Cambridge University college in row over colonial-themed ball

[Tete123]

A leading college at Cambridge University has found itself at the centre of controversy after choosing a colonial theme for this year's May Ball in celebration of the British Empire

Emmanuel College is holding its annual black tie event to commemorate the Empire, which once "governed over a quarter of the world's population".

It promises guests a trip through the Indian Raj, Australia, the West Indies and 19th century Hong Kong as it "celebrates the Victorian commonwealth and all of its decadences".

Cambridge University college in row over colonial-themed ball - Telegraph

Yet more politically correct nonsense, as a British Empire themed Cambridge ball is considered insensitive.

OK, on balance the British Empire, like all others before it had negative aspects. Are we the only nation so ashamed of our past that we must not only forever apologise for our history but not learn nor celebrate it either?

What would have been said if the theme had been Roman or Greek - Persian or Mongol? All these Empires of antiquity were considered forces of good, spreading modern developments such as Roads and Bridges, Philosophy and Democracy, Culture and Religion... much the same as the British Empire did throughout the 350-400 years of its existence. There were atrocities committed by the British I agree, as there were in all the other examples cited.

I get annoyed that any conversation or debate regarding the British Empire, will only ever focus on the Concentration camps used in South Africa, or the culling of the indigenous population of America and Australia, the suppression and exploitation of peoples and of course the slave trade. All these features were obviously abhorrent, but I never see or hear praise for the spread of democracy that can be found in much of the Indian subcontinent or the development of commerce or the American and Australian systems of democratic government.

It's also worth noting that the British in many respect imitated the other European / Asian powers of the time in regards Empire building. Without sailing out and making claim to other lands we would have no doubt come under the influence of France, Spain, Portugal or Holland - yet history for these oppressed nations would have differed little... except that maybe Catholicism would have been the preferred religion or French/Spanish would have been the second language of many more of the worlds population.

I think the Empire should be taught in our schools in all its glory and with all its negative aspects. We should stop this stupid PC crap and appreciate the role we British played in shaping the worlds population sometimes with negative consequences but sometimes for the better.

[LA]

OK, on balance the British Empire, like all others before it had negative aspects. Are we the only nation so ashamed of our past that we must not only forever apologise for our history but not learn nor celebrate it either?

What annoys me is people are willing to celebrate and be proud of the Roman Empire but not the British Empire. They were very similar, except; obviously, Britains was bigger and up to date.
We industrialised the world, colonised parts of the world, built Australia, parts of America, Canada, Parts of Pakistan, India and parts of Africa.

I for one am very proud of our history.

What would have been said if the theme had been Roman or Greek - Persian or Mongol? All these Empires of antiquity were considered forces of good, spreading modern developments such as Roads and Bridges, Philosophy and Democracy, Culture and Religion... much the same as the British Empire did throughout the 350-400 years of its existence. There were atrocities committed by the British I agree, as there were in all the other examples cited.

I agree. Atrocities are always committed in Empires, there are no exceptions. But people fail to acknowledge the good side.

I get annoyed that any conversation or debate regarding the British Empire, will only ever focus on the Concentration camps used in South Africa, or the culling of the indigenous population of America and Australia, the suppression and exploitation of peoples and of course the slave trade.

What they often over look is in America those who moved there before British control culled the indigenous population. But none the less, the murder of a whole race of people is not a good thing, I am sure we all know this.

The Slave Trade in Britain always amusing me in a conversation. The working class people of industrial Britain were treated much much worse than the slaves, and there were many more working class people.

Slaves were an investment, working class people were dispensible.

I think the Empire should be taught in our schools in all its glory and with all its negative aspects. We should stop this stupid PC crap and appreciate the role we British played in shaping the worlds population sometimes with negative consequences but sometimes for the better.

Children should know the negative aspects, but they should also be taught the industrialisation of the world, the development of nations, the increase in foriegn democracy, Chinese "evolution" due to British Hong Kong, the building of roads, mines and rail ways.

This is something to be proud of, hopefully in the future people will realise this and see the British empire in the same light as the Roman Empire.

[Tete123]

Something that is often overlooked when debating the British Empire and its negative consequences or influences is the role played by protestant religion.

When the subject of "exporting" culture or "forcing" culture upon the native populations, it was almost always in the form of religion. The desire and belief of the Anglican sects that the "barbarian" or "savage" needs proselytising to become civilised led to the missionary movement specifically throughout Africa and India.

David Livingstone, first travelled to Africa as a missionary with the aim of converting South African tribesman to Christianity, which was an abject failure. After several years working for the London Missionary Society he gave up proselytising and began exploring; his belief that to convert the heathen required a rudimentary understanding of the people, he actually believed that Free Market economics would not only bring an end to the slave trade by providing opportunities to put the indigenous to work on their own lands but would spread the Christian message far more effectively.

