This furthered the Indian’s desire for independence but they were still faced with the challenges of overcoming the divisions within India. Members of Congress were appalled by this high-handed action, although they also sympathized with Britain’s fight against Fascism. As shown in throughout the war. The main opposition to India’s independence from the British came from one faction of the Conservative Party which later formed itself into the Imperial Defense League. As told in source 16.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
This was positive for the British, because they achieved raw materials to trade, but it was negative for the Africans, because they were forced to work. Some other negative effects were explained in Document 8, such as the fact that hospitals were only available to a minority of people. Education was also limited to the privileged. This was racial segregation and discrimination. The British really harmed
Since he obeyed and enforced British law he was rewarded by the English government with higher titles (Hollitz 57). Adams on the other had opposed English rule, and how they were taxing the colonist without consent of the people (Hollitz 54). Adams said in “Instructions of the Town of Braintree to the Representative” that the Acts the British Parliament laid upon the colonies were “restricting, and burdening and embarrassing our trade” (qtd in
For this same reason the public opinion is divided with some people recognizing more negatives outweighing the positives while some suggest the opposite. Many people see the negative impact as being more significant because British rule in India resulted in impoverished, poor people and food shortages in India. Many people see the positive impact as being more significant because Britain brought infrastructure and technology to the Indian people. Because these viewpoints can both be supported, there is a great complexity to this issue. The position that should be taken on this issue is that British rule in India was a positive impact on the Indian people to a small extent.
The British people therefore began to question whether or not the war had all been worth it. Furthermore, the fact that pro-Boer meetings were highly attended, is evidence of the fact that Imperialism lost prestige because of the war. In other words, the British people found the war morally wrong. At the pro-Boer meeting in Birmingham in 1901, leaded by the Liberal Lloyd George, Lloyd George claimed that it was not worth spending a huge amount of money and soldiers to
Journalist Daniel Flynn, Author of A Conservative History of the American Left, Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies That Have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness, and Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas[Flynnfiles.com], points out the bias and assumption in Zinn’s work in his article “Howard Zinn’s Biased History” of the History News Network[Flynn]. And while Flynn may seem a little radical, he does make a fair point when he notices how Zinn demeans our founding fathers noble and historical actions to a greed filled angle created souly to benefit the upper class by
By never striking back, both Gandhi and King portrayed their causes as civilized and just, capturing the sympathy of onlookers and even their oppressors. In Gandhi's case, he made the British look like the ones who were uncultured and cruel, beating and even killing Indians who never used a fist back. In King's case, he too exemplified the Christian doctrine of "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies," gathering the sympathy of bystanders and drawing people's attention on the urgency for change. The weakness of nonviolence, however, is that many of the people promoting the cause nonviolently will have to take in blows and suffer great losses, risking their own lives as well as that of their families' and
From his experiences and feelings of living under imperialism, Orwell efficiently shows the terrible effects of imperialism. With the usage of suitable tones in his essay, Orwell expresses a message that conveys his true feeling about the people of Burma. He often uses the word “natives” for the Burmese: “Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd”. By doing so, he shows his feeling towards the Burmese people by calling them “natives” signifies that they are the true owners of Burma and not the Empire. Also, by using these words frequently in his essay, Orwell reminds us of the reality of imperialism in Burma, so that the readers just don’t hang on to the topic of the elephant but also get the message merged in the essay.
Orwell discloses the true motives of colonialism through the figure of Flory; an important character in Burmese Days as Orwell uses him to criticize the social behavior of the colonial society present in Burma at that time. During Flory’s debate with his friend Dr. Veraswami, he clearly reveals the true intentions of the British by saying that the “British Empire is simply a device for giving trade monopolies to the English” (p40). Flory believes that the British are not there in Burma to improve the country but for monetary gain. Therefore, the British use racism during colonialism to hide their true intentions. Through this conversation, we can realize the incredible influence that social code has had over people.