PDA

View Full Version : The British Empire was a good thing


Varangian
January 8th, 2017, 02:14 AM
If you look at the former colonies of the British Empire, you have a few main states.

-India, which now has infrastructure, disease, poverty and terrorism issues.
-America, who just voted the orange Hitler into power, and where armed militias blow up government buildings.
-Hong Kong, now run by an oppressive communist state.
-Somalia, which is a failed state run by warlords.
-South Africa, which is full of poverty and racial violence.
-Zimbabwe, which existed as pre-UDI Rhodesia. Now a corrupt dictatorship with a broken economy and pitiful wealth. The dictator is the black Stalin.
-Most of the Middle East. See ISIS, the Taliban, Al-Quaida, the list goes on.

All of these countries went downhill in many aspects after decolonisation. Although the British Empire is demonised as a racist destroyer of countries, it seems to have actually held those countries together. Had the British Empire not collapsed under the Second World War, the world would arguably be a lot more peaceful- no Islamic terrorism from the Middle East, no US President basing political decisions off Twitter, and Somalia and Zimbabwe would be functioning countries, among other global improvements.

What are your thoughts?

Darth Vader
January 8th, 2017, 02:55 AM
HAHAHAHAAH this can't be serious ��

British exploited India and didn't give a damn about them millions starved in famines after independence famines stopped and India is now a rising superpower.

all the British empire was good for was exploiting countries hence Gallipoli and other atrocities. It was anything but a good thing

And for the record trump has high precidted GDP growth.

Stronk Serb
January 8th, 2017, 03:12 AM
What about the Irish Holocaust? When the population in Ireland decreased by 30% or more I think due to famine and emigration caused by said famine. The Empire was good at maintaining order and exploitation.

NewLeafsFan
January 8th, 2017, 03:43 AM
You have definitely given fair examples of why the British Empire was historically significant. We still need to remember how dated their views were.

Death by axe was part of the law and for a long time. You could hit your wive with anything smaller than your thumb. And for a ling time it wasnt a democracy. We have come a long way.

Vlerchan
January 8th, 2017, 06:30 AM
What are your thoughts?
Failing to control for the legacy of colonialism itself your observation is completely without merit.

Controlling for selective annexation using a specific policy rule, I find that areas which experienced direct rule have significantly lower levels of access to schools, health centers and roads in the post-colonial period. I find evidence that the quality of governance in the colonial period has a significant persistent effect on post-colonial outcomes.

Iyer (2008) (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/7170086.pdf)

Living For Love
January 8th, 2017, 08:39 AM
This is an issue I've given some thought to in the past.

As far as I'm aware, when African countries were dominated by European nations, their economy wasn't the greatest, and people still lived in poverty. Most of the times, the colonising countries would explore African resources and African workforce, only benefiting local leadership (colonial collaborationists) and colonial powers. The systematic destruction of the local infrastructure and economy by the colonial power and the neglect and sudden abandonment of the colonies by the European powers once it became evident that most of the colonies were simply no business are two factors responsible for the economic stagnation of African countries after the decolonisation process.

On the other hand, and most of the times, you've had various parties fighting for independence during decades of colonialism, and when they finally achieve it, those parties then fight between themselves in order to gain access to power. You'll find that most African countries fell in civil wars after independence. Those civil wars ravaged what was left of those countries after decolonisation. We can hardly blame Europe for that.

There are also other factors involved in this, such as race issues. Even if we establish that Africa was better-off under European colonial rule, I don't think anyone would like to have their country dominated by members of another race who would impose them what to do. African nations seem to prefer being independent and poor than dependent and enjoy stability.

Varangian
January 8th, 2017, 11:11 AM
HAHAHAHAAH this can't be serious ��

British exploited India and didn't give a damn about them millions starved in famines after independence famines stopped and India is now a rising superpower.

all the British empire was good for was exploiting countries hence Gallipoli and other atrocities. It was anything but a good thing

And for the record trump has high precidted GDP growth.

I find your post slightly ironic.

India is not a rising superpower. A superpower is a country on the scale of the United States. Even Russia is declining in power. India is not, and most likely will never be, a match for the US or UK. They still have designated defecation streets, I'd hardly count that as a sign of advanced civilisation.

You say all the Empire was good for was exploiting countries- however Canada, Australia and New Zealand (to give some examples) thrived and are now modern, first world countries. Note that they also went through an agreed independence movement rather than what happened in India.

