16-04-2003 14:01									#91
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Sava The worst modern day result or effect of British Imperialism could be a Nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. Way to go

Well, without the Empire, there would be lots and lots of little states in India, which would probably be fighting it out right now to see who was top dog.

That is the problem. My gut instinct is to say that it was a negative influence, but who is to say what would have happened if it wasn't arround? Since we will never know, speculating about it seems a pretty pointless exercise.

	16-04-2003 14:39									#92
	Increase Your PM Length

Over the long haul, I do not believe the Brits had a negative effect on any region they ruled. The simply had greater success in some rather than others. I am willing to bet that those areas of the ME and Africa occuppied by Britain are better off today, and more democratic, than areas not occuppied by Britain.

True, Britain could rule stupidly, cruely and for their own benefit. But they uniformly invested as well - in railroads, infrastructure, education, medicine, law and democratic institutions. They also left their colonies the English language that has turned out to be the international language for business and science.

To focus only on the negatives is wrong. Most of us here who admire Britain will agree that there were negatives. But the positives greatly outweigh the negatives.

And to think that they did all this for to make a profit.

	16-04-2003 14:44									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It just has something funny to it. The European/American judges the dids and achievements of is ancestors, based on books written by Europeans in European languages.

quote: 5. Singapore Economic powerhouse for such a small Island 6. Hong Kong Very similar to Singapore.

Now, I bet, when someone asks people there, why they're so rich, they say something like: "We have culture, moral values, ethics and aren't as lazy blokes as the Europeans and Americans.

And there's a country constantly missing. It never has been a colony. Now, it's the 3rd richest economy of the world. A country which itself had colonies and was a huge military power. And the success of it's former colonies (to which Singapore and Hong Kong can be counted) are much bigger than the success of the European colonies in Africa and Asia. (Actually, even China can be counted as former colony of this power)

	16-04-2003 14:55									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It is still too soon to give a definitive answer. The Roamn empire is to some extent idolized as moving the advance of civilisation onward and the nasty bits such as massacres, mass enslavement and their favoured public entertainments are treated impersonally because it was long ago.

The British empire began to seriously break up less than 60 years ago and it will IMHO probably be another century before the real long term effects can be assessed.

My view is that the long term benefit of humanity will be best served by a unified global political and economic system. In that context the British empire was a major step forward in establishing links around the globe, not least a commonly used language. Long term, as the bad bits are sorted out and largely forgotten, I think the British empire will be seen as a major step forward in human progress.

	16-04-2003 16:37									#95
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed at the cost of millions of dead non-whites.

They would have died of old age by now anyway.

	16-04-2003 16:39									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't know why people are saying British imperialism was good because the US was born. IIRC the first Patriots fought against such imperialism. Americans made America great, not the British.

	16-04-2003 16:41									#97
	Get a bigger avatar today!

what contry is that yago, germany has the 3rd largest economy in the world.

to echo what others have said about india, were it not for the british there would still be lots of petty kingdoms, some ruled well, some not, but none ruled democratically. as for cultural factors, that's a good one, the caste system hardly promotes democracy.

	16-04-2003 16:49									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yeah, because India is such a prosperous pillar of Democracy...

As I mentioned in another thread, whenever the British draw up borders for a new nation, bad things happen. Although not totally responsible, look at Yugoslavia... Western nations created this nation. Good job

Look at India and Pakistan. Look at Iraq. French Imperialism, although not as bad, led to problems in Vietnam and Algiers. In general, European Imperialism f*cked up Africa. According to what I've read about African history, before the Europeans came to Africa, it was a stable place. Timbuktu was a thriving city that was quite civilized. But the quest for power, gold, and glory of God led the Europeans to Imperialism.

	16-04-2003 16:52									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ozz One thing i have noticed, the longer the British stayed, the less of a basketcase the countries are today.

This is in large part due to the way that areas were selected for colonization. Advanced societies had large populations of relatively educated people that could be immediately exploited for profit. Sh!thole backwaters were a good place to lose a few workers and a lot of money. This is why so much of Africa was left alone until the 19th century, even though it is closer to Europe than America and Asia. As the most promising areas were selected for exploitation first, it is not surprising to see that they are still ahead of the game today, especially as I do think there are quite a few useful aspects of contact with the Brits.