In 1813, after 200+ years of governing India by the British the East India Company's Royal charter came up for renewal. Whilst much effort to suppress the local populations had been undertaken in this time, no attempts to convert the Hindu or Islamic people to Christianity had taken place - In fact the EIC strongly opposed introducing Missionaries into the Indian subcontinent. The Church Missionary Society waged a campaign to overturn the effective ban on Missionaries entering India, led by William Wilberforce (of slavery abolition fame). They were successful, and by 1857 the perceived threat of British culture through the auspices of Christianity led to the Indian uprising and attempts for independence. This was based purely on religion rather than economic or governing reasons(although many Indians did feel the British had sold their country short, they understood that they were better off with the British there than without).

I think when studying the Empire this omission of the negative and devastating effects that the Christian religion played is extremely bad form. Christianity (The Church) itself and thus Christians had no objections to the British Empire as a means of converting the world, and has taken to revisionism to condemn the Empire.

[Opinionated]

Tete you have broached a well known connection there, the link between Protestantism and Capitalism is strong, Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is the most famous work to examine it. There is a reason why the majority of (Northern) Americans are protestant, it suits capitalism (ironic when you consider Jesus' teachings on poverty).

[Tete123]

Tete you have broached a well known connection there, the link between Protestantism and Capitalism is strong, Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is the most famous work to examine it. There is a reason why the majority of (Northern) Americans are protestant, it suits capitalism (ironic when you consider Jesus' teachings on poverty).

I haven't read Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism but i'm printing as we speak.

My aim wasn't to denigrate protestant religion nor make it a scapegoat for the British Empire, along the lines that The Church didn't oppose it so it must be good but rather just show that it happened and many groups exploited it for all it was worth, whether for economic reasons, power or proselytising.

[Opinionated]

My aim wasn't to denigrate protestant religion nor make it a scapegoat for the British Empire, along the lines that The Church didn't oppose it so it must be good but rather just show that it happened and many groups exploited it for all it was worth, whether for economic reasons, power or proselytising.

I didn't think you meant it as a criticism of the church though it should be, given that Protestantism came before Capitalism it has to take a fair amount of the blame (credit?) for its proliferation.

[Tete123]

I didn't think you meant it as a criticism of the church though it should be, given that Protestantism came before Capitalism it has to take a fair amount of the blame (credit?) for its proliferation.

I accept your point, although as an economic model Capitalism functions far better than any other so far tried and tested. I think that Capitalism and Globalisation suffer from too much negative press, both can be a force of good in the world but for adding a simple factor - human nature.

[DTE]

[/size][/font]

The Slave Trade in Britain always amusing me in a conversation. The working class people of industrial Britain were treated much much worse than the slaves, and there were many more working class people.

Slaves were an investment, working class people were dispensible.

I agree with most of what you said LibAuthor, but not with this. I would suggest next time you are in Liverpool, go to the Slave Museum for a better understanding of the scale and brutality of the British Slave Trade. The empire provided benefits and advancement for our interests, of that there is no doubt, but the flip side should not be ignored, as it often goes unsaid.

As for the 'row' over a colonial themed ball, there seems to be a growing movement in this country who stir up the pot with regards to political correctness at every opportunity. Hopefully common sense will prevail and they'll realise that a costume party does not constitute insensitivity.

[LA]

I agree with most of what you said LibAuthor, but not with this. I would suggest next time you are in Liverpool, go to the Slave Museum for a better understanding of the scale and brutality of the British Slave Trade. The empire provided benefits and advancement for our interests, of that there is no doubt, but the flip side should not be ignored, as it often goes unsaid.

As for the 'row' over a colonial themed ball, there seems to be a growing movement in this country who stir up the pot with regards to political correctness at every opportunity. Hopefully common sense will prevail and they'll realise that a costume party does not constitute insensitivity.

That is what I originally thought. It was after certain "research" that it appears the Working Class were treated a damn site worse.
The Empire on the whole benefited almost every nation.

Common sense will not prevail, it was abolished in 1997 along with sensible governments.

[kynaston]

If we celebrate the Persian, Chinese, Aztec or Roman empires we don't take responsibility for them, whereas we can't help being held responsible for the British one. Naturally, like the Japanese with their 'co-prosperity sphere', we have been brought up with the (politically correct?) notion that what 'we' did to other people (chopping off heads, introducing opium etcetera) must be okay, but I think we'd be better to shut up about something we were not allowed to know much about. Cambridge was good at organising spy-rings, but it is a snobbish hole, and like the royal family, inclined to the silly. Best let it look after itself, in my view.

