British Empire - Good or Bad?

[Lackadaisical2]

I dunno about horrendous, they did a decent job compared to the other colonial powers, even in Africa their ex colonies are alright-ish.

Better than the others, yeah, but it was still a mess.

Then I find it hard to fault them, having done better than the rest at it.

Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; The Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Cameroon; Canada; Cyprus; Dominica; Fiji Islands; The Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya; Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; United Republic of Tanzania; USA; Vanuatu; Zambia.

Note how most are now LEDCs.

They weren't well developed areas before they were colonized either though.

Now, im going to go with language first, the closest to a universal we have.

Nope, sorry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers. Third, in fact.

Native speakers=/=speakers and whats more important is to have a language in many countries that can be understood with the people who are important to talk to. No one needs to talk to some dirty old rice farmer in rural China.

Africa and India have the trains and transport,

Source for Africa? Have you seen the trains in India?

They keep getting bombed by the maoists...

Surely the idea of Democracy was itself transported too? before Britain got there there where kings and maharajahs and emperors etc.

And now they're random rebel leaders and dictators murdering people. This is hardly a vast improvement.

Its also more the exception rather than the rule. Burma and Zimbabwe are the only two that come to mind.

[Vellosia]

Essentially I believe in contextualising history, by comparable countries and standards of the time, not least the regimes it conquered, the Empire wasn't that bad and often an improvement.

Positive and negative might be better terms than good or bad.

I think the British Empire can only really be viewed and judged as good or bad relative to the time in which it existed; compared to the other European empires and other reigmes across the world. Judging it by today's standard is pointless as the modern world is so vastly different from that in which the Empire was built that any conclusion one reach's using today's standards is invalid.

[Distruzio]

For all it's flaws and failures, the empire certainly played a large role in bringing the light of western culture, economics, and political theory to the majority of the world. Yes, I am aware that I am eurocentric.

(Image)

Yea, look at what it did to Africa, China, India, etc.

Truly they were enlightened and industrialized places once they became independent.



Amright?

I don't think they became such utopias b/c of British influence. It also owned Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, and several other places that are not so violent, my friend. I think that Africa, China, and India became the 3rd world hell holes they are b/c they embraced various forms of socialism for so long. It's only through free market and corporatist (which is more free market than socialism) reforms that some of those nations have made any progress.

[Derpusherpus]

Essentially I believe in contextualising history, by comparable countries and standards of the time, not least the regimes it conquered, the Empire wasn't that bad and often an improvement.

Positive and negative might be better terms than good or bad.

I think the British Empire can only really be viewed and judged as good or bad relative to the time in which it existed; compared to the other European empires and other reigmes across the world. Judging it by today's standard is pointless as the modern world is so vastly different from that in which the Empire was built that any conclusion one reach's using today's standards is invalid.

Bro, I think they knew just as well then as we do now that genocide, theft and oppression cause suffering. Therefore, since they knew what they were doing, they were evil. I wouldn't excuse them. Relativism, and nihilism for that sake, is unscientific bull.

[Salandriagado]

Better than the others, yeah, but it was still a mess.

Then I find it hard to fault them, having done better than the rest at it.

Being the best empire is like being the tallest midget: it's still not impressive.

Note how most are now LEDCs.

They weren't well developed areas before they were colonized either though.

And? The point was that it hasn't helped them develop particularly.

Nope, sorry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers. Third, in fact.

Native speakers=/=speakers and whats more important is to have a language in many countries that can be understood with the people who are important to talk to. No one needs to talk to some dirty old rice farmer in rural China.

Yes, I've already realised I failed at sorting by the right column and corrected it in my above post.

Source for Africa? Have you seen the trains in India?

They keep getting bombed by the maoists...

And? I fail to see the relevance.

And now they're random rebel leaders and dictators murdering people. This is hardly a vast improvement.

Its also more the exception rather than the rule. Burma and Zimbabwe are the only two that come to mind.

Look at the list above. Compare to the List of countries by democraticness. Notice how low they all are. Bangladesh, Cameroon, Fiji, Gambia, Nigeria and Swaziland are in the very bottom category, with a large number of the others either in the flawed/hybrid categories or unlisted (and generally known to be bad, including both Burma and Zimbabwe). At best, its record is highly inconsistent.

