After reading this & hearing about what happened in Uganda this is one movie that I want to see.

Sounds like a very powerful movie. What I gathered here the writer and everyone else connected with the movie did their best to show what it was really like. They didn't go Hollywood. Sure hope it comes across the pond.

Idi Amin is just one of many African despots who acted in such a barbaric fashion. Indeed you could travel from country to country and find an Amin in most of them. Bad governance, corruption and totalitarian regimes is all you find in most of Africa, hence the reason she is so hungry!

#3
It wasn't like that in the good old days of the British Empire I suppose?

Not a big fan of these kinds of movies, but this one is on my Must See list!

I saw this film last week and it blew me away. The acting and storyline are very very god if you only saw one movie this year make sure it this one!

#4 PAUL Voltaire: No it was not like that at all.

Hehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dEIwYBJU5Ere is a wee taste.

oops try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j__SjUxh_R0

Paul Voltaire
Presumably you think that the millions of people starving in Zimbabwe, or the millions murdered in Uganda, Rwanda, Somaliland, Ethiopia and Darfur are better off under black government than under British rule. Regardless of what Marxist BBC pap you might believe, British rule in Africa kept the vast majority safe and fed.

Went to see this film, it was absolutely brilliant. It is a MUST see, you wont be disappointed.

I saw this film a few weeks ago when I was in Dubai & I can reccomend it - a very very good film !

Go see it

#11
So do you suggest we go back and recover the colonies then?
That would be silly.

#14 Paul. I'll bet the people in the countries mentioned would also think it was silly, though I don't think the term they would use would be as mild as "silly".

Incidentally #11, what about the millions that perished in India, under British rule?

#7

Surprised you have'nt blamed the SNP for this as well

I blame global warming.

(just thought I'D get in first with that this time!)

Having read the novel I'm not sure if I want to see the film - reading the parts about torture were bad enough - if that makes sense.

14. Paul Voltaire
No, we should let them sort out their own problems. If Africans starve because they've taken the land off white farmers as in Zimbabwe or because they're unable to create a functioning society themselves as is Somalia, we should recognise that Africans themselves are responsible for these problems. Any aid we do give them should be renamed incompetance aid because development aid is a misnomer. Most African countries are not developing, they're degenerating.

15. Guga
Millions perished in India under British rule - I presume you mean the Bengal famine whereby the Japanese invasion of Burma cut off rice imports to Bengal? Ironically it's actually the end of British rule in Burma which caused this famine.

Not sure if you're aware, until the raj, Indian widows got thrown alive on funeral pyres with their dead husbands. That's the kind of quaint native custom British oppressors repressed in India.

Has anyone noticed ,We Dont get Indians terrorising Britain and bombing undergrounds !Yet Britain subjugated and bludgeoned its way through india.,

Does anybody see a lesson for Zimbabwe here? I wonder is Mugabe will allow the film to be shown there

One thing not mentioned is that the populace still thank Idi for expelling the Asian population. Wonder where they went?

Idi Amin - Eat your heart out - was that really his catchphrase?

I've seen the film - it is excellent - but your not going to be leaving the cinema laughing thats for sure - great drama - both the
main characters deserve oscars

Dougie, Edinburgh.
Why are you so racist, didn't your parents love you enough when you were a kid?

Most of Africa's "Big Men" were the result of independent goevernment being set up too quickly and without the benefit of long-evolved democratic institutions to keep them in check. This is not solely an African problem, the exact same thing happened in Latin America.

Africa's problems were also compounded by the problems of cash-cropping - a legacy of colonialism.

Incidentally most of the Indian famines that happened under British rule occurred in the 19th century and were greatly exacerbated by the hoarding of grain supplies for export by the British.

Empire is never a good thing...

#26 Empire is never a good thing??? You've been reading your left-wing pap again. The British Empire was far from perfect but in most cases was a great improvement on what went before and miles better than what has happened since.

#11---in ways the countries were more orderly and comparing to chaos and in fighting of the last 50 years or so, one might feel some compassion for those colonial administrators, but (there is always a but) it isn't left wing to recognize that the native population of these countries were treated in a dismissive way, and their interests pushed aside by missionaries and businesses, which were the reason Europe was there in the first place.

