall British imperial history but wanted to field the idea that maybe there should be a discussion of how the empire developed in the Pacific, and how it was important to the Raj, the development of Hong Kong and so on...Skookum101:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"The Empire Today" - explanation for removal
The reason I removed this section is as follows: a) the British overseas territories were already mentioned and linked to in the paragraph above - instead of duplicating information from that article why not just let the reader click on that link if they wish to read more? b) they are territories not dependencies now; c) the Falklands War was mentioned two paragraphs above. Gsd200020:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Again I removed [[4]] sentences at the end of the article which were simply repeating what was already more succinctly stated: "The fourteen remaining British overseas territories, the Commonwealth of Nations and the enduring personal unions with the Commonwealth Realms constitute the legacy of the British Empire." Gsd200003:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Size is a disputed thing
lets try to keep the article at a NPOV.(IIIV15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
As it says on the NPOV article "Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:
You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. "
IIIV - What on earth do Saddam Hussein and Hitler have to do with this? If the Encyclopaedia Britannica makes this claim (http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9273752 ("The largest, richest, and most powerful empire in the world's history was the British Empire. At its zenith, Great Britain ruled broad lands on every continent and islands in every ocean. It was a common saying that the sun never set on Britain's dominions.") is that good enough for you? Please do two things: (1) read up on what POV means; (2) please try to do some fact checking first before labelling something POV; (3) please stop reverting this sentence. I have provided another trusted source that makes this claim - this should be enough to satisfy you. Gsd200016:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Terrorist Source?
Has the british empire been the source of most terrorism? if you look at alot of terrorists today, they only exist because the english annexed their countries and naturally they got pissed off and fought back. Maybe england should be the focus of terrorism and not Iraq.
There has already been more terrorism against England than against Iraq. (Of course, England has not had a foreign policy since 1707.) Similar to the Ottoman and Soviet Empires, the British Empire prevented ethnic groups from killing each other and forced them to live together, which is the only reason they're still alive to be terrorists today. Peter Grey19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The Empire led to independence movements, a few of which used violence and so could be thought of as terrorist. But since nearly all of these movements have achieved their aims long since, the associated freedom fighters/terrorists have disappeared. With the notable exception of the IRA whose associated independence movement has only partially achieved its aim. -- Derek Ross | Talk20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
^^^^ The british empire created iraq but there were only 'terrorists' there after the U.S. put Sadam in power and armed him
which reminds what happened to Osama and the U.S. they used to be best buds fighting communism in afganistan they even put the taliban in power but now for some unown reason(just to me possible) Osama attacked the US and the shit storm is still raging.
Please, less of that. In three months-three months- in 1798 British crown forces massacred 30,000 Irish civilians. The likes of you would contend it was all the fault of Her Majesty's forces. Untrue. It was all the fault of those barbarian natives who terrorised the ideological structure of colonial rule in Ireland with their mad French ideas of freedom and democracy, obviously. El Gringo12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Etymology removed
I removed the etymology. It seemed superseded by the description of the coining of the "British Empire" phrase in the next section and seemed an awkward first paragraph David s graff02:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
First and second empires?
Can I just make it clear that there was no gap between the first and second empires. These terms are made up by some american historians who say that the american revolution effectively ended the British empire. This is in no way true, before america was independent, new france had been captured, so had some of south africa, india was being conqured and australia was being discovered. How in any way was this the end of the empire? There is no first and second empires, the empire lasted from 1600-1997, uninterupted. --Segafreak210:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The Map (3)
The map as it is now is pretty nice as an opening picture however it seems to be very debated and, at least for me, unclear. I was thinking of suggesting a new sort of map model that only shows the very basics (not capitals and such). The map should look something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Japanese_Empire2.png
I was thinking of maybe making the map if the support for it is high enough. What do you say? --DerMeister14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
However, I see no need to put it at the top of this page. There is no way to make a clear map at a reasonable resolution and the primary source material looks better. Wiki-Ed15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Righty. I do agree that the map would eventually make you think that you just smoked crap loads of pot due to all the colors. However the map that you linked to seems fine to me, it shouldn't be at the top of the page but it should deffinetly be in it :).--DerMeister20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
DerMeister, that map (and its earlier versions) was in it, but then Gsd2000 moved it to Evolution of the British Empire because the section it was associated with was making this article far too long. Strangely however, Gsd2000 "updated" the map by deleting a lot of the areas shown, including Suriname which was an English possession (with its main settlement being Fort Willoughby) traded to the Dutch for New York (then New Amsterdam). -- Anon 16:41, 12 October 2006
Rights in the Empire
Im very interested in what rights and freedoms the people in the empire enjoyed. But I cant find anything about this in this article. If someone could add it to the article, direct me to another site or just tell me here, it would be greatly appreciated.
User:80.217.114.202
That's a rather open-ended question - the empire covered a large geographic area and existed for centuries. Quite a lot happened in that time. Generally speaking there was an increase in rights and freedoms as the empire developed, but if you're interested in a specific place and/or a specific time you should consult an article on the history of that place. Wiki-Ed09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A certain editor is trying to say that England's Irish colony is now not considered "over the sea" from England and that therefore Newfoundland was "England's first overseas colony". I look forward to hearing how English colonists got on their bikes in 1352AD and cycled across the Irish sea which really is not sea but land (hence the name, of course). El Gringo11:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find at least two editors are maintaining this line.