[LA]

If we celebrate the Persian, Chinese, Aztec or Roman empires we don't take responsibility for them, whereas we can't help being held responsible for the British one. Naturally, like the Japanese with their 'co-prosperity sphere', we have been brought up with the (politically correct?) notion that what 'we' did to other people (chopping off heads, introducing opium etcetera) must be okay, but I think we'd be better to shut up about something we were not allowed to know much about. Cambridge was good at organising spy-rings, but it is a snobbish hole, and like the royal family, inclined to the silly. Best let it look after itself, in my view.

How are we responsible? We were not alive during this time to be responsible. The British Empire merely did what the Roman Empire did, just on a bigger scale and less apparent killing of Jesus.

[kynaston]

How are we responsible? We were not alive during this time to be responsible. The British Empire merely did what the Roman Empire did, just on a bigger scale and less apparent killing of Jesus.

The same way 'we' appear to hold 'the Germans' responsible for the War - it's the same old axe-with-five-new-handles-and-two-new-blades notion. It's rubbish, but it's the way people think, particularly if we feel inclined to celebrate 'our' Empire. It is therefore best left alone.

[LA]

The same way 'we' appear to hold 'the Germans' responsible for the War - it's the same old axe-with-five-new-handles-and-two-new-blades notion. It's rubbish, but it's the way people think, particularly if we feel inclined to celebrate 'our' Empire. It is therefore best left alone.

I hold the Germans accountable for the war. But I would not expect modern Germany to apologise for it. They had nothing to do with it.

When people refer to Germany, they refer to a Germany that no longer exists.

[Tete123]

The same way 'we' appear to hold 'the Germans' responsible for the War - it's the same old axe-with-five-new-handles-and-two-new-blades notion. It's rubbish, but it's the way people think, particularly if we feel inclined to celebrate 'our' Empire. It is therefore best left alone.

Why should we leave alone what is our history. Our fore-bearers - Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers and Great Great Grandfathers defended our lands, our way of life and reading histories of the British Empire, the British were in the most part supportive of the Empire, if not always the methods used to obtain and then maintain it. Our imperialist ambitions were no different to those of France, Germany Spain, Portugal, Austro-Hungarian, Russia, Prussia I mean the list goes on and on. What we were able to do, given the collective power we had obtained was punch well above out weight in international matters and surely this has as much to do with exporting 'modern' finance (many a nation was built on British finance despite never being controlled by the UK - Argentina and Brazil in S. America even the USA who were the biggest recipient of British capital throughout the Victorian period) as much as at the barrel of a gun.

I feel it is possible to defend the notion of Empire given the historical context without supporting slavery (which of course we were one of the first to abolish and then promote - using the Royal Navy to 'force' other countries to end the practise).

I don't feel we can take any responsibility for the past without taking some pride in what was achieved - Africa would have been colonised regardless of our presence there; would S.Africa, Rhodesia, Nigeria and others have been any better off with German or French rule? I think its clear that many of the countries held by other European nations fought civil wars for longer than those held under British control. Angola (Portugal) Ivory Coast (France) being but 2 examples.

Yes we stripped the natural resources from these countries, we also provided investment in infrastructural projects - particularly in India with modern Steam Railways and newly built cities and modern communications being a feature of the Raj most of the degradation and poverty has remained stable (or steady) in India from the 1600s - today so with or without the British their lives would have been the same, except they would not have democracy or unity as we can see today.

Yes the Empire should be celebrated but with a serious tone of remembrance and understanding of what was good but also what is bad - we can't forever live with the shadow of our Imperial past casting a disparaging light over us.. no other nation would!!

[kynaston]

Why should we leave alone what is our history. Our fore-bearers - Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers and Great Great Grandfathers defended our lands, our way of life and reading histories of the British Empire, the British were in the most part supportive of the Empire, if not always the methods used to obtain and then maintain it. Our imperialist ambitions were no different to those of France, Germany Spain, Portugal, Austro-Hungarian, Russia, Prussia I mean the list goes on and on. What we were able to do, given the collective power we had obtained was punch well above out weight in international matters and surely this has as much to do with exporting 'modern' finance (many a nation was built on British finance despite never being controlled by the UK - Argentina and Brazil in S. America even the USA who were the biggest recipient of British capital throughout the Victorian period) as much as at the barrel of a gun.

I feel it is possible to defend the notion of Empire given the historical context without supporting slavery (which of course we were one of the first to abolish and then promote - using the Royal Navy to 'force' other countries to end the practise).

I don't feel we can take any responsibility for the past without taking some pride in what was achieved - Africa would have been colonised regardless of our presence there; would S.Africa, Rhodesia, Nigeria and others have been any better off with German or French rule? I think its clear that many of the countries held by other European nations fought civil wars for longer than those held under British control. Angola (Portugal) Ivory Coast (France) being but 2 examples.