I think historians are right in thinking that the dependant status for the native people, the un-natural binding together of very different native cultures into one administration did contribute to the post colonial chaos. It is also true that the greed of international business manipulation has tainted the area, even as it has begun to taint and destroy the cultures which gave rise to international business.

All rather sad.

#28 Jim Yell: There is many excuses as to why Africa is in the mess she is in, but the most obvious one is that her leaders refuse to act responsibly. They are corrupt and incapable of progress, if that was not the case then maybe ONE, JUST ONE of the 52 nations would be a success following 25 years of independence. Sadly that is not the case

Imperial nationalism is based on the supposed superiority of the home state over others. In fact however during the days of the British Empire the ordinary people at home weren't much better off than the oppressed nations who were being exploited for their resources.

The Empire is over but sadly imperial attitudes still exist. Recent comments by Blair confirm this. It's time for a new approach to a sane and equal foreign policy by an independent Scotland.

http://www.scottishindependence.com

*Media 1 correct again when it comes to Africa
*Paul Voltaire No it wasnt the British brought a lot to Africa not all bad, Rome as a great military power was not wellcomed by the people of Europe but who can claim a higher more signifcant contribution to European cizilisation.

Less africans have died in the 1900 to 1950 while under British rule, thats not to say the British were saints, they had their local rebellions to deal with and they did quite effectively, but when the British
left these countries they had many of the stuctures
of modern goverment left in place, which would help any incoming african goverment.
South Africa the most advanced country in Africa, has a long history of European settlement 1603
So it wasnt all bad

Oder: The problem I find in discussing AFRICA is that many people who have never been to the continent are usually the ones who jump on the racist bandwagon everytime you criticise the continents failures. You appear to have a better understanding of the reality that is Africa, perhaps you are well read or have visited or both.

Do you think SA can avoid complete economic meltdown in the next 20 years?

Excellent film, highly recommended.

#31 The Romans contribution to what became Scotland was by and large genocide and scorched earth

most parts of the movie, portrayed actual events that occurred during the real Idi Amin regime; like the mass murder including his own wife, eviction of all indians from the county, the breakdown in social, economic and political structures throughout Uganda. the era between 1971 to 1978 was the worst nightmare that the people of Uganda would rather forget....

But; facts are bitter, and we will live with that scar (Amin) and memories of our departed to our graves

#35 Pilrig: Yet that country is today a first world nation!

Funny that dont you think!

Dougie#20 a million died in the great Irish famine of the 1840s, and another million had ro emigrate. But then Ireland and it's inhabitants didn't count for much in the grand imperial scheme of things.
I wonder why people are so approving of imperialism - maybe the thought of lording it over other peoples ?

#26 in fact the ethos of empire is intrinsically evil....

When the colonial powers left Africa, and here we're not just talking about the British, but also Belgium, France and Portugal, rather than leave democratic structures in place, they made sure that the puppet regimes they left in power would be good clients; i.e. ensuring the supply of raw materials at beneficial prices.

To do so they cut across ethnic and cultural boundaries and created artificial states which, in the medium term, were inevitably destined to inner strife (Biafra, Ruanda, Angola, etc., etc.).

The structures of neo-colonialism are responsible for most of Africa's ills.

The IMF and the WB compound the problems by forcing monetary formulas on these countries which only favour the interests of the multi-national corporations.

Media1 correct again I have lived in SA and have travelled through most of Southern Africa, as for your question, I dont know , I have gave concerns about the present set up ,as you know if SA goes into economic meltdown the whole of Southern Africa
goes with it so,I think the International community would have to step in.
The problem disscusing Africa here has been since I lived in SA, I have to be a racist and when I ask why ? I am told your white so anything I say is dismissed, the general attitude here appears to be if you are European/white have been in Africa your wrong

*35 The Romans didnt care they did that to every one and if my history is right the Picts/Scots gave the such a hard time they left and built two walls
to keep the Blue people out of their empire.
Rome still played the most significant part in the CIVILISATION of modern Europe.
Genocide and scortched earth was policy altho used by Rome not invented by Rome.

#40 Gordon
"The structures of neo-colonialism are responsible for most of Africa's ills".