There are two points here. First is that we do not say "I am going overseas to Dublin" or "I am going overseas to Calais". We would, however, say "I am going overseas to Canada". If you have a problem with the way we use "overseas" to mean over-a-sea and not over-a-small-25 mile-stretch-of-water then that's unfortunate, but not relevant. The second point is that editors of this article have gone to great lengths to establish a starting point for the British Empire. The status quo for some months has been that academics regard it as having begun with the establishment of distant colonies on other continents. The alternative is endless bickering over the meaning of the word "colony" and where/and when such things were established in one of several places in north-west Europe at some point between 899 and 1550... Wiki-Ed16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
On a constitutional point, a statute was enacted in H8's time to extend the effect of the old treason act to offences committed "beyond the seas" so that rebels could be tried in England for their actions in Ireland. We've been over the Irish dimension before and it's well worked out in the article, with a brief reference to the Tudor era. Attempts to cut the Irish element from the colonial empire and to include Ireland as part of Britain on other pages betray an unpleasant agenda.--Shtove19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Now, why on earth would you be silly enough to say something as tautologous as "I'm going over the sea to Ireland"? Just why? That's just silly! Next we will have revelations like "I'm going to eat...food". Ireland is overseas from Britain: the name of that sea is the Irish Sea. This is a fact. Just how you can let political unionism distort this reality beats the band. In fact, Ireland is more overseas than Canada which is over an ocean (if you wish to be even more silly about this). As the old song had it: The sea, oh the sea is the grá geal mo chroí, Long may it reign between England and me. It's a sure guarantee that some hour we'll be free- Oh, thank God we're surrounded by water! And don't those lines hit on a truism that that sea has been quite the bane of the political aspirations of a section of British society for the past couple of centuries. I just didn't know they had got as far as denying its very existence. Astounding, completely and utterly astounding. The Irish sea exists. On one side of this sea is Britain, and on the other is Ireland. I suggest that you get used to that indisputable reality, and this one: Ireland was England's first overseas colony. El Gringo23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Shtove. Also considered "over the seas" and "beyond the seas" were the countries in continental Europe. The British state papers, patents, signed bills and proclamations are replete with remarks and legislation about the alleged threat posed to Britain by Catholic forces "over the seas" and "beyond the seas". Somewhere since 1537 and 2006 all the sea around Britain must have disappeared leaving the Realm in, well, the heart of Europe. No more shall we hear "Fog in the channel; continent isolated". The new Britannia is, it seems today in this discussion, as much a part of the continent as Calais is. El Gringo00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's take a step back here, and disassociate the concept of Ireland as a colony from Ireland as an overseas colony. Ireland is generally accepted to be England's first "colony" - there is a section for this in the article (British_empire#Ireland). Noone is taking this away from you, El Gringo. But demoting Newfoundland to the status of England's second "overseas colony" is ridiculous when one considers for how many hundreds of years the overseas crossing was made between Britain and Ireland, and what happened and what had to happen before the first European crossed the Atlantic (ignoring the complication of the Vikings). Gsd200001:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Newfoundland doesn't even qualify as the first colony in the Americas - Francis Drake got to California before Humphrey Gilbert got to Newfoundland, and neither place was actually settled - the boys just waved their letters patent about and sailed off. The settlement on Roanoke Island was the first place there to receive English colonists. And I think Jamestown was developed before Newfoundland. Ireland is a tricky subject, but in terms of Tudor/Stuart colonisation methods, there is nothing to distinguish it from the above cases.--Shtove06:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
So you would maintain that Sicily and Sardinia were "overseas imperial possessions" of Spain, in the same way that Mexico was? When the British Overseas Territories were so renamed, Northern Ireland should have been included because it's "over the sea"? Likewise for Corsica and the French Overseas Departments and Territories? Even now, when a British diplomat is posted to Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic, they are being posted "overseas"? If you still insist on this change, provide references from contemporary texts on English and British imperial history that list Ireland as England/Britain's first "overseas" colony. Gsd200010:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh heh. What about the Isle of Wight? If we want to be asinine, El Gringo, we could pretend that the Isle of Wight is overseas as well. There is, after all, a body of water between it and England. And hey, it was "colonised" by the English ten centuries before they set foot in Ireland. Wiki-Ed10:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not citing this as a reference or proof of anything, because one cannot use WP to verify WP, but nevertheless, this might make interesting reading to Shtove and El Gringo: Overseas. Gsd200012:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop the lights! The draftsmen of the Tudor legislation had it all wrong - what a pickle we're in now! You might want to take a look at [[5]]. The Northern Ireland border alters the criteria, as it arises from the breakdown of the union of 1801. The matter is plain: Ireland is over the sea from England, and was the scene of England's first colonial adventure in the Age of Exploration. The Isle of Wight was never anything but part of the state - the natives still grumble about the bloody Romans. So, do you still insist on your exemption from the use of plain English? Or are you going to pray in aid another Spanish example? Try Castilian - you can wave your hands around as well.--Shtove15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are you drawing a line with the age of exploration? You're making up limiting criteria now to justify your case because it won't hold water (!) otherwise. If you read the Isle of Wight history you will see that for a long time it was not a "part of the state" at all. It was colonised by an Anglo-Saxon tribe and it is across a body of water - which seem to be the foundations of your argument. The Wiktionary entry is too literal; the Wikipedia entry puts the word in context and explains what it is understood to mean in separate countries. If the Irish regard Britain as "overseas" then that's fine; but the British do not regard Ireland as "overseas". Since this article is about the British empire I would suggest it uses the British perspective of British overseas colonies. Of course this whole discussion is completely anachronistic: the word, the nations and the notions would have meant nothing to the people of the time. Wiki-Ed20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to add that if Ireland is "overseas", then so certainly is France, much of which was English-ruled a long time before Ireland. And neither Irish or French fiefs and territories were constituted as "colonies", rather as conquests/possessions. For the "first overseas colony" I'd think that would have to be Newfoundland, no? First discovered, though maybe another was chartered as a colony before Newfoundland was....Skookum120:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. Here I go, point by point:
We've been over the limiting criteria ages ago, and kicked out the edits that included Norman conquests and Plantagenet possessions. We even had to kick out a gang of skinheads who insisted that the contintental administration zones at the end of WWII be included! In describing the origins of the empire, Tudor Ireland was chosen as the starting point, because that was the arena in which the principles of the colonial empire were first practised by the English.
