Pride in the British Empire

[Atlanticatia]

I think it's fair to be proud of it. Even though part of it wasn't good, it definitely left a huge impact on the world. I think that it is something to see as significant and important in history, that really shaped the world into how it is today; and definitely had some positive ones, as well as some negative ones. Also, the Commonwealth is a really great organization, too.

I don't know if I'd say someone should be proud of it simply because it was a huge colonial empire, but they should be proud because of its significance in modern history.

[Pandeeria]

I would call the British Empire impressive.

Something to be proud of? Not sure.

[Cyyro]

I am proud of the British Empire and I am American.

[Rio Cana]

Our contemporary pride in the past should be based on the context of THIS time.

No because then your not judging it by the standards of the day your still judging it by modern standards. For instance you can be proud that in the past the British Empire abolished slavery before many of its contemporaries.

Mexico beat them to it.

No significant slave trade to Mexico had existed since 1739.

On December 6, 1810 Father Hidalgo proclaimed the abolition of slavery in Mexico. Later, when José María Morelos assumed command of the revolution he repeated Father Hidalgo's decree on January 29, 1813

In 1829 President Guerrero signed a decree abolishing slavery.

The British got rid of the trade in 1807 but not the ownership of people. That had to wait until 1833.

And this did not affect Indentured servitude which many times was abused.

[Senkaku]

Of course they're proud. They conquered a quarter of the planet, from a mid-sized and rather chilly bunch of islands off of Europe. It left a huge impact on the world and was arguably the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. Did it do some really shitty things? Of course. Does that mean you shouldn't be proud of it? No.

I would be proud of it, if I were British. You can be proud of something that did bad things, you know.

[Conserative Morality]

Looks like the majority of us Brits are proud of the British Empire :

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/26/bri ... ts20140727

By three to one, British people think the British Empire is something to be proud of rather than ashamed of – they also tend to think it left its colonies better off, and a third would like it to still exist

Britain has long found it difficult to evaluate its former empire. Imperial nostalgia on television has been shamed by historians, and modern prime ministers have expressed ‘deep sorrow’ for Britain’s role in slavery – but they have also called on British people to celebrate the legacy of the Empire.

Among the British public, feelings tend to be positive. A new YouGov survey finds that most think the British Empire is more something to be proud of (59%) rather than ashamed of (19%). 23% don't know. Young people are least likely to feel pride over shame when it comes to the Empire, though about half (48%) of 18-24 year olds do. In comparison, about two-thirds (65%) of over 60s feel mostly proud.

Economically, the British Empire invested in infrastructure, established trading routes and installed institutions – but it also extracted resources, oversaw famines and in some cases left behind instability. Though many (36%) are unsure, British people do tend to think that, overall, former British colonies are now better off for having been part of the empire, by 49-15%.

A third of British people (34%) also say they would like it if Britain still had an empire. Under half (45%) say they would not like the Empire to exist today. 20% don’t know.

The Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this year are the latest reminder of the British Empire, and of a determination to present its legacy as constructive. YouGov also asked which countries British people would especially like to do well at the events, with Australia, New Zealand and Canada being most favoured.

Do you think they're right to be proud of it?

I am proud of all the good we brought to the world and it's hard not to feel pride in a nation having that kind of unbroken record for empire size. There have been some negatives but ultimately this all boils down to "well what did the Romans British ever do for us?"

Don't play that game. Infrastructure was used to maximize British profits - normally, I'm not big on "Intent vs. Outcome" for these things, but in cases of colonialism, they ended up fucking over the countries for a much longer time than any comparable splintering of local nations could have done. Did the British do some good? Yes. We needn't delve so deep as the Belgian Congo to find colonizers that were worse than the British. Does that mean it's necessary something to be proud of? No. Not when a large part of it was genocide, exploitation, and generally hamstringing their colonies by over-emphasizing certain sectors of the economy with little hope for improvement over more varied and sustainable development models.

Bear in mind I have similar feelings about my own country's colonial exploits, so don't take this shot personally. Most countries were grade-A assholes towards their colonies. It's for the best that they're broken up, and for the best that we remember not to be proud of them.

[MERIZoC]

The Mongolians should be prouder. Now that was an empire.

[The Black Forrest]

Pride in what was? Don't see the reason for that.

Finding it an interesting time? Sure......