One thing that I am surprised not to see mentioned is the effect of Europeans on population. Whatever you may think about Britain's colonialism, it is safe to say that there have been billions of people born who would never have been born were it not for the boons of cheap and easy food distribution and production and sanitation. Just a bit of counterpoint to Che's starvation lecture.

	16-04-2003 16:57									#100
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: One thing i have noticed, the longer the British stayed, the less of a basketcase the countries are today.

*cough*Bangladesh*cough*

	16-04-2003 17:06									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The Brits milked the more modern parts of their empire for their (and other) markets through trade barriers and milked the rest for their resources and people, and wiped out the societies where they could colonize. Yes, I think it's safe to say that British Imperialism probably wasn't a good thing.

Last edited by Ramo on 16-04-2003 at 17:18

	16-04-2003 17:10									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If the British Empire had not decolonialized in the 50s and 60s the world would be a much happier place.

In particular, if Cecil Rhodes dreams for revolutionizing and improving Africa had been followed through....

It's not like the colonial revolts were militarily significant, only politically.

Even in Kenya, the Mau Mau were a pathetic army, and were given many of their demands after being decisively defeated on the field.

The Brits of the time are the Americans of today, militarily invincible...of course few took the threat of a slowly tooling up but still somewhat 'wacky' Germany (China) seriously until 2 world wars later...

	16-04-2003 17:15									#103
	sava calling someone an idiot. oh, the irony etc... Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Sava Yeah, because India is such a prosperous pillar of Democracy...

india isn't perfect, far from it, but it is prosperous and it is democractic. and it would be in a much worse state if it weren't for the british.

	16-04-2003 17:57									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Seeker If the British Empire had not decolonialized in the 50s and 60s the world would be a much happier place. In particular, if Cecil Rhodes dreams for revolutionizing and improving Africa had been followed through.... It's not like the colonial revolts were militarily significant, only politically. Even in Kenya, the Mau Mau were a pathetic army, and were given many of their demands after being decisively defeated on the field. The Brits of the time are the Americans of today, militarily invincible...of course few took the threat of a slowly tooling up but still somewhat 'wacky' Germany (China) seriously until 2 world wars later...

Britain was forced to decolonize after WWII...mainly because the increased sense of nationalism among the world and pressure from the newly formed U.N. gave them little choice. Also places like the middle east gave them such headaches they would have eventually unloaded those regions anyway.

The British Empire of old is very similiar to America of today...we tend to force our ideals on other people. I have to admit (of course I'm a bit biased) that if I were to chose any nation to be a superpower it would be the British or Americans due to their long tradition of individual rights and rule of law.

	16-04-2003 20:07									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: what contry is that yago, germany has the 3rd largest economy in the world.

No, Germany is 4th.

3rd is Japan

(China is now 2nd, because Hong Kong was given back to them, that changed OECD-statistics recently).

	16-04-2003 20:17									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As far as I can tell and by taking as examples the economic indicators of certain regions such as Cyprus, before and after the decolonization, I have to say a resounding, No.

	16-04-2003 20:47									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney what contry is that yago, germany has the 3rd largest economy in the world. to echo what others have said about india, were it not for the british there would still be lots of petty kingdoms, some ruled well, some not, but none ruled democratically. as for cultural factors, that's a good one, the caste system hardly promotes democracy.

Japan?

	16-04-2003 20:51									#108
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The question really isn't "Was British Imperialism good?" it's "Whose (if anyone's) Imperialism would have been better?" Some great power would have inevitably risen to dominate the world. Powerful nations always dominate weaker ones. Long before Europeans colonized Africa, the Bantus systematically wiped out almost all other sub-saharan nations. Likewise, the Incas smashed all their enemies at spearpoint in Central and South America. Would the world be better off if these people came to dominate the world?

	16-04-2003 22:44									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Where does this idea come from that Britain got rid of the caste system in India? It's still going strong.

As for the railways, many places got them without having to be conquerered by Britain first. The Indians would have taken them up eventually.

	16-04-2003 23:10									#110
	Tired of ads?

Colonialism of any sort didn't improve the world. In most cases it made a huge mess and committed crimes that far outway any side-benefits it might have brought to the country in question. Most of the benefits that people site here are laughable since they were put in place with the aim of european profit above all else. Things like the Suez canal and railroads are laughable as benefits(look how generous we are, we made transport through your country much faster so we can bring goods more quickly to us). Things like sanitation and medicine were only brought to areas where europeans had to live and could have just as easily been transmitted as ideas without colonization.