The Romans incorporated the Isle of Wight into the state long before the arrival of the German tribes - before the Romans, not a lot is known, apart from a few JCB raids by Time Team.
The WP Overseas entry is unsourced, tendentious, and inappropriate for WP - it should be deleted, then pasted in to Wiktionary, purged of its faults.
In my experience of WP talk pages, the term "context" is used to camouflage the sentiment, "I'm right; you're ignorant, horrible, and wrong".
We're talking about the origins of the empire. So, sticking to that subject, please cite a reputable source that asserts that, the British do not regard Ireland as "overseas"? I can cite legislation to the opposite effect.
"British perspective"??? Groan - WP is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that incorporates the sum of knowledge, not the sum of some knowledge.
Discussion of the concept of empire is not anachronistic, and the British Empire is one of the principal historical examples. Here's a trick for the self-acclaimed winners in history when confronting those who expose the absurdities of their national narratives: Don't take things so seriously. They were different times, different mores! Can't we just be friends?. Friends, my preciousss!
Anyway, it's your fault, both of you. Not the whole thing, of course. Just this argument, on this talk page, in this "context". Best wishes, WikEd (and your little Skookum!).--Shtove21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of all this? Why don't we just use a different word to describe Newfoundland, and avoid the word "overseas" entirely? john k21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is that the term "overseas" serves to delimit the mother country of the British Empire and of the United Kingdom. Read those articles and you'll see a casual attempt to include Ireland within the mother country, without regard to constitutional distinctions. The attempt carries over in to British Isles. It's a slippery fish - you know that already, JK - and the argument will be worth it when "informal" short-forms and misleading claims are cut out.--Shtove21:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
El Gringo/Shtove - are you two a double act? Every time it's the same - El Gringo wades into an article with an unpopular edit whose main raison d'être is to demonstrate to the world that Britain is Britain and Ireland is Ireland. Then El Gringo vanishes into thin air, but meanwhile Shtove has picked up where he left off (minus the rudeness and aggressiveness). Gsd200001:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that every one has forgotten about the Isle of Mann. Its in the middle of the Irish Sea and was conqured by ALL of its neighbors. If the argument about Ireland is correct wouldn't this island be considered an overseas colony. Possably Britains first in the true sense of the word since each original nation conqured it (Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England)? The island is a crown property and as such not an official part of the UK... The argument that has been posted is that Ireland was independent from Britain then incoperated into it. The Isle of Mann was independent and has been incorperated (though not as fully as Ireland was). So would this island still be a colony? I would highly doubt that the people of this island would ever think that.
Lets not forget that one of the greatest, proudest and most patriotic Brit to ever live was Irish and even became its PM. I am refering to of course to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. But that is aside the point I just dont think that the Duke would have ever thought of Ireland as a colony but a proud part of Britain. But like I said I doubt that the people of the Island of Man I see them selves as being a colony... but no one is saying that they are so please ignore that minor rant. So I repost my original question is the Isle of Mann overseas? Is it Britains 1st colony? -- UKPhoenix7910:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
No doubt Abbott and Costello will tell us that it doesn't count because [insert reason] and it's therefore irrelevant to the whole of history ever ever. john k I would have suggested an alternative form of words much earlier but I figured we'd get the revisionist response we got. I think both of them would do well to consider UKPhoenix79's point about Wellington. He was not the only person from the UK with mixed ancestry, both then and now. Personally I think that goes a long to explaining why many people in the UK don't think of Ireland as being "overseas" and/or foreign. Anyway, neutrality of wording is important to those with an agenda. I wonder if they would assent to using "England's first distant colony"? It means the same thing (in the UK and US and Australia and probably other places) but there would be no need to wrangle over which nearby island was "colonised" first. Wiki-Ed12:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with any attempt to fly in the face of consensus (in academia, outside of WP) and pander to these ridiculous edits by contributors with a political agenda to push.
Page 7 of The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century, part of the Oxford History of the British Empire series refers to the distinction between British "domestic" and "overseas" colonization - British plantations in Ireland are included in the former.
Page 318 of Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan Privateer, referring to the failed Colony of Roanoke: "the fleet sailed, closing the book on England's first overseas colony".
Page 196 of Here: A Biography of the New American Continent, "Newfoundland...was Britain's first overseas colony".
Page 3 of Pronunciation of English: A Course Book, "Newfoundland, Britain's first overseas colony...".