[Gaiserin]

The Mongolians should be prouder. Now that was an empire.

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs30/f/2009/253/5/d/ID_One_by_Mongolian_Empire.jpg

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Do you think they're right to be proud of it?

I am proud of all the good we brought to the world and it's hard not to feel pride in a nation having that kind of unbroken record for empire size. There have been some negatives but ultimately this all boils down to "well what did the Romans British ever do for us?"

Don't play that game. Infrastructure was used to maximize British profits - normally, I'm not big on "Intent vs. Outcome" for these things, but in cases of colonialism, they ended up fucking over the countries for a much longer time than any comparable splintering of local nations could have done. Did the British do some good? Yes. We needn't delve so deep as the Belgian Congo to find colonizers that were worse than the British. Does that mean it's necessary something to be proud of? No. Not when a large part of it was genocide, exploitation, and generally hamstringing their colonies by over-emphasizing certain sectors of the economy with little hope for improvement over more varied and sustainable development models.

Bear in mind I have similar feelings about my own country's colonial exploits, so don't take this shot personally. Most countries were grade-A assholes towards their colonies. It's for the best that they're broken up, and for the best that we remember not to be proud of them.[/quote]

Not just to maximize profits, but to enforce economic dependence, particularly on the export of raw resources. After all, if the railroads only go from, lets say, Kimberly to Cape Town, what else are you going to do with them? That situation was common in most colonies were the colonial power built infrastructure. Roads and rails went from the inland areas to the ports.

In South Africa, they actually specifically constructed the railway so as to bypass the black farmers and pastoralists in the region, forcing them to drive their cattle to (British and Boer) settlements, where they would have to sell to British or Boer ranchers rather than directly to the exporters.

[Kouralia]

The Mongolians should be prouder. Now that was an empire.

It was also smaller than the British Empire.

[Atlanticatia]

One thing that can be attributed directly or indirectly to the British Empire is the prominence of parliamentary liberal democracy.

[Rephesus]

The Mongolians should be prouder. Now that was an empire.

It was also smaller than the British Empire.

Not by much:

"Empire Max. land area (million km2) Max. land area (million mi2) % of world land area Era Max. population (million) % of world population
British Empire 33.2[3] 12.82 22.43% 1922[3] 458.0 (in 1938)[4] 20.00% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)[4]
Mongol Empire 33.0[5][6][7] 12.74 22.29% 1279[5] 110.0 (in the 13th century)[8] 25.60% (110.0 million out of 429 million[9] in the 13th century)"


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

Plus the Mongols were the largest continuous land empire, they didn't need a navy

[MERIZoC]

The Mongolians should be prouder. Now that was an empire.

It was also smaller than the British Empire.

Barely. Plus, the Mongolian empire was continuous, while the British empire was fragmented. It also took much longer for the Brits to establish their empire.

[The Liberated Territories]

I find pride in an empire irrational, but to each their own.

[Napkiraly]

It was also smaller than the British Empire.

Not by much:

"Empire Max. land area (million km2) Max. land area (million mi2) % of world land area Era Max. population (million) % of world population
British Empire 33.2[3] 12.82 22.43% 1922[3] 458.0 (in 1938)[4] 20.00% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)[4]
Mongol Empire 33.0[5][6][7] 12.74 22.29% 1279[5] 110.0 (in the 13th century)[8] 25.60% (110.0 million out of 429 million[9] in the 13th century)"


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

Plus the Mongols were the largest continuous land empire, they didn't need a navy

That just makes the British empire more impressive considering the logistics involved with a fragmented empire.

[Marcurix]

As long as you take the bad with the good, i don't see a problem with it.

[Kouralia]

Not by much:

"Empire Max. land area (million km2) Max. land area (million mi2) % of world land area Era Max. population (million) % of world population
British Empire 33.2[3] 12.82 22.43% 1922[3] 458.0 (in 1938)[4] 20.00% (458 million out of 2.295 billion in 1938)[4]
Mongol Empire 33.0[5][6][7] 12.74 22.29% 1279[5] 110.0 (in the 13th century)[8] 25.60% (110.0 million out of 429 million[9] in the 13th century)"


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

Plus the Mongols were the largest continuous land empire, they didn't need a navy

That just makes the British empire more impressive considering the logistics involved with a fragmented empire.