In fact all of the 'benefits' of colonization could have been brought in a more peaceful and cooperative way to the profit of all involved, though its almost impossible to believe humans would be that evolved, especially in an earlier day and age. Maybe we'll do it right the next time around when we colonize the stars, assuming we're not colonized first.

	16-04-2003 23:18									#111
	Remove this text

British colonialism wasn't so much better then any other form of colonialism. The only reason this assumption exists is because of the relatively enlightened rules of India and Egypt, both countries with large amounts of educated people and relatively 'advanced' cultures. In both cases the British found it more profitable to take a more cooperative approach to rule and to embellish on already strong educational systems which allowed for more skilled workers and administrators to assist in colonization.

In other countries, not so 'advanced' the British offered little education(it created an educated class that was thought to be dangerous to British rule), and did little to foster the self-government that would be needed after the British left.

	17-04-2003 00:43									#112
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The [Roman] empire is to some extent idolized as moving the advance of civilisation onward and the nasty bits such as massacres, mass enslavement and their favoured public entertainments are treated impersonally because it was long ago.

Totally agree. I believe in 1000 years, British colonialism will be seen as a good thing. Something that helped progress the rest of the world. Basically, it WILL be seen like Roman imperialism (which is generally thought of as a benefit).

	17-04-2003 00:48									#113
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The underlying assumption that the benefits of Western civilization would have come to colonized nations without colonialism may be true -- but how long would it have taken? The world, in large measure, prior to Western imperialism, was run by very primitive governments who were simply not open to democracy, to a free press, to liberal education for all. Look at Iraq. If we hadn't intervened, how long would the people of Iraq have suffered under the cruel boot of Saddam?

The movement to decolonize was lead by the United States -- because of Wilson's belief in the right of self-determination. However, the right of self-determination does not mean the right of a dictator to brutalize his people or the right to end democracy and human rights or to prevent its introduction.

In a way, our effort in Iraq is Imperialism. It seeks to remove a dictator and to impose democracy. There can be no self determination without democracy.

	17-04-2003 01:21									#114
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 Colonialism of any sort didn't improve the world. In most cases it made a huge mess and committed crimes that far outway any side-benefits it might have brought to the country in question.

Remember both the US and Australia were once British colonies. I'd say both countries are net positives for the world although I know others disagree. Colonialism is not a uniquely western phenomenon. All powerful nations have practiced it. It is the norm of human societal contact, not the exception.

quote: In fact all of the 'benefits' of colonization could have been brought in a more peaceful and cooperative way to the profit of all involved, though its almost impossible to believe humans would be that evolved, especially in an earlier day and age.

An amusing assertion that I find hard to believe. Concepts like the rule of law, democracy and human rights are meaningless in a tribal society.

	17-04-2003 01:26									#115
	Inflate your Upload Space

It all boils down to what you mean by "improved."

-Arrian

	17-04-2003 01:29									#116
	Support Apolyton

quote: It all boils down to what you mean by "improved."

I world with many, many bananas... and white, english speaking people everywhere...

	17-04-2003 01:47									#117
	Support Apolyton

quote: If we hadn't intervened, how long would the people of Iraq have suffered under the cruel boot of Saddam?

If britain hadn't been in that part of the world, Saddam probably would never have risen to power.

	17-04-2003 01:48									#118
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV It is still too soon to give a definitive answer. The Roamn empire is to some extent idolized as moving the advance of civilisation onward and the nasty bits such as massacres, mass enslavement and their favoured public entertainments are treated impersonally because it was long ago. The British empire began to seriously break up less than 60 years ago and it will IMHO probably be another century before the real long term effects can be assessed. My view is that the long term benefit of humanity will be best served by a unified global political and economic system. In that context the British empire was a major step forward in establishing links around the globe, not least a commonly used language. Long term, as the bad bits are sorted out and largely forgotten, I think the British empire will be seen as a major step forward in human progress.

nice post i agree with this

	17-04-2003 02:14									#119
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo *cough*Bangladesh*cough*

Nay, Banga"mess" is an Indian creation, so is Pakistan for that matter. Same goes for the ME too. Britain didn't
draw the borders, the WW1 allies did.

	17-04-2003 02:35									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yago:

quote: The moral values of the British slave trader: An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa (London, 1788).

Irrelevant.

1834: British abolish slavery as an institution within the Empire.