Ignoring the minor issue of which colony in the New World was the first overseas colony, the consensus is that "overseas" doesn't mean across the Irish Sea. Gsd200012:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The "consensus" from rightwing British writers with little knowledge of Ireland, but with plenty of indoctination into the myths of British imperialism, doesn't actually matter. The Irish sea exists; its existence is not what one can make a value judgement on. In fact, this entire "debate" about the actual existence of the Irish sea between Ireland and Britain must rank as among the most retarded in wikipedia's short history. Congratulations, GSD. El Gringo18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
john k I would have suggested an alternative form of words much earlier but I figured we'd get the revisionist response we got. Er, removing the existence of the Irish sea from this discussion and attempting to redefine the meaning of the word overseas to actually mean not overseas has redefined revisionism itself. Astounding stuff. Breathtaking stuff. And why? Because it patently doesn't fit into the British loyalist/unionist agenda of "at least two" wikipedia editors on this article, an agenda which at every turn is attempting to bring Ireland into the heart of the English realm, be it in the equation of Britain with the United Kingdom or the denial of the fact that British Isles is solely reflective of British supranationalist claims to Ireland and as such a totally political term. El Gringo18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Stonemad GB16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of all this? Why don't we just use a different word to describe Newfoundland, and avoid the word "overseas" entirely? john k. I did propose a very obvious and intelligent alternative in my edit a few days ago, namely that Newfoundland was "England's first non-European colony". Instructively. this proposal was not acceptable to our "there is no sea between Ireland and Britain" brigade above. El Gringo18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
UKPhoenix: There's Irish, and there is "Irish". Remind us, who was it who said about his Irish birth that 'because one is born in a stable doesn't make one a horse'? Surely not young Wellesley there? Alas! But it is typical of those with little understanding of Ireland to bring this down to blood, to "mixed ancestry". And it is a truly colonial line that spouts it because the next line is: "so let's all live happily under British rule!" Regular as clockwork is the "Why can't we get along" line which, interestingly, the British have started spouting only since they've been on top and wanted to secure their position. Hmmmmm. That specious, chimerical "pure race" colonial shite was discredited centuries ago. Even when Spenser was coming out with it there were objections. No actual Irish person would take it seriously, nor was it taken seriously throughout history (as Dónal Cregan's paper on intermarriage during the 1640s confirms beyond question). Irish society, being a democratic republic, is far more pluralist than its neighbouring society which continues to be institutionally sectarian at the highest level of state in 2006. Irish nationalism has been led by more Irishmen who were Protestant than your state has been led by Catholics, a state which specifically excludes Catholics from the highest position in state. I suggest the lot of you put that reality in your collective pipe and smoke it before projecting your state's values upon Ireland and claiming them to be ours. El Gringo18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with any attempt to fly in the face of consensus (in academia, outside of WP) and pander to these ridiculous edits by contributors with a political agenda to push. So, in the world according to GSD there apparently is no longer any sea between Ireland and Britain. And you call us ridiculous? Sweet suffering divine and merciful Jesus. How the Hell did the Brits keep my people faoi chois for so long? (yes, yes, yes I know it was through love, peace, flowers and cups of tea, just as was the case everywhere else in the British Empire) El Gringo18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw the suggestion of a compromise, given how absurd El Gringo and Shtove's responses have been. Just because there is an Irish Sea does not mean that Ireland is generally considered "overseas" from Britain. Is Northern Ireland currently an overseas colony of the UK? Or did Ireland cease to be a colony in 1801? Personally, I think Ireland can only be considered a colony at all in a very loose sense, and there's no need to go in for tortured compromises. "Overseas colony" is already something of a redundancy - usually "colony" in the modern, post-Roman sense, is taken to imply overseas-ness. Russia expanded in a colonial-esque way across the landmass of Eurasia, but Siberia is not generally considered a "colony" of Russia. Bohemia after 1620 was colonized by loyal German Catholics in much the same way that Scots Protestants began to be sent to Ireland somewhat earlier. Do we call Bohemia an "Austrian colony"? We can talk about Ireland as a colony of England in an informal sense, but we oughtn't to consider it to be technically a colony. It was, before 1539, a lordship, feudally dependent on England, and after 1539 a kingdom, permanently personally united and subordinate to the Kingdom of England. The relationship was a feudal one, not a colonial one in the modern sense, although it of course bore certain similarities to the colonial model that would later develop. But we ought to be careful about going past that to actually call it "England's first colony" as though this is a formal truth. john k18:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
after 1539....The relationship was a feudal one, not a colonial one in the modern sense, although it of course bore certain similarities to the colonial model that would later develop. But we ought to be careful about going past that to actually call it "England's first colony" as though this is a formal truth. john k 18:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Utter nonsense which does not have the support of the overwhelming majority of historians in that period. El Gringo19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
john k - quite. El Gringo and Shtove are being absurd (but particularly El Gringo with his farcical claim that anyone here is denying the existence of the Irish Sea). Instead of trying to improve the article they are wasting everyone's time over a bizarre interpretation of "overseas". El Gringo - enough of your rants now - if you believe this should be changed, cite some contemporary references that state Ireland was Britain's first "overseas" colony. Without references, your rants are just a lot of hot air. This article ain't going to get changed simply because you're Irish and because you say it should be so.Gsd200022:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Umh El Gringo I hate to burst your bubble but I'm actually more Irish than I am either English or Scottish. My Mother is English Irish Scottish Protestant and My Father is Irish English Scottish Catholic. Wellington would have considered himself to be Irish from the United Kingdom that is all. It is not that unusual to be considered two things. Heck look at America you could say that your Californian, Texan or New Yorken (sp?) but all are considered American. How is it hard to believe that One of the Greatest British Generals can also be One of the Greatest Irish Generals? After all George W can be considered one of the (insert opinion here) American Presidents, or one of the (insert opinion here) Texan Presidents.