You say Gallipoli as if the Ottomans weren't known for their habits of ethnic cleansing and kidnapping Christian children to use as soldiers.

Gripes about 'minor' things like them conscripting Armenian slave workers to use as cannon fodder during the battle, the Armenian genocide and the consequent 1.5 million Armenians unaccounted for, and the fact that rivers are still filled with the bones of men, women and children massacred in cold blood aside..

The Turks practiced unrivaled brutality even to other armies, even though they signed the Geneva Conventions- They executed prisoners without any sort of remorse. Have you ever heard of the lost Sandringhams? Many were taken prisoner and then executed by Turks after they surrendered. When you allow men to see their friends executed in cold blood in front of them, you inadvertently apply something similar to the Skinnerian techniques- He doesn't see a human any more, he sees the hated enemy. Frankly, if you're starting a trend of shooting prisoners I'm surprised that any Turk prisoners were allowed to live at all.

It may be an angry rant I've just typed out, but I find it disgusting that you're willing to say something like that and insist that the British were in the wrong.

EDIT: Trump's a climate change denier who has political battles with the intelligence chiefs. If that doesn't tell you enough, allow me to elaborate on some more of his awful qualities.

Trump works in business where the situation is win or lose. If a country isn't providing more for America than what's being put into it, Trump won't see a political situation that is probably a non-issue, he'll see a failed investment and leave them hanging. Think of the countries who are going to be hit hard by this:

-America's Western European allies. If he read the figures for Marshal aid, I have no doubt he'd go on a Twitter rant.
-Countries such as Thailand where US troops crosstrain with locals in order to provide a mutual benefit of local troops receiving good training, and American troops receiving training on environments such as jungles.
-Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are fragile governments that depend on NATO's support to keep insurgents at bay. If Iraq and Afghanistan fall, not only will innocent people be put into radical Islamic slavery again, but the middle east will become a safe ground for terrorists to strike from. One car trip into Syria from the middle of Helmand or Baghdad and you can blow someone up since your homeland is safe from intervention by security forces.
-Kurds. Kurds effectively drew the short straw after the first world war, and received no internationally recognised homeland of their own. They're currently fighting for survival against ISIS and Turkey. They depend on US armaments.
-China is a possible source of income via trade- and if Trump keeps missing these opportunities by having immature spats on Twitter, America's economy will suffer.
-NATO as a whole. NATO is US lead, to put it simply. The US has massive amounts of troops that form the backbone of NATO. By 2020 the US will field an army over 10 times the size of the British army.. including British reservists.

Again, as I mentioned before, he can't co-operate with his intelligence chiefs. If you're going to argue with people as vital as that, you're undermining your own country's security. You're supposed to work with them, not against them.

Trump is a climate change denier. He wants looser regulations for factories and other industrial areas. Do you really want Beijing style pollution in America?

Trump appoints businessmen and rich people into his staff to curry favour. He's using the presidency as a way to increase his own profits, not benefit America. Also to note is that he won't place his business in a trust fund- and won't release his tax statement. If that isn't suspicious to you, you've been played by the GOP.

Vlerchan
January 8th, 2017, 11:32 AM
ou say all the Empire was good for was exploiting countries- however Canada, Australia and New Zealand (to give some examples) thrived and are now modern, first world countries. Note that they also went through an agreed independence movement rather than what happened in India.
You mean Canada, Austalia and New Zealand with their historically inclusive institutions and the massive inflows of human- and ethnic-capital they experienced during the period of their occupation? You mean you don't believe that their are quite fundamental differences in the colonial experiences of Canada and, say, India?

Pretending that you can compare the situation these states found themselves in is about as bizarre as it is wrong.

Varangian
January 8th, 2017, 11:46 AM
You mean Canada, Austalia and New Zealand with their historically inclusive institutions and the massive inflows of human- and ethnic-capital they experienced during the period of their occupation? You mean you don't believe that their are quite fundamental differences in the colonial experiences of Canada and, say, India?

Pretending that you can compare the situation these states found themselves in is about as bizarre as it is wrong.

While admittedly I'm too tired to think out a long response which I'll probably do tomorrow, keep in mind:
-India made more money than AUS, NZ and CA yet is now the poorest of the 4
-India arguably had better natural resources which led to that money
-India was the centre of Britain's tea exporting
-Indian independence was warranted by the Indians and not engineered by the British

With all the influx of British moneymaking, surely that would have made a difference? Kind of like if America invaded Iraq, set up multiple oil refineries, and then left, leaving them to the new pro-American government?