Yes we stripped the natural resources from these countries, we also provided investment in infrastructural projects - particularly in India with modern Steam Railways and newly built cities and modern communications being a feature of the Raj most of the degradation and poverty has remained stable (or steady) in India from the 1600s - today so with or without the British their lives would have been the same, except they would not have democracy or unity as we can see today.

Yes the Empire should be celebrated but with a serious tone of remembrance and understanding of what was good but also what is bad - we can't forever live with the shadow of our Imperial past casting a disparaging light over us.. no other nation would!!

If you don't want to disavow it, don't - the argument was that the current generation wasn't responsible. Most people who talk your way, like most Japanese with the same problem, tend not to know very much about the imperial realities, despite their admitting 'bad' elements. To be FOR some of that stuff is pretty sick, however, in my view.

[Tete123]

If you don't want to disavow it, don't - the argument was that the current generation wasn't responsible. Most people who talk your way, like most Japanese with the same problem, tend not to know very much about the imperial realities, despite their admitting 'bad' elements. To be FOR some of that stuff is pretty sick, however, in my view.

A clever rouse to liken my argument to that of the Japanese Imperial ambition that most British find deplorable. Also questioning my understanding of the British Empire and labelling it as a "problem" is somewhat disingeneous. I am perfectly aware of the many negative aspects attached to our Imperial past but am also not blinded by pure prejudice or bleeding heart liberalism to assume that it was all bad.

A case to note is without the Empire the British would have been unable (and prehaps unwilling) to fight against the German and Japanese attempts at Empire building in the early and mid twentieth century - which would have no doubt led to more hardship, bloodletting and suffering for the colonial, dominion and commonwealth countries of the British Empire.

[kynaston]

A case to note is without the Empire the British would have been unable (and prehaps unwilling) to fight against the German and Japanese attempts at Empire building in the early and mid twentieth century - which would have no doubt led to more hardship, bloodletting and suffering for the colonial, dominion and commonwealth countries of the British Empire.

The reason Chamberlain didn't fight was that the existence of all those territories meant he simply couldn't take on Germany, Italy and Japan all at the same time - and our subservience to the Yanks meant we couldn't make the - logical - Japanese alliance. When we had to fight we had to give up the Empire, and a good thing too. For the average British person it was seldom of much benefit.

[Tete123]

The reason Chamberlain didn't fight was that the existence of all those territories meant he simply couldn't take on Germany, Italy and Japan all at the same time - and our subservience to the Yanks meant we couldn't make the - logical - Japanese alliance. When we had to fight we had to give up the Empire, and a good thing too. For the average British person it was seldom of much benefit.

Whilst I don't argue that Chamberlain was happy to appease the Nazi regime, upto and includiing May 1940, Churchill and thankfully Labour MPs Attlee and Greenwood vetoed a motion of any agreement with Hitler over Empire sharing (potentially mediated by Italy) to 'give up' Europe whilst retaining our Eastern Empire - but to suggest that we couldn't fight Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time is historically incorrect - for nearly 3 years it is what we did. UK subservience to the US did not occur until after WWII with the immediate withdrawl of lend-lease and our subsequent cap-in-hand request for American finance (£3.6Bn over 50 years). It is true we gave up our Empire to prevent others from obtaining their arguably more violent and extreme versions.

[kynaston]

Whilst I don't argue that Chamberlain was happy to appease the Nazi regime, upto and includiing May 1940, Churchill and thankfully Labour MPs Attlee and Greenwood vetoed a motion of any agreement with Hitler over Empire sharing (potentially mediated by Italy) to 'give up' Europe whilst retaining our Eastern Empire - but to suggest that we couldn't fight Germany, Italy and Japan at the same time is historically incorrect - for nearly 3 years it is what we did. UK subservience to the US did not occur until after WWII with the immediate withdrawl of lend-lease and our subsequent cap-in-hand request for American finance (£3.6Bn over 50 years). It is true we gave up our Empire to prevent others from obtaining their arguably more violent and extreme versions.

Britain was bankrupt by '41: we accepted yankee control then, however long it was covered up thereafter. My old man, for what it's worth, argued violently that we should tighten our belts at the end of the War and keep our self-respect, tell Marshall to stuff his plan. People had had enough, though, which is why we are where we are. Pity about that.

[Tete123]

Britain was bankrupt by '41: we accepted yankee control then, however long it was covered up thereafter. My old man, for what it's worth, argued violently that we should tighten our belts at the end of the War and keep our self-respect, tell Marshall to stuff his plan. People had had enough, though, which is why we are where we are. Pity about that.

Fair point lend-lease left us with a £30Bn national debt. That doesn't alter the fact that The British Empire was successful for over 300 years and despite some questionable methods was what made us what we were, the pity is what we have become; as you so succinctly sum up.