Yes for a long time there were anti-catholic laws but there were also anti-protestant laws in most of Europe during the same time. Its just that the anti-catholic laws went on longer than I personally would have liked ending in 1829. The 1640s for Ireland was bad because of the English Civil war which put in power the fundamentalist Puritans. So it is not hard to see why the Irish would see themselves as different since the Puritans saw them as such, but only due to their religion. Don't forget that the whole thing about religion and which side you believed in was a VERY hot topic at the time and for a long time the rullers of England were not only excommunicated from the Catholic church but the Pope orderd their assasination. People did not want to have any more persucutions about religion so to keep the status quo (and to keep themselves in power) they imposed such laws that now seam quite archaine. Dont forget that even in the United States they have had only one catholic president. Many persidential nominations were defeted because of the candidates catholosim and even in the 60's they were saying that he might not get in because of his religion. -- UKPhoenix7923:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there are a few issues that are going on here that'll make it a difficult one to 'solve'. Namely, we have:
Disagreement over the concepts of 'overseas' and 'colony'. As these are basicially undefinable (or at least, are contestable) ideas, this isn't something that can be solved with a simple source or argument
Problems over how states opearated in the Middle Ages. They simply didn't 'work' in the same way as they do now, meaning that its difficult to go back and place labels such as 'borders' and 'colonies' on them
Given all that, and given the various arguments that have been placed, I think the key here is what the caption is trying to say; namely, that Newfoundland was the first colonial expansion outside of Europe. So one possible solution would be to do away with the whole problem and call it the 'first Translatic colony' or 'first colony outside of Europe' (even if the latter is a bit clumsy).
As for the labelling of things as overseas or colonies within Europe... like I say, I think this hinges on how we define overseas and colony and, as there is no correct definition of either, I don't see how there can be a single neutral answer to 'what was Britain's first overseas colony?' I mean we could debate ad infinitum, but where is the difference in the English kingdoms conquering Strahclyde, Mann or its lands in France? It seems to me that most editors are simply using the current UK as the basis for the initial 'integral' terrirtory; which is a reasonable approach I think (and would, under the definition of overseas provided by Wikipedia make Ireland a 'non-overseas colony'), but certainly not the only reasonable approach that could be taken.
If that all sounds baffled, its probably because I'm struggling to get my thoughts out on screen here. But baisically (cos I like lists) I think there are three options:
1. Make the caption read 'first Transatlantic colony' or some such thing (which I prefer)
2. Get a source or two and say what they say (i.e. 'Newfoundland, thought of as Britain's first overseas colony Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).) (not too keen on this approach, but I'd be cotnent that it follows the principles of sourcing an argument)
3. Attempt to come up with and agreed meaning of overseas and colony and then base the wording on that (good luck)
The 1911 Britannica [6] says Newfoundland, commonly termed the "senior colony" of Great Britain, antedates in discovery (though not in continuous settlement) any other British over-sea dominion. Just to repeat, that says Over-sea dominion. I've already provided several contemporary references that use "overseas" in the same manner, including one written by folks that have spent far more time studying this subject than any of us (The Oxford History of the BE). This is as ridiculous as the debate on United Kingdom about the correctness or not of stating in the opening paragraph that the UK is "usually shortened to [amongst other names] Britain", both debates started by El Gringo. In both cases, reputable sources have been cited that chime with the current state of the article, yet it appears that this is not good enough for the editors concerned, that they know better than millions of English speakers, and scholars in the field. Language is not always logical and "strictly correct": see Distinguishing blue from green in language, and WP should go with how terms are conventionally used by the majority. The fact is that El Gringo has a POV agenda to push - to emphasise the separate identity of the whole of Ireland from Britain, and this is just another place he can do this. Gsd200010:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we really say Ireland was the British Empire's first overseas colony? When the British Empire, as it were, actual became, as it were, Ireland was already part of what was ruled. It wasn't made into a colony as part of the British Empire, it already was. That's just my thinking. Failing that I see no problem with the wording of Newfoundland as the British Empire's first non-European colony. Ben W Belltalk08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that you both have some good points. My only point is that if Ireland is seen as a colony then the Isle of Mann is Britains 1st one. Asside from the Vikings it was colonized by the Welsh in the early Dark Ages (displacing the natives), conqured by the Irish in the 6th century, Scotland in 1266, and the English in 1399. Lets not forget that it is also aparently Overseas so that would make it Britains 1st Overseas colony :) -- UKPhoenix7909:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ba-bum-bum, chhhhh! But seriously, UKP, my point is exactly along those lines; I'm not quite sure when we start counting 'England' as conquering others but (and I'm no historian, so correct me if I'm wrong), but prior to controlling Ireland, it had conquered the Isle of Man (not an integral part of UK territory, so what is it if not a colony?) and land in France (or had at least inherited it from the Duchy of Normandy).