Not anymore - these countries have had plenty of time to recover. In fact, its that kind of reasoning that allows so many corrupt leaders off the hook.

Its a bit like blaming Culloden for the fact Scotland has one of the worsed performing economies in the EU.

PM Ian Smith proved that african countries can have proper successful economies - Zimbabwe used to be called the breadbasket of Africa. Now its a basket case under socialist Robert Mugabe.

It was socialist Harold Wilson that was all for sanctions against Smith's government. Edinburgh University finished it off by giving Mugabe an honourary degree. Degree in screwing things up perhaps?

Lets not forget that great socialist empire like USSR that caused famine in Ukraine and involved colonising countries like Khazakstan. The Khazaks are almost oriental in appearance - it was no union for them. When Stalin said 'jump' your response had to be 'how high'.

26. Iain Clay
38. Pilrig
Famine was a fact of life all over the world until modern western science automated food production and improved crop yields. I said is that British rule in Africa was better for Africans than African rule over themselves. That doesn't apply to Ireland or Singapore or Hong Kong because the inhabitants of those countries are competent enough to run a society for themselves. Their success in doing so illustrate the falsehood of Iain's (and Gordon's in #40) claim that African's problems can be attributed to colonialism.

Ethiopia is one of the worst run countries in Africa yet it experienced colonialism for a few years during the Second World War. For Ethiopia to blame colonialism for modern problems would be akin to the French blaming German rule for the recent Paris riots.

Gordon's idea that compliant regimes installed by colonial powers are responsible for poor government in Africa has the flaw that African countries are famous for replacing their governments with bloody coups and civil wars with such regularity. One exception seems to be Zimbabwe. Perhaps Gordon would like to argue that the evil British imperialists cleverly installed Robert Mugabe?

Also, the suggestion is quite racist because it implies that Africans, alone among Commonwealth are uniquely so gullible as to be manipulated by Britain *generations* after the last British soldier left their shores. Any Indian or Singaporean would be quite rightly insulted by the suggestion that the government he voted for is nothing more than a British front.

*43 small point but I think its important for being
accurate Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa
Zimbabwe is the basket case of today.

#44 dougie
Well said!

Dougie - #44

Nice Orwellian touch in calling ME the racist while it is you who is busy slagging off the Africans, along with your well-familiar racist comrades, Media 1 and Wullie Smith.

Singapore is a singular case, and I wasn't talking about India. The Indians, as indeed our Celtic brethern in Ireland, weren't granted independence from the Brutish Empire, they TOOK it, by making themselves ungovernable from the metropoli.

And are both doing very well, thank you.

Whilst the troops have gone home, colonialism in Africa continues in the form of ecomomic manipulation, military coups when necessary (ask Thatcher's whelp about that one!), and, yes, corruption.

In this case, as ever, Britannia waives the rules.

46. W Smith
Thank you!

47. Gordon
I'm not calling you a racist. I'm just pointing out that the idea that it's only Africans who are incapable of thwarting manipulation by earlier colonial powers is itself racist.

Your suggestion that countries that took independence by force are more successful by being able to avoid postcolonial British influence is plain wrong. Kenya and Zimbabwe fought wars for independence. Australia and Canada were offered it peacefully.

Yes, Singapore and Ireland are doing fine. You seemed to have missed that being my point. Colonialism as experienced by these countries is the same as that experienced by Somaliland or Zimbabwe. Why the different outcomes? Your explanation for African failure would predict equal failure everywhere else the Union Jack was taken down. In reality, different nations have had different outcomes for the simple reasons that some cultures are more corrupt than others, some cultures are more industrious than others, some cultures are more honest than others and whether you're aware of it or not, academic achievement in some countries is higher than in others. To say otherwise is wishful thinking because all of these things can be measured and have been measured. Unlike your evil empire theory, these factors form a convincing explanation as to why Hong Kong is a successful functioning society while most of Africa is an undeveloped corrupt violent wasteland perpetually in need of foreign food aid and peacekeepers.