Vlerchan
January 8th, 2017, 11:53 AM
-India made more money than AUS, NZ and CA yet is now the poorest of the 4
That's because India had a more bountiful allocation of resources. This created incentives for British colonialists to create non-inclusive and extractive institutions - because it made taking these resources home to Britian cheaper - which a substantial amount of evidence points to as being highly deleterious to long-run income growth.

On the other hand, AUS, NZ and CA did not have these sort of institutions for reasons that related to British habitation and poor recourse allotments. These states also benefited from the large flows of human- and ethnic-capital to these regions; by that I mean, there is a significant amount of evidence that the extent of a culture's experience with property rights, centralised governance, and agriculture, alongside their pre-disposition to education to begin with, has a considerable impact on long-run growth.

-India arguably had better natural resources which led to that money
-India was the centre of Britain's tea exporting
-Indian independence was warranted by the Indians and not engineered by the British
Please review the above.

You'll also note that the more direct the control that Britian exerted on India, the worst it was for the Indians.

With all the influx of British moneymaking, surely that would have made a difference?
Exploiting Indian plant resources for multiple generations, with a legal system propped up to facilitate just that, surely made a difference - but not a positive one.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand all introduced strong property rights and political institutions that took into account popular interests when making decisions - though, in Australia there was a long political struggle, and such institutions were established much later. What happened in Canada, Australia and New Zealand was conductive to capital formation and long-run growth; what happened in India was conductive to exactly the opposite.

Porpoise101
January 8th, 2017, 01:01 PM
Just stop man. All the British did that was beneficial was bring rails, quinine, and books.

Literally every colony they went to, they either ethnically cleansed the natives (US, Canada, NZ, AUS) or they caused social divisions which has caused conflicts to this day (South Africa, India-Pak, Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, Rhodesia, Somalia, Ireland). So many of the genocides, reduced economic development, and exploitation in these places have their roots with British colonization. It's pretty telling when some of your best 'successes' are a Chinese puppet state and an authoritarian (but admittedly clean) city.

But I'll be honest, you were probably better than the French.

Darth Vader
January 8th, 2017, 08:24 PM
Who's defending Turks hahaha? I'm talking about the waste of Australian life because British empire don't care for Australian soldiers.

India has nuclear weapons and a better military than the UK it is most defiantely a rising support power tha UK is no Kohler considered a dupoerrlwoer since WW2

bentheplayer
January 10th, 2017, 12:52 PM
Just stop man. All the British did that was beneficial was bring rails, quinine, and books.

Literally every colony they went to, they either ethnically cleansed the natives (US, Canada, NZ, AUS) or they caused social divisions which has caused conflicts to this day (South Africa, India-Pak, Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, Rhodesia, Somalia, Ireland). So many of the genocides, reduced economic development, and exploitation in these places have their roots with British colonization. It's pretty telling when some of your best 'successes' are a Chinese puppet state and an authoritarian (but admittedly clean) city.

But I'll be honest, you were probably better than the French.

I would like to add that even for Singapore, before leaving, the British tried to created strive between Singapore and Malaysia. So in essence, the Brit Empire was a good thing but only good for Brits at that time. All the Brits did then was to profit off the colonies and then create strive before leaving possibly with the intent of ensuring that the colonies fail as a way of validating the white man's burden theory which was popular during that era.

Varangian ISIS and the taliban, if u have seen past the spin and looked into history, are byproducts of the CIA from the cold war.

Porpoise101
January 12th, 2017, 10:25 PM
Perfidious Albion.

PlasmaHam
January 13th, 2017, 11:48 AM
Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking. Nearly all your statements are gross generalizations focusing on the negatives of former British states. I don't even know how you seem to think America was so much better before the Revolutionary War, and your statements about WWII collapsing the British Empire is entirely wrong. African was poor long before the British came along, and Islamic Terror is not a modern thing.

I think that the British Empire does get some negative aspects viewpoints in modern culture, but in no way do I believe we would be better off if it had remained.

Hyper
January 26th, 2017, 01:15 AM
Your examples are lightly put antagonistic and childish.

But on the whole I do think the British Empire was good for the world. The only reason it gets demonized is because the British themselves have admitted the wrongdoings of their history and their history is still relatively fresh.

Fact of the matter is history is filled with colonizers, conquerors and exploiters. Might makes right is the prevailing line in history.