[Lackadaisical2]

Then I find it hard to fault them, having done better than the rest at it.

Being the best empire is like being the tallest midget: it's still not impressive.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

They weren't well developed areas before they were colonized either though.

And? The point was that it hasn't helped them develop particularly.

Yet many are better off than places which were never colonized (Thailand) or were held by other powers.

They keep getting bombed by the maoists...

And? I fail to see the relevance.

It was a joke... if people keep blowing up the railroads...

Its also more the exception rather than the rule. Burma and Zimbabwe are the only two that come to mind.

Look at the list above. Compare to the List of countries by democraticness. Notice how low they all are. Bangladesh, Cameroon, Fiji, Gambia, Nigeria and Swaziland are in the very bottom category, with a large number of the others either in the flawed/hybrid categories or unlisted (and generally known to be bad, including both Burma and Zimbabwe). At best, its record is highly inconsistent.

Give me a second on that.

[North Suran]

One can't apply moral labels like 'good' or 'bad' to empires - they simply are what they are.

Obviously, all empires are motivated by self-interest; they will not hesitate to exploit others for their own gain. But they still have positive side-effects. The world as we know it today has been shaped - and continues to be shaped - by empires. Imperialism has brought about atrocities, but also benefits. It is my personal belief that the quality of life for everyone today would be far worse if not for empires.

Then I find it hard to fault them, having done better than the rest at it.

Being the best empire is like being the tallest midget: it's still not impressive.

Regardless of your personal opinion of imperialism, I don't see how you can claim conquering a quarter of the globe and holding dominion over a quarter of the world's people is not impressive. Empires, for all their faults, are almost unfailingly impressive - that's why we like studying them.

[Salandriagado]

Regardless of your personal opinion of imperialism, I don't see how you can claim conquering a quarter of the globe and holding dominion over a quarter of the world's people is not impressive. Empires, for all their faults, are almost unfailingly impressive - that's why we like studying them.

That depends entirely on your standard of impressiveness. I grade conquering vast amounts of land against the will of the inhabitants in the same direction as killing millions of people - whilst technically arguably difficult, not something that we should be impressed by.

Yet many are better off than places which were never colonized (Thailand) or were held by other powers.

I never said the other Empires were good. I wasn't arguing that being colonised automatically makes it worse for the country in question (although it generally doesn't make the people living their too happy), I was arguing that it doesn't necessarily improve it, as someone claimed.

[Lackadaisical2]

Regardless of your personal opinion of imperialism, I don't see how you can claim conquering a quarter of the globe and holding dominion over a quarter of the world's people is not impressive. Empires, for all their faults, are almost unfailingly impressive - that's why we like studying them.

That depends entirely on your standard of impressiveness. I grade conquering vast amounts of land against the will of the inhabitants in the same direction as killing millions of people - whilst technically arguably difficult, not something that we should be impressed by.

Yet many are better off than places which were never colonized (Thailand) or were held by other powers.

I never said the other Empires were good. I wasn't arguing that being colonised automatically makes it worse for the country in question (although it generally doesn't make the people living their too happy), I was arguing that it doesn't necessarily improve it, as someone claimed.

Well then yeah, obviously. You could be a shitty ruler or a bad one regardless of being an empire. Really a lot of the detractors of empires should instead be anarchists as much the same criticisms apply to the state in general as it does to the empire in particular. I don't see how being oppressed by my neighbor is much better than being oppressed by the guy who lives three doors down.

(NOTE: I'm not an anarchist!)

[North Suran]

That depends entirely on your standard of impressiveness. I grade conquering vast amounts of land against the will of the inhabitants in the same direction as killing millions of people - whilst technically arguably difficult, not something that we should be impressed by.

Impressiveness is not the same as justness. A nuclear explosion is impressive - that doesn't mean it is right. Similarly, just because there was much bloodshed and oppression involved in imperialism doesn't make the achievements of that operation any less impressive. Regardless of its impact, a small island setting out to carve an empire out of a quarter of the globe is still quite a feat.

