Letter To The ICBR: Re: Facts
Dear Mr Steven A. Grasse,
First of all, I would like to start by asking if you are actually being serious. If for one possible moment you believe that anything you have written in the "Facts" page is true, then you must either have a very faulty history text book or have had a few too many vodka martinis!
As you have so systematically gone through the entirety of "history" as you conveniently see it and blamed almost every fault on the British Empire, I would like to systematically go through and attempt to demolish your "argument" (although I think that is giving it too much justice).
In paragraph one, you state that "Any student of world history will tell you that if he had to pick a single nation to pin all the world's troubles on, Britain is far and away the obvious choice". Well that is just a factual inaccuracy (one of many I think you'll see) as I am a student of world history and I don't agree. Furthermore, have you studied all of world history? Even the ancient History of Adam and Eve right the way through to the news this evening? But I'll let that ride as a slip of the tongue or as Poetic License.
Also, what do you actually count as "World Trouble's" I would say that one of the biggest trouble's the world faces today is the growing problem of Global Warming. Now you try to claim that "The melting of the polar icecaps, the loss of countless plants and animal species, and the imperiled (imperilled) condition of the human race on a planet made poisonous by misapplied technology are all a consequence of British negligence and hunger to accumulate wealth at any cost." Well, that is a point which could be argued with some credibility. But let's look at the real facts. During the Industrial Revolution, Britain did pollute the atmosphere terribly, but they were ignorant of what they were doing. Now whilst any law student knows that ignorance is not a defence, it is infinitely better than that which the USA can currently hope to offer. Fully knowing and understanding the dangers ongoing carbon emissions cause the environment, many nations (including Britain) are attempting to reduce said pollution levels. However, the USA seems to be rejecting this course of action and opting for the bribery technique of brushing the problem under the carpet, refusing to cooperate at the G8 summit, and then attempting to but other countries "emission quotas". Oh the irony.
Whilst we're on the topic of the Industrial Revolution, I would like to point out a flaw in your statement "The health, safety, and wages of workers took a back seat to owners' greed for ever-higher output and profits." The workers had a choice between working in a factory for a wage, or living on the streets, desolate and hungry. Also, there was a "poor law" introduced in 1601, which was later amended in 1834 which included the first laws to regulate workhouses and provide the first mandatory medical care for ALL workers.
The next issue which I would like to discuss is the USA's treatment of the Indian tribes in the mid-West during the 19th Century. "The U.S. government has settled with many Indian tribes, offering them land, lucrative casino rights, and in some cases, cash." I will concede that the U.S government has settled with most of the remnants of the Indian tribes, but this is not a difficult task as after the white American "invasion", there are very few of tribes left. You also claim in your "Genocide" section that "The English rounded up natives, seized their property, and forced them to relinquish their heritage and take on British language and culture as their own." Again, this sounds vaguely familiar of the white American plight against the Indians. I feel like I am repeating myself but, oh the irony. By the US standards of annihilating everything which laid in their path west of the 13 original states on the east coast, the British empire should have murdered almost all of the one third of the population of the world which has been under their rule or influence (so you claim). Yet as far as my studies have shown me, many of them remained alive under British rule and after (as opposed to being herded off into segregated areas, as the Indians, were before those areas were shrunk and then invaded again by the White Americans as they drew a "u-turn" on almost every treaty ever made during the 19th Century.)
The next issue which I would like to discuss is that of the growing problem in the Middle East and terrorism both in that area, and in the wider world. Whilst you rightly claim that "Britain's imperialist past has so enraged Muslim extremists" surely the more recent Iraqi invasions (led by both US and British forces) has compounded the problem and led to the growing terrorist threat in the western world. At this point, I wish to ask a question. Does the "$282 billion+" which you state as Britain's debt in the second Iraq war include the value of the oil stolen by the USA when they marched into Iraq? I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the decision to invade Iraq was made by the US before they asked for British support, as OPEC had demanded higher charges per barrel of oil. With the USA's growing problem with fossil fuel consumption, the Bush administration deemed it necessary to secure a cheap supply of oil for the next 10-15 years. Isn't it strange how the US intelligence had proof that weapons of mass destruction could be launched from Iraq within 45 minutes, yet now they can find no trace of any said weapons or facilities capable to make them. Maybe they are all being hid in those infamous caves?
