Opinion of the British Empire

[Virginian87]

What do you guys think? 

[??????????]

Very positive. Africa has gone to sh*t since it collapsed.

[Virginian87]

Well, I say positive.  Through the empire, Britain expanded Western knowhow and technology to the rest of the globe.  The British built India's extensive rail network, developed Malaysia's oil industry, established the major ports and cities of Hong Kong and Singapore, and was THE driving force behind global trade during the Nineteenth Century.

It tends to get a bad rap today as being racist.  Although some aspects of British colonization were based on preconceived notions of race, the British were far more enlightened in their imperialism than other Europeans, particularly the Belgians.  King Leopold of Belgium ran the Congo like his own personal fief, and his troops reduced the Congolese to near-slavery.

[Cubby]

Very positive. Africa has gone to sh*t since it collapsed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Cecil Rhodes was a Freedom Fighter

I love the British Empire, I remember in 1997 I didn't want them to give Hong Kong back to the Chinese. India was the exception, who doesn't love Gandhi?

I do have a problem with their criminal code being kept in all their former colonies, despite the advances Britain has made over the past 40 years. These countries complain about imperialism but keep all British laws and borders and the like.

[phk]

They ed up in partitioning India and Pakistan with respect to Kashmir.

[Democratic Hawk]

 the British were far more enlightened in their imperialism than other Europeans

That we were

I have a, broadly, positive opinion of the British Empire, though I do think the British working class should have received more socio-economic benefit from it

Dave

[opebo]

Horrible, obviously.  Aside from the countless slaughters and robberies they accomplished, they also spread the disgusting cult of christianity. 

Of course much of the world is still enslaved by the same power relationships which were set up by such empires.

[afleitch]

Positive. The Empire had it's faults, but of all the imperial powers of the 19th and 20th Century it was probably the most beneficial and the first to 'let go' of it's colonies (unlike Portugal who held on until the very last)

[MasterJedi]

Negative, if they would have given their citizens reprersentation they might still have that empire today, who knows though.

[Emsworth]

Very positive. The British Empire spread modern technology and parliamentary democracy throughout the world.

They ed up in partitioning India and Pakistan with respect to Kashmir.

Without Britain, there would be no such thing as "India"--there would be hundreds of tiny kingdoms and principalities. If the partition is to be seen as a negative, it is certainly outweighed by the unification of India in the first place.

[Beet]

Obviously both positive and negative aspects.

I don't think you can simply overlook either side of the coin and do so can be little more than an exercise in willfull ignorance, as both its positive and negative aspects are highly obvious.

[Dr. Cynic]

Although there were some negative aspects, the British Empire was overall a positive thing.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Negative since it gave the colonials rights and let them go.

[Tory]

Although there were some negative aspects, the British Empire was overall a positive thing.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Very positive. The British Empire spread modern technology and parliamentary democracy throughout the world.

They ed up in partitioning India and Pakistan with respect to Kashmir.

Without Britain, there would be no such thing as "India"--there would be hundreds of tiny kingdoms and principalities. If the partition is to be seen as a negative, it is certainly outweighed by the unification of India in the first place.

Despite that there was the idiotic thing in the partition of putting both modern day Pakistan and Bangladesh together, which resulted in Bangladesh being ran as a colony resulting in a extremely blood war for indepence killing around 3 million people. Furthermore creating such a nation makes about as much sense as combining Spain and Poland because they are both Catholic.

I vote Negative obviously. Let's see, death camps in South Africa, paramilitaries and secret police terrorizing Ireland, all the mass abuses of India, I could go on and on.

[Ben.]

…death camps in South Africa

I think your confusing the British “concentration camps” during the Boar war (which admittedly where no picnic) with Nazi death camps which where created to murder people… British camps did not murder, they where no worse or better than the US’s “death camps” where Japanese Americans where imprisoned in the forties! 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That’s inaccurate, the “Black and Tans” where effectively mercenaries and their occasional outrages where hardly typical nor condoned by the British government, what’s more they certainly couldn’t be compared to the activates of paramilitaries in places like Nicaragua.