#48. Somaliland? Wow, you do know a lot about Africa. Must be why your expert analysis on Africa's cultural shortcomings make so little sense. A lot of Africa's problems are mostly because of ignorant Westerners like yourself. And Hong Kong? No longer a sovereign little piece of earth governed by the 'British Empire'. It is now part of a big old country called China.

And his favourite song was (according to Allan Coren) "Amin de mood for love."

49 Chrissie, South Africa
Everybody reading this board knows that Hong Kong is now part of China. But if you think knowledge of this fact makes you special, I'm happy for you.

It would be nice if you could enlighten me as to why you think I'm ignorant. Presumably it's because you know there's a Somalia somewhere in Africa but you've never heard of British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland or the modern Somaliland. If you'd like to become a little less ignorant yourself, have a read of

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

Dougie:

“I'm not calling you a racist.”

Thank you.

“I'm just pointing out that the idea that it's only Africans who are incapable of thwarting manipulation by earlier colonial powers is itself racist.”

Not arguing with that and it would never occur to me to say so.

“Your suggestion that countries that took independence by force are more successful by being able to avoid postcolonial British influence is plain wrong.”

You leave out India. Gandhi would have been mortified. His revolution consisted simply in denying the right of rule to the colonial power.

And it worked!

:-)

“Yes, Singapore and Ireland are doing fine. You seemed to have missed that being my point. Colonialism as experienced by these countries is the same as that experienced by Somaliland or Zimbabwe.”

Mmmm … Singapore = Ireland = Somaliland = Zimbabwe …

You’re right.

I miss your point.

My point was that the corruption in so many African countries is the direct result of the policies of the IMF, the WB and the ex-metropolis who exercise power by proxy.

The “evil empire” theory explains a lot!

26 Iain.
Spot on.

Few if any schools in England or Scotland teach this. Historians are now arguing that the estimated 12 to 30 million people who died in India in the late 1870s and 1896-1902 were the result of an engineered famine (see Mike Davis, “Late Victorian Holocausts”). The British governors not only stockpiled the grain, but prohibited private donations on pain on imprisonment, in case they affected the market price.
The bare fact is that if the British had not been there, the famine would not have happened. Indians were competing (via the brand new Telegraph and railway systems) with Londoners on a world market for their own food, which was in surplus in many areas. Without the British, the Indians would simply have shipped the grain to the needy areas, as they are known to have done before the British arrived.

In case someone wants to argue that this was the faceless market in action, please explain what the Temple Wage was all about. Sir Richard Temple devised experiments to determine how little food a person performing hard labour could survive on. The daily grain ration – while they were shipping grain to London – was less than the ration devised by the Nazis at Buchenwald. He was outraged when the lazy buggers wouldn’t work, and was first to use the phrase “passive resistance” in describing their refusal.

Regarding the idea that ‘Empire is good’, one interesting stat is that the standard of living in India between the Mutiny in 1857 and Independence in 1947 declined in real terms.

So much for empire.

54. Gordon

Anyone who reads my post #48 can see that I didn't equate Singapore, Ireland, Somaliland and Zimbabwe. By trying to suggest I did, you're transparently just trying to avoid the issue.

Singapore, Ireland, Somaliland, Zimbabwe - they all experienced colonisation from Britain. If you think that Africa's problems are due to colonialism, you have to find an explanation as to why countries like Ireland and Singapore have managed just fine and Zimbabwe hasn’t. Is that simple enough for you?

I don’t see how the IMF and WB fit in with your theory that Britain was able to set up puppet governments at the end of empire that are still responsible for African failure today. Perhaps you can enlighten me. I hope you’re not going to suggest that Britain somehow controls the IMF and WB!

I don't claim that the IMF and the WB are entirely benign but the suggestion that these relatively powerless institutions can somehow explain corruption in African society demands quite some explaining.

Political absolute power becomes an addiction. Mugabe
was once well respected by LSE 'Guardian' readers in the 60s

#60 - Erin go Bragh !

60. Mines an 80 bob
Before modern western science, famine was a fact of life all over the world. Presumably you're not suggesting the British Empire is responsible for potato blight and the high Irish 19th century birth rate.

Mike Davis is a Marxist historian who tries to blame the British Empire for crop failure due to climatic factors. During the late 1870s twice as many Chinese as Indians died of famine - yet China was not part of the British Empire - excepting of course Hong Kong where there was no famine. Likewise there was famine during this period in Brazil.