Now I really must apologise at this point if I seem to be focusing on the USA as the real route of some of these problems, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. Anything that could remotely be blamed on the USA, you appear to be trying to pin onto the British Empire. Could it almost sound like a guilty conscience?
Anyway, back to the matter at hand.
I really think that you should consult your history notes from the days when you were at school over our next point. You claim that Britain should repay "$25 trillion ($26 billion that Britain extorted from defeated German government after World War I, with interest, compounded annually, an unfair and punitive settlement that was one of the primary causes of World War II" over the Treaty of Versailles. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the extortionate nature of the Treaty of Versailles was one of the primary causes of WWII, but I'm afraid that once again you have your facts mixed up. When the treaty was being drawn up, Britain advocated lesser sanctions against the German rule, but the American Government was incensed over the damage caused to their economy as a result of WWI and so they forced the Treaty to be much harsher. Would it not then seem more appropriate to demand that the USA repay the $25 trillion which you have totalled up?
I would also like to point out the unlikely nature of another of your points: "Britain has long controlled our patterns of thought through the modern university, an English invention. They control what we say through their hold over English, the global master language. More recently, they've bought the minds of some of our best and brightest - including numerous top U.S. politicians and public thinkers - through the Rhodes Scholarship, thus insuring that the false innocents of Britain's public image never has to face scrutiny." I must apologise on behalf of the British people for bringing cultured learning into the world and for seeking to further Science, English, The Arts, and History (the study of which seems to have escaped at least one US "historian"). Furthermore, will you not even consider for a second that the U.S politicians and public thinkers, which are under the evil hand of Britain, could be thinking for themselves. Indeed, many of them have referred to Britain as the "lapdog" of America.
There is one final point which I feel that I really must make in my attempt to enlighten a so-called "history scholar". You seem to blame Britain for all the "bad inventions" ever created such as "Machine guns, slums, prisons, child labor, bad hygiene, the Black Plague, concentration camps, you name it. If it hurts people, the British probably came up with it." Please could you explain to me how we "invented" the Black Plague? (Incase you hadn't researched this bit, it actually originally came from Italy, and was a disease so I'm not convinced that a nation could be blamed for it's invention, unless a group of Scientists sat down and thought "how can we kill as many people as possible," just like the American scientists did with the atomic bomb and the Nazi scientists did when inventing the gas chambers in the Concentration camps). Once again I must apologise for Britain's part in inventing a "bad thing" when we came up with the idea of getting murderers, rapists and career criminals off the streets and into prisons. However, I'm sure these existed long before the British empire came into existence, say under the Romans or even the Ancient Egyptians who tortured their criminals in a dungeon type structure, or a prison.
Furthermore, the fact that you blame Britain for the "prison camps (a British invention) or machine guns (another British invention)" which led to some of worst atrocities committed under the Nazi and Communist rule is just ridiculous. Should Albert Einstein be heralded an evil man for inventing the idea of an atomic bomb when it was the US government who turned it into a weapon of war. Or should the man who invented the bus be held to account for all those people who have jumped under one when the British Empire has told them to "go run under a bus?"
In conclusion, I just cannot accept your summary that "All roads of human suffering, particularly in the 20th century, lead back to Britain" as it is simply factually inaccurate. I hope that I have been successful in conveying some of the erroneousness information on your web page, and I look forward to a reply from you, and your promise to turn you website into a factual information page rather than an attempt at comedy!
There is only one thing left for me to comment on, and that is your suggestion that the UK turns up late to wars once again you seem to be confusing the UK with the USA (both begin with "U" I know) as for both major wars of the 20th Century, America did not turn up until they were attacked, as opposed to helping out their allies as Britain did. Perhaps a lesson in the niceties of politics is needed for our friends across the pond. As Hugh Grant in "Love Actually" says "a friend who bullies, is not really a friend at all".
Yours Sincerely,
Andrew Diaper
YES, I WOULD LIKE TO SIGN THE PETITION AND GET PAID!
By visiting this website, you agree to our Terms, Conditions & Privacy Policy