GSD2000; I'm happy to accept that well sourced statement (indeed, that was my option 2); though are we sure here that by 'dominion' it means 'colony'? --Robdurbar13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh! England only had a toe-hold in Ireland for hundreds of years after it's first arrival. Next there were numerous battles to be won and lost. England controlled a small section called the Pale, which shrank and expanded many times over the centuries and it wasn't until the Flight of the Earls that any debate of control of Ireland can be made. So to say Ireland was conquered by England is farcical, Ireland never ceded England's quest for domination. At very best, England's control was a temporary little arrangement that was soon terminated. MelForbes14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Mel, I didn't mean to give the impression that it controlled it all; sloppy writing on my behalf; but the point is that there was some sort of control over part of the island - whether this amounted to owning one shed, one city or a county-sized area is, as far as this argument is concerned, not the issue. --Robdurbar16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this idea is that it is not the transatlanticness specifically that is particularly significant about Newfoundland, it is the fact it was simply a very long way from Britain (which is really what overseas means used in a British context), which marked the start of European nations starting colonies all over the world in areas they had no previous association with, as opposed to the medieval process of kingdoms jostling to expand their territories into adjacent areas.--Stonemad GB17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No, No, No: you have it completely wrong when you say it is the fact it was simply a very long way from Britain (which is really what overseas means used in a British context). Just what sort of "historian" judges the past by the standards of their local extremist culture, 400 years of British nationalist indoctrination later? As Shtove, myself and literally countless (and I use the word advisedly) sources make very clear, the English and British state sources use "overseas" to refer to Ireland, and the rest of Europe, particularly where the threat of Catholic forces was concerned. In that particular usage especially (but not solely) was a reflection of British state interests to emphasise "the Protestant island". This "overseas" emphasis clearly is now inconvenient to more politically motivated types so, like other periods in British history, it must be obliterated from their historical record. But, thank God, they are a minority. There is no dispute about the use of overseas in British historical sources governing the time you say "Newfoundland was England's first overseas colony"- how could there considering the length of time it took the English to come from Chester to Dublin Castle- up to 7 days in the sixteenth century. These are genuinely British sources uttered by better Protestants and more genuinely English and more genuinely British subjects than the sort who have sacrificed their ancient sovereignty to the French and Germans (and we will not mention the United States). Saint George, among many others, would not be happy with the current situation. More seriously, there is a very obvious solution to this and it lies in the transatlantic/non-European etc etc form, a form which is patently unacceptable to the "Ireland is an integral part of Britain" fanatics (who have, clearly, never spoken with Irish people about this type of issue). El Gringo19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Stonemad GB22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd have thought the Portuguese in Africa and the Spanish in the Caribbean "marked the start of European nations starting colonies all over the world in areas they had no previous association with". Also the Azores, Canary Islands, and Madeira, in the Atlantic. john k18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
John K - you're right: I should have said that the founding of Newfoundland was the start of this process for the British.
El Gringo - as overseas is a relative geographic term, inevitably it will have a different meaning in each English-speaking country, because of their vastly differing geographic positions. And it is the present-day meaning that we are debating here, as all words change their meanings over time. I think it is reasonable to use the British understanding of the term in an article about the British Empire. British people would not generally refer to Ireland or the rest of Europe as 'overseas'. The word is a rather old-fashioned one which has retained the meaning it developed probably in the nineteenth century of being anywhere that took a long voyage by ship to get too (ie everywhere outside Europe). This does not imply that places that aren't 'overseas', like France or Ireland, are somehow domestic rather than foreign. The point I was making is that it is not the point that Newfoundland was transatlantic that was important, it is that it marked the transition from expanding at the expense of your neighbours to starting virgin colonies in completely new places worldwide: ie the (thankfully behind us) Age of Empires. Non-European would do for this, but transatlantic would not: the colony would have had similar significance had it been, say, in South Africa. PS - do people in Ireland generally refer to England or France as being overseas?--Stonemad GB23:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides Normandy and the whole French feudal mess, I don't think anybody has brought up Calais, which was certainly an arguable "English colony" and which is just as much "overseas" from England as Ireland. Calais was not inherited in some feudal scheme. It was conquered by force of arms in 1347, and then ceded to the English crown by the Treaty of Brétigny in 1360 (and thus held, at least until 1369, by the English not through their claims to the French throne). It remained under English control without a break until 1558, and for the last century at least it was pretty much managed exactly as one would imagine a colony would be, with a quasi-military governor and so forth, and not as a feudal dependency, or, at least, not any more like a feudal dependency than Ireland was. I'm not sure at what point we are to consider Ireland becoming an English "colony" (The Pale was perhaps arguably an English colony from the 12th century, but the rest of Ireland not so much until the 16th century), but Calais is competitive, surely. john k18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Robdurbar changed the article mid-debate - I have reverted it. I am totally not prepared to accept this change when I have provided several reputable sources and the other side has just spouted a lot of hot air based on personal arguments that are nothing more than OR. To move this debate forwards, the other side need to cite references, plain and simple. No more arguments based on logic, this is an article about semantics and, more importantly, convention. Gsd200021:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Damn and I thought my argument putting the Isle of Mann as Britains 1st Overseas colony could have won based on argument alone, just look at my facts. I mean everything I said was true after all... Now that I need to prove it with souces I'm screwed :) (hope I don't offend anyone by being a bit cheeky) -- UKPhoenix7921:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about that Gsd. Like I say, I'm not entirely advers to the approach that you're taking; if Newfoundland is generally referred to as the first overseas colony then we 'could' call it that (and a quick google search brings up people such as the BBC describing it in that way (I'm automatically programmed to think that every the Beeb says is true)) - however, I don't see why that means we have to, when there are alternative ways of expressing the key fact about it which is that it was our first territorial expansion in the new world; I must admit john k, when I said France, I was thinking of Calais, and there are similar issues of the Pale (and I don't think calling IoM a colony is that rediculous).