If it weren't the British it would've been someone else and so on. Despite the exploitation that occured a lot of good things also occured, spread of medicine & other knowledge, infrastructure, education etc.

Ohh yeah and ending slavery almost globally - you can thank the British and William Wilberforce largely for that.

ClaraWho
February 1st, 2017, 02:13 AM
Your examples are lightly put antagonistic and childish.

But on the whole I do think the British Empire was good for the world. The only reason it gets demonized is because the British themselves have admitted the wrongdoings of their history and their history is still relatively fresh.

Fact of the matter is history is filled with colonizers, conquerors and exploiters. Might makes right is the prevailing line in history.

If it weren't the British it would've been someone else and so on. Despite the exploitation that occured a lot of good things also occured, spread of medicine & other knowledge, infrastructure, education etc.

Ohh yeah and ending slavery almost globally - you can thank the British and William Wilberforce largely for that.

I'm really struggling to see how anyone could knowledgeably argue that the empire was remotely good, and none of the arguments here hold weight.

You say the empire ended slavery almost globally, yet it CAUSED how many years of enslavement? On how vast a scale?

The empire exported racism and oppression, importing resources and art. Read any books on the matter, the natives were never considered of equal rights or standing to the British invaders. Disgusting terms like the 'noble savage' are worth a google too.

It is interesting to see how without our ownership or their country, India is now one of the world's fastest growing economies. That's why Britain is so desperate to set up trade and why quite a few luxury car brands are owned by Indian firms. But they aren't keen to trade due to bad blood from our history.

There's no reason one cannot cooperate with education schemes or business projects in other countries without invading.

~ Clara

bentheplayer
February 1st, 2017, 07:43 AM
I'm really struggling to see how anyone could knowledgeably argue that the empire was remotely good, and none of the arguments here hold weight.

You say the empire ended slavery almost globally, yet it CAUSED how many years of enslavement? On how vast a scale?

The empire exported racism and oppression, importing resources and art. Read any books on the matter, the natives were never considered of equal rights or standing to the British invaders. Disgusting terms like the 'noble savage' are worth a google too.

It is interesting to see how without our ownership or their country, India is now one of the world's fastest growing economies. That's why Britain is so desperate to set up trade and why quite a few luxury car brands are owned by Indian firms. But they aren't keen to trade due to bad blood from our history.

There's no reason one cannot cooperate with education schemes or business projects in other countries without invading.

~ Clara

Its just simply a case of confirmation bias and possibly belief perseverance.

Babs
February 1st, 2017, 07:07 PM
They were also filthy and had a period of time in which everyone was shitting themselves to death.

auser_name
February 2nd, 2017, 03:11 PM
Right. First things first. American has not gone downhill. They have elected a president who is not favoured and pretty controversial right now. But thats democracy. Do you remember when we elected Margret Thatcher to the government? Then she tore the unions apart? Crippled our economy? Thats the risk we take with Democracy but does it mean we ourselves have gone down hill.

As for the other countries. Yes they are having issues. Its blatant but that doesn't mean the British Empire was a bad thing. Look at countries who have left the Empire and have done great things. Ireland, a thriving and rather friendly community. All of Europe. Even though I am very patriotic. As in, YAY! Tea and listening to The Queens speech but even I can see the British empire was a brutal, tyrannical society that damaged the world just as much as it revolutionised it.

Himmm2020
February 2nd, 2017, 04:40 PM
Empires like the British Empire failed because it was an unsustainable system. The world now has figured out that trade not only stimulates the economies of all the nations involved but it also helps prevent wars. And with all countries being held to a similar standard larger more powerful countries could also help smaller ones for mutual gain.
Of course it doesn't always work perfectly but it is certainly a more transparent and fair system than imperialism.

Hyper
February 9th, 2017, 12:00 PM
I'm really struggling to see how anyone could knowledgeably argue that the empire was remotely good, and none of the arguments here hold weight.

You say the empire ended slavery almost globally, yet it CAUSED how many years of enslavement? On how vast a scale?

The empire exported racism and oppression, importing resources and art. Read any books on the matter, the natives were never considered of equal rights or standing to the British invaders. Disgusting terms like the 'noble savage' are worth a google too.

It is interesting to see how without our ownership or their country, India is now one of the world's fastest growing economies. That's why Britain is so desperate to set up trade and why quite a few luxury car brands are owned by Indian firms. But they aren't keen to trade due to bad blood from our history.

There's no reason one cannot cooperate with education schemes or business projects in other countries without invading.