“Secret Police” ?maybe to deal with what was until recently a very real terrorist threat but by and large the terrorising in Ireland and later Ulster was mostly the fault of Irish groups and individuals be they Nationalist or loyalist.         

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What mass abuses! Certainly a number of isolated outrages which where shameful to say the least, but it was hardly typical, in many instances it was the class of English bureaucrats who staved off the terrible effects of drought, famine and flood in rural India, sometimes they failed but a great many did not fail and often killed themselves through stress and over work… Imagine as a young man of 20 or 30, only limited understanding of the local culture and langue suddenly being given responsibility for an area with a population potentially in the hundreds of thousands with nothing but an antiquated, local and old Mughal bureaucracy to help you? Considering the English (and the Scots for that matter!) did rather well in running India.           

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In brief terms this is basically my view:

Obviously both positive and negative aspects.

I don't think you can simply overlook either side of the coin and do so can be little more than an exercise in willfull ignorance, as both its positive and negative aspects are highly obvious.

I'll have a trawl through this thread and comment/rant about it if I'm bored tomorrow go more indepth tomorrow

[Inverted Things]

Very positive. The British Empire spread modern technology and parliamentary democracy throughout the world.

They ed up in partitioning India and Pakistan with respect to Kashmir.

Without Britain, there would be no such thing as "India"--there would be hundreds of tiny kingdoms and principalities. If the partition is to be seen as a negative, it is certainly outweighed by the unification of India in the first place.

I'm unconvinced that unifying India was a good thing. The only time-tested way for humans to live is in tribes. Abolishing tribes in favor of nationalism is rarely a good thing.

[Emsworth]

I'm unconvinced that unifying India was a good thing. The only time-tested way for humans to live is in tribes. Abolishing tribes in favor of nationalism is rarely a good thing.

Without civilization, humanity would not be able to progress. It would be forever consigned to a barbaric and uncouth existence.

[phk]

Its not so much the British presence that I'm opposed to, Emsworth.

To the contrary, I think they shouldn't have left in such a hurry, they could have at least helped to resolve the Kashmir mess that they made.

[Beet]

Tbe British Empire did leave rather notable messes in Northern Ireland, present-day Israel, Kashmir, and South Africa, not to mention drawing the questionable borders of countries such as Iraq.

[Inverted Things]

I'm unconvinced that unifying India was a good thing. The only time-tested way for humans to live is in tribes. Abolishing tribes in favor of nationalism is rarely a good thing.

Without civilization, humanity would not be able to progress. It would be forever consigned to a barbaric and uncouth existence.

Here are some problems that "cilivized" cultures have which are extremely rare in tribal culture: crime, mental illness, poverty, war, famine, pollution, overpopulation, pornography, drug abuse, political corruption... I could go on.

Are you sure you want to talk about progress?

[Emsworth]

Here are some problems that "cilivized" cultures have which are extremely rare in tribal culture: crime, mental illness, poverty, war, famine, pollution, overpopulation, pornography, drug abuse, political corruption... I could go on.

I will take issue with a few of the problems you cite. Firstly, how can one conclude that mental illness would be absent in a tribal "culture"? Surely, there would be insane and mentally unstable people in tribes as well. Secondly, why should famine be associated with civilization alone? Famine is a phenomenon that occurs largely as a result of natural causes, not as a result of societal factors. Thirdly, why do you consider that pornography is a problem? Fourthly, poverty (in an absolute sense) exists in a tribe just as much as it might exist in any civilization.

And what about the great benefits offered by civilization? Freedom, comfort, education, science, and medicine--all of these would not exist without civilization, which is the greatest of all human achievements.

[© tweed]

Positive.

It brought superior western culture to the backwater oppessive alleys of the world.

[opebo]

I'm unconvinced that unifying India was a good thing. The only time-tested way for humans to live is in tribes. Abolishing tribes in favor of nationalism is rarely a good thing.

Without civilization, humanity would not be able to progress. It would be forever consigned to a barbaric and uncouth existence.

You poor sap, what you call 'civilization' is just Western culture, which is a very miserable one.  Overall my subjective preference is obviously for Asian culture.