If we look at the first few sources that come to hand, we see a mix of wordings:
'After the loss of Calais in 1558, the dreams of the English changed from a continental empire to overseas possessions' [7]
'When is a colony not a colony' an article about the Isle of Man which suggests that it was a colony from 1399 - no mention of overseas, of course
'This last points begs the question of whether Ireland was part of Europe or simply an overseas colony' [8]
Northern Ireland described as a 'shard of England's first overseas colony' [9]
Now with those sources I was playing devil's advocate - there are plenty (More) that support the view that Newfoundland is the first colony; however, this is far from the only view, and we need to account for this. --Robdurbar09:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hahah thats great it looks like my fictitious argument might actually hold some weight :D So The Isle of Mann being conqured by all of the old nation states is truley Britains 1st colony :) Now if we can get it classified as overseas then I'll be rolling on the ground XD Wait if its classified as overseas would that mean that Britain is Over Seas from Europe... You could say that the North Sea seperates it not just the English Channel. Heck many Brits would be happy to find out that they're not a part of Europe! This convo keeps on getting funnier and funnier! -- UKPhoenix7909:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
But continetnal Europe can be considered overseas from Britain; that doesn't mean we're not part of it though. Look at the definition if you search 'overseas' in google; or buy a property in Italy/France/Spain from http://www.overseasrealestate.co.uk/ . All 'overseas' means in this sense is 'abroad' or 'over the sea'. Islands such as the Shetlands/Isle of Wight aren't overseas because they're part of the same state; but Isle of Man IS overseas because its over the sea and a different country.
I don't know if there is a 'correct' definitions (I dislike the idea of correct definitions; as far as I'm concenred, a word means what people use it to mean) but my main point with this is that because we can't define overseas, or colony, we shouldn't go making statements like 'first overseas colony', unless there is total agreement from sources; which there isn't. --Robdurbar11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
So N.Ireland is not overseas but the Republic of Ireland is overseas? And the Isle of Mann's highest govermental body is the UK Parlament so thats not overseas just like Jersey & Gurnsey is not? Very odd! -- UKPhoenix7919:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Editor Robdurbar is correct on this. Because the term first overseas colony is leading to so much debate, it is better to leave the term out of the article. This sort of issue is often a problem with WP, as there are so many editors involved and no-one ends up satisfied with the outcome. A solo writer of a book would easily deal with this situation. So better left out. MelForbes20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't traced it all the way back but it has said this since at least May 2005. Why the sudden controversy just because El Gringo sticks his impolite nose into things? Leave the bloody thing alone, I say... Gsd200000:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Miaow. Here is when it first appeared: [10]. 12th July 2004. That's two years and three months ago. For two years and three months this was acceptable wording. (It was even acceptable wording back in 1911 [11]). In the blink of an eye, it has suddenly become the source of heated controversy. Why? Gsd200012:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, by that logic can we assume that because the Irish didn't change the British state until 1922 they were all happy about it? By the way, is that the 1911 Britannica which said Wales was part of England? (Somebody brought that gem up over on the Irish Anti-Imperialist Isles) The fact that you are using the Britannica at all speaks volumes about where you are coming from politically. Just because everybody around you might think that way does not negate your very British nationalist mentality. Oh and by the way, GSD, there really is no point in continuously insulting me whether on this article or the United Kingdom one. You do not own this article, or any other one, so claiming that I am "sticking my impolite nose into this article" makes you come across as a control freak who is on a nationalist mission. One of your latest "insults" shows what an entirely different culture you are coming from when you lambast my: "unwelcome challenge by El Gringo of the status quo". Well, if you can't see the smile on Irish contributors at that wording you really need to drag yourself out of your little Tory "law and order" hamlet and realise that "unwelcome challenges to the status quo" have kept the Irish spirit alive for many centuries so a British nationalist telling us now that we should not give "unwelcome challenges to the status quo" is about as funny as an online discussion can get. El Gringo15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't need any lectures from a contributor that has a request for comment open on their behaviour [12], multiple warnings on their talk page, and multiple attempts to hide them [13]. Whilst you label me with the brush of a British nationalist, you have absolutely no evidence of my political persuasions. Yet yours are very clear. Which is exactly why you are not suitable to contribute to an encyclopaedia - you are unable to put your political beliefs to one side and contribute as a neutral. Gsd200022:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment; Gsd2000, please read WP:Civil. One should not attack other editors because one disagrees. This spoils WP for everybody, and it can make newer editors hesitant to edit. MelForbes20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
As other editors above have pointed out, there is an abundance of sources showing that Ireland is considered England's first overseas colony. With that, it is clear that saying Newfoundland is "England's first overseas colony" cannot be sustained. There are numerous alternatives such as 'First transatlantic colony' etc etc. Certain editors should not be so hostile to such intelligent and accurate wording. Persisting in this silliness out of some pov is unbecoming. El Gringo15:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be an abundance of academic sources (i.e. not websites) showing that Ireland was not and cannot be considered England's first overseas colony. Unless the "editors" with the agenda can (a) disprove the fact that other islands were colonised by the English before Ireland and (b) show that mainstream academics agree with their POV that Ireland is considered "overseas" there is no need to carry on this discussion - we are simply feeding the trolls. I've referenced the existing comment. Further unsourced changes should be treated as vandalism. Wiki-Ed10:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
POV, neutrality disputed
The article pushes a rose coloured view of the British Empire. Even the images used are pushing that view. We see no pictures of slavery, famine or degradation which was often typical of the Empire. Read WP:NPOV for insight. MelForbes21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well you are always welcome to edit it. I do note that the importance of slavery in the Caribean is mentioned, but oddly enough no mention of the role of the British Empire in abolishing it. Not sure how you picture "degradation". Keep in mind that this is a general article on the history of the British Empire, and that many specific episodes, for instance of famine, might be best dealt with in the histories of the countries concerned. You would have to show that Imperial policy at a point of time was the cause of famine, for instance. --Michael Johnson09:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The article has a number of faults (uneven coverage, awkward structure and a lack of in-line citations), but neutrality is not one of them. It does not push a pro-British line, even though anti-British editors might think it does; it does not push an anti-British line, even though pro-British editors might think it does. Much more could be said on either "side" - we either put all of it in or none of it goes in.