~ Clara

Slavery is a global phenomena and has been in all of history, afaik there is not one single major culture that did not delve in slavery.

As for the scale, you should look up the scale of slavery caused by Islam - if we want to go down that road.

Racism and oppression were not invented by the British, please.

I never said they were considered euqal but ok - strawman away.

And surely India being a fastly growing economy now 50+ years later is a direct causal effect of the British Empire ending... Surely there could be no other factors.

You are obviously judging history based on your own standards of today, as I expect everyone in this thread is who are saying how evil the British were.

ClaraWho
February 9th, 2017, 07:43 PM
Slavery is a global phenomena and has been in all of history, afaik there is not one single major culture that did not delve in slavery.

As for the scale, you should look up the scale of slavery caused by Islam - if we want to go down that road.

Racism and oppression were not invented by the British, please.

I never said they were considered euqal but ok - strawman away.

And surely India being a fastly growing economy now 50+ years later is a direct causal effect of the British Empire ending... Surely there could be no other factors.

You are obviously judging history based on your own standards of today, as I expect everyone in this thread is who are saying how evil the British were.

This entire post didn't respond to the topic, instead deviating into random tangents that merely serve as distractions. This type of 'discussing' just throws different topics on the haphazard pile so nothing can ever reach a meaningful conclusion. Therefore I shall ignore it.

The final line unfortunately I wasn't able to discern any meaning from, perhaps you could reword?

The only point that was mildly relevant was on India, where you demand proof of a causal effect. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding into what that term means or how impossible it would be in practice. Causality can only be found in experimental conditions when all confounding variables can be accounted for, it is extremely rare even then. Correlation is the alternative and clearly demonstrates my point, the less you oppress, the more society /culture /economies flourish.

~ Clara

Porpoise101
February 10th, 2017, 08:58 PM
Slavery is a global phenomena and has been in all of history, afaik there is not one single major culture that did not delve in slavery.

Indian kingdoms never enslaved :D
Many other places did not do so either, and they are mostly Asian. Of course, they had their own issues.

As for the scale, you should look up the scale of slavery caused by Islam - if we want to go down that road.

The Prophet Muhammad actually banned slavery and so did his successors. The caliphate was way better for the downtrodden than the Byzantines or the Sassanids (the neighbors you should be comparing it to), at least initially. It only really occurred because the cruel and corrupt leaders began to enslave others again. This occurred because of the expansion of Central Asian nomadic culture which promoted slavery, and also because of the pirate culture that began to develop in North Africa. Even then, the Arab Slave Trade never actually reached the levels of the Transatlantic Slave Trade did in any fashion. Both were terrible though.

Racism and oppression were not invented by the British, please.

But they perpetuated it, and made it worse than it was with their classist and discriminatory culture. They weren't as bad as the Spanish in this regard, but their anti-colonial sentiment was to the point that even whites from dominions like Canadians and Australians were looked down upon until they sacrificed so much in the First World War. It took millions to die before they even considered white people to be their equals, so imagine how they thought about their 'barbaric' subjects.

And surely India being a fastly growing economy now 50+ years later is a direct causal effect of the British Empire ending... Surely there could be no other factors.

It's definately a part of it. The British were never going to invest in industry there. Without sovereignty, the rapid industrial growth, improved education, and increasing wealth just would not happen given the British colonial system.

Look, I'm not saying the British were the worst empire out there. But to say they were 'good' is pretty outlandish.

PlasmaHam
February 12th, 2017, 12:59 AM
Look, I'm not saying the British were the worst empire out there. But to say they were 'good' is pretty outlandish.
I would disagree with a few of your supporting points, but I agree with your final statement. Britain was one of the more lenient empires of history, especially in its latter years, but it was still more of a hindrance than a benefactor to the lands which it ruled. The American Revolution is a pretty good example of that, as well as the Indian independence movement and later Gandhi.

The only real benefit I see coming from the British Empire was the sharing of European technologies and social structure. You may call me racist, but you can't dispute that the European model was superior to those of most other regions. It irks me when people say that cultures like the Native Americans were enlighten and equal to or even superior to the European model. THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE WHEEL for crying out loud! Even that though could have been done in a much better manner than it was.

Dalcourt
February 12th, 2017, 01:01 AM
This is so incredibly funny to read. The British did what e.g.Ancient Romans with their Empire did before them and what the USA do in a more subtle way till now. Weird it's seen as bad in one country and highly supported and praised in another.