As a Marxist, Miles Davis shows his hypocrisy by excusing the actively engineered famines of Mao and Stalin while at the same time condemning capitalism and empire for crop failures in the 19th century.

Mines an 80 bob
My point is this. Clearly the British Empire was run for the benefit of Britain rather than for the benefit of colonised nations. Clearly there was mismanagement at times - a mixture of good and bad - although today we only remember the bad.

Could Indians or Irish manage a government and a society for themselves which is better for themselves than foreign rule? Of course!

Can Africans? Unfortunately not. Since the end of British rule in Africa, poor government, corruption, low life expectancy, famine AIDS and war are rife - despite modern medicine and modern agriculture which have improved living standards across the rest of the world.

I read the comments. Some pathetic, some chokers, some amusing, some sad. The movie was a hit. Ok, so was Tora Tora Tora The bombing of the Perl Harbour.> Remember. The holocausts remember.
Well to sum up many curious cats and mice here, I come form Uganda and no one will tell you any story better then the film maker. He has portrayed the best world of the haves and haves not in Africa. How had guts to claim that some part of Kenya was his? To be honest Uganda is not the only place the Asians have been thrown out. There are other envious of the hard work they put in.
Ask the Pitman City And Guilds. Their top IT man comes (if he is still there, from Uganda). All the Ugandans Asian that Idi Amin Dada , now a history, a rotten history at that too, will remember him as the BAD UNGLY and NO GOOD. He changed wives everyday. He could. He was the president. He wanted Asian ladies. This was the blessing in disguise for the Asian to leave. Or they would have stayed on and stayed drunkard. Pub was the place they spent most of the time in. Having no place and some countries, Canada the biggest, they have turned the economy of Canada. I am not saying they did this alone. But Canadian would not have done this if Asians were not there.
Similarly many countries by the same token have problems of racism. But that is the world. As for Idi Amin's Movie. I think this should be given an award that depicts the African culture and society. We are corrupted and we keep our eyes and nose blocked. This movie will/ may open up some rust. I doubt though.

Idi Amin, who died in 2003. His brutal regime is depicted in the new film, which had an emotional premiere in Uganda. Picture: Getty
The only emotion I think up of the property that was lost by many Asians never returned, given to the cows, dogs, not taken care of the locals took these and never developed, after 20 years. The Asians when they went back to claim these, they would have to spend fortune to repair the damage that was done by Id Ain dad. Some refused to take this. Of course there was is no compensation for this. Many Ugandans died through the shock of losing the cotton farms. Now if this is not emotion I do not have any word for it. It is a tragedy. I hope The African leaders will not execute. Zimbabwe or Zambia may learn lots from this.

Mine's an 80 bob, Edinburgh / 11:32am 20 Feb 2007
TO ALL ON THIS THREAD
Why call all your army. Cant you handle on own your own?
Googa. And you. Why not give the names.
I think the newspaper ought to take comments only if they are signed what is googa or ??m¤®©*
Honestly it make the paper googagagaoga
We are talking about the movie not an attack on googa.

Scotsman, how dare that evil Zealot have my posts removed! There was nothing wrong with posts # 60 & # 62

69 Mime's an 80 Bob
At least it's keeping the rest of us amused :) The guy with all the letters (68) has got a good point - why not just use your real name?

Dougie #60 "Miles Davis"??? well yer politics might be dodgy but you've got good taste.
Now the the Imperial Government may have not been responsible for the potatoe blight or Irish birthrate, but the motherf*ckers did little to assist the striken Irish. As I said Ireland and her inhabitants, in particular the vast majority who were not of the C of I persuasion, were held in low esteem by the Imperialists.
2001 saw the 200th anniversary of irealnd's unuion with Britain, as far as I'm aware there were no celebrations in Ireland to mark the occasiion.

71. Pilrig
I don't really disagree with any of your post there. I'm well aware that British rule in Ireland was unpopular and they're much better off running their own country. My point however is that Africa is not better off under African rule, in fact it was far better off under British rule. I'm sure you'll agree Ireland and Africa are quite different!