Indeed. We also kept our empire intact through two world wars (since arguably by the standards of 'fighting all around the globe', even if not by geographic distribution of combatants, the Napoleonic Wars were the first 'world wars'), and it didn't begin to collapse after the death of one ruler.

[Arabic Spain]

Colonies were hard to manage anyways...

[MERIZoC]

That just makes the British empire more impressive considering the logistics involved with a fragmented empire.

Indeed. We also kept our empire intact through two world wars (since arguably by the standards of 'fighting all around the globe', even if not by geographic distribution of combatants, the Napoleonic Wars were the first 'world wars'), and it didn't begin to collapse after the death of one ruler.

It also took them several centuries to put it together, not several decades.

[Kouralia]

Indeed. We also kept our empire intact through two world wars (since arguably by the standards of 'fighting all around the globe', even if not by geographic distribution of combatants, the Napoleonic Wars were the first 'world wars'), and it didn't begin to collapse after the death of one ruler.

It also took them several centuries to put it together, not several decades.

Measure twice, cut once.

[Rio Cana]

It's quite a hard one for me to decide because it's hard to be proud of a history including torture, slavery, ethnic cleansing and economic exploitation.

But the fact is if the British hadn't claimed the empire, then the French, Spanish, Portugeuse and Germans would have filled the void. And they for the most part were even more brutal than the British, and have left less infrastructure behind in thier ex-colonies.

What I'm saying is that it could of been worse.

The Africans brought to the Caribbean, especially those sent to Trinidad, by the British considered the British to be very cruel. Some preferred to escape to the French Caribbean islands or even the Spanish Caribbean islands for better treatment. Generally, the Spanish in the Caribbean treated the Africans better then the English or the French.

For example -

An official Spanish edict of 1664 offered freedom and land to African people from non-Spanish colonies, such as Jamaica and St. Dominique (Haiti), who immigrated to Puerto Rico and provided a population base to support the Puerto Rican garrison and its forts. These freeman who settled the western and southern parts of the island, soon adopted the ways and customs of the Spaniards. Some joined the local militia which fought against the British in their many attempts to invade the island.

This partly explains why Spanish PR. had more Free Africans then owned Africans.


And when it came to infrastructure . and just picking one City, seems you have not been to Cartagena in Colombia. Its full of old Spanish era construction.

This short video will show it. Everything that looks Spanish style was most likely built during Spanish era.
Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcnrKaLLRKE

Someone mention that the UK. was better at times in allowing some of its territories to become Independent. I do know that unlike Mexico, the Spanish just walked away from Central America, sparing them having to fight a war of Independence.

[Wind in the Willows]

I'm proud of my country's history.

Colonization is not good for the colonized.

Now, some former colonies have been successful. The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. But these are exceptions, not the rule. Look at certain regions of Africa, certain parts of the Middle East, India, etc.

We've given millions of pounds in aid to these former "colonies" and you know what? It's a complete waste of fucking money, because the natives can't seem to run their own fucking country in a civilized manner. We may have colonized them but we're repaying them for it.

[Aryavartha]

Not just to maximize profits, but to enforce economic dependence, particularly on the export of raw resources. After all, if the railroads only go from, lets say, Kimberly to Cape Town, what else are you going to do with them? That situation was common in most colonies were the colonial power built infrastructure. Roads and rails went from the inland areas to the ports.

In South Africa, they actually specifically constructed the railway so as to bypass the black farmers and pastoralists in the region, forcing them to drive their cattle to (British and Boer) settlements, where they would have to sell to British or Boer ranchers rather than directly to the exporters.

same thing in India too. Railroads were build primarily to extract raw materials, and Indians were denied tech and even outright banned from running industries which can use these raw materials, and manufactured goods were dumped on India which had no other option but to buy these. Millions of cottage industry workers and artisans had no work and had to become landless laborers.

Gandhi did not go shirtless to get a tan.

it was a protest on how the good chunk of indians were shirtless at that time. and that's not because India did not grow cotton. The empire sucked us dry. Found us rich and left us fucking poor that we are still recovering from.

[Rio Cana]

No insult intended to our Australian friends (Long live Australia) but the British Empire was so huge because of Australia which no one else really wanted. Could be because of that long barrier reef, immense inland desert and so out of the way.

I know, in the end the big laugh is on those who did not bother to officially claim Australia.