In fact the only image which has any rose colouring is the map and the suggestion that slavery, famine and degradation were in some way unique to the British Empire or unusual at the time is certainly not neutral... So I'll remove the tag until specific sourced evidence (that this article is not neutral) is forthcoming. Wiki-Ed10:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hear hear, Michael Johnson and Wiki-Ed. Furthermore, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a critique or an essay. To pick the example of famine, making a causal link between the British Empire and a particular famine, or a counterfactual one (had the British Empire not existed the famine would not have occurred), requires some pretty watertight evidence. I'd say it was beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia. "Degredation" too is a very subjective word. I'm not in any way denying the B.E. did a lot of very terrible things, but throughout history and still today, so did a lot of empires, countries and people. It's a can of worms that this article should stay out of. Gsd200011:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It goes to prove that a country's history should never be written by it's own nationals. The article is written in a very 1950's-ish style. The images are very cozy and idealist, and the article has a tone of the idyllic about it. It certainly needs a dose of the rough. MelForbes19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It's only a problem if you make it one. I will be editing it very shortly, in the next month or so. It needs a lot of work. MelForbes14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Unity of India Prior to the Empire
I have deleted the following paragraph from the East India Company section - it is, at best, misleading.
After the fall of Mughal Empire, there was no single entity that administered the Indian subcontinent. The area was a patchwork of a multitude of kingdoms. The only common bonds were those of religion as most of the population followed either Hinduism, Islam or Sikhism. It may be noted here that there was no political entity called India at that time. The Indian subcontinent was a patchwork of many kingdoms, and much like Europe at the time, there was no single state that ruled over this vast expanse of land since the fall of the Mugham Empire. It was not until India was absorbed by the British Empire, that the idea of a single nation arose, much later in time. Thus, until the establishment of a single administrative and gubernatorial entity by the British, the word India only represents the peninsula south of the Himalayas, known as the Indian subcontinent.
Firstly it gives the impression that the Mughal Empire fell in the way distance past. In fact it was at its height in the first quarter of the 18th century. Secondly it was replaced as the ruling state by the Maratha Empire whose decline was in large part due to clashes with the nacent British Empire in the third quater of the 18th century. That the word "India" was not used to describe these empires hardly matters - that was the English name.
24Claimed in 1908; territory formed 1962; overlaps portions of Argentine and Chilean claims, borders not enforced but claim not renounced under the Antarctic Treaty.
I should be grateful to receive any advice, or if anyone could improve it by adding territories etc. I was surprised to find that there was not one already. Is this due to sensitivity issues and if so have I broken a Wikipedia guideline in creating the template?
Also, I should like to know what people's views are on the inclusion of the United Kingdom and its predecessor states in the template. Would you feel that this constities a "territory" of the British Empire. I'm looking forward to hearing some views. Thankyou. Lofty17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is not a good idea. Putting this template on the Republic of Ireland article, for example, would be like a red rag to a bull, given the ease with which some Irish contributors take offence at what they deem to be British "wikimperialism". Would you put it on the USA article? I can imagine some Americans getting peeved at that too. This idea is best left to Evolution of the British Empire. Gsd200022:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That is precisely why, if you look at the template, you will see that the links go to articles about historial territories and history page articles. And Ireland was not a "part" of the empire as it constituted part of the UK of GB and I or as a sperate realm with a common monarch equally. I would not class it as having been part of the empire. Anyway, with the fact in mind that they link to history pages, much like the equally valid French or Portugese Empire templates, are still of the same opinion? Lofty15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I note that you haven't put it on the USA page yet. I very much look forward to seeing that. Anyway, having checked the US page I noticed that there is already a little entry for “former British colonies” so I suspect your template may be superfluous. Inclusion of the flag, as GSD has pointed out, would antagonise certain people. Wiki-Ed16:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As I explained it is going on historical territories' pages, I therefore put it on the 13 colonies, as Britain never owned all of the present USA. The flag is there simply as an emulation of the Portugese Empire template. A like for like template was my aim, in order to avoid antagonism! Lofty16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If you changed it to "Territories of the former British Empire" and also changed {{Territories of the British Empire}} to {{Territories of former the British Empire}} then it would be better. The Portuguese one was on articles about Cape Verde and Angola etc. so I've put it on some places like India, and will put it on the USA and see what happens. Its their history! --w2ch00
Forgot to mention. I wouldn't put it on the Republic of Ireland article because I don't personally regard it as being part of the "Empire" more, part of the "mother country". After all, we were the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and NI is part of the UK now. That is why I wouldn't put it there. --w2ch00
Irish historical context: Ireland was part of the UK from 1801 - up to then it was part of the empire; since then ... well, take your pick on Northern Ireland. Plus, Scotland may soon go independent soon, which complicates everything. Anyway, good luck.--Shtove00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article Nomination
I think this is a very good article, and it should be nominated for being todays featured article on the wikipedia Main Page. Unfortunately I don't know how to do this, could someone do this? Thanks --w2ch00