[Salandriagado]

That depends entirely on your standard of impressiveness. I grade conquering vast amounts of land against the will of the inhabitants in the same direction as killing millions of people - whilst technically arguably difficult, not something that we should be impressed by.

Impressiveness is not the same as justness. A nuclear explosion is impressive - that doesn't mean it is right. Similarly, just because there was much bloodshed and oppression involved in imperialism doesn't make the achievements of that operation any less impressive. Regardless of its impact, a small island setting out to carve an empire out of a quarter of the globe is still quite a feat.

adjective /imˈpresiv/ 

Evoking admiration through size, quality, or skill: grand, imposing, or awesome

Key word: admiration. That implies something positive.

[North Suran]

Key word: admiration. That implies something positive.

Not at all. Admiration is about appreciating another person's skills, feats and achievements - it does not inherently entail viewing them positively or holding a good opinion of the person themself. For example, I admire Otto von Bismarck for his achievements in foreign policy, but I still consider the man himself to be a reactionary old autocrat who inadvertently paved the way towards the destruction of the very country he created.

[Salandriagado]

Key word: admiration. That implies something positive.

Not at all. Admiration is about appreciating another person's skills, feats and achievements - it does not inherently entail viewing them positively or holding a good opinion of the person themself. For example, I admire Otto von Bismarck for his achievements in foreign policy, but I still consider the man himself to be a reactionary old autocrat who inadvertently paved the way towards the destruction of the very country he created.

ad·mi·ra·tion
noun /ˌadməˈrāSHən/ 

Respect and warm approval

[North Suran]

Are you familiar with the concept of the Magnificent Bastard? Because that is the most obvious example of someone expressing admiration for a person who they fundamentally dislike or disagree with, simply because of their ability. The same goes for empires.

[Salandriagado]

Are you familiar with the concept of the Magnificent Bastard? Because that is the most obvious example of someone expressing admiration for a person who they fundamentally dislike or disagree with, simply because of their ability. The same goes for empires.

Check the definition. Being impressed => Admiration => approval. Period. You're trying to argue with the dictionary here.

[The British Royal Crown]

They were better than most empires we've seen in history, let me tell you.

[North Suran]

Are you familiar with the concept of the Magnificent Bastard? Because that is the most obvious example of someone expressing admiration for a person who they fundamentally dislike or disagree with, simply because of their ability. The same goes for empires.

Check the definition. Being impressed => Admiration => approval. Period. You're trying to argue with the dictionary here.

You're the one arguing with the dictionary. If you want to dispute my assertion - that empires can be admired in spite of their atrocities, simply because of the scale of their achievements - then do so. If you're going to simply quote the dictionary over and over again, then what's the point?

[Eye Ownea Horsia]

Im British and I think it was a good thing, think of all the genocides and race killings in africa that didnt happen until we let them govern themselves. the same goes for the middle east -although im not too clued up on that area- India, sure things got better for them after they gained independance but come on we were bros man!

If america would have accepted its unfair representation its taxes would have remained low, washington wouldnt have been burned to the ground by Canadians and the Native Americans would probably be still around. Thats my OPINION anyhow

[Forsakia]

Regardless of your personal opinion of imperialism, I don't see how you can claim conquering a quarter of the globe and holding dominion over a quarter of the world's people is not impressive. Empires, for all their faults, are almost unfailingly impressive - that's why we like studying them.

That depends entirely on your standard of impressiveness. I grade conquering vast amounts of land against the will of the inhabitants in the same direction as killing millions of people - whilst technically arguably difficult, not something that we should be impressed by.

As has been mentioned, often these were lands ruled by despots, dictators suchlike who were in some cases really not nice people.

Which is why I (and others) talk about comparative judgments, the British were often taking land off those with no legitimate right to it and in some cases were better than their predecessors and improved the lives of the natives.

[Alyakia]

Im British and I think it was a good thing, think of all the genocides and race killings in africa that didnt happen until we let them govern themselves. the same goes for the middle east -although im not too clued up on that area- India, sure things got better for them after they gained independance but come on we were bros man!

If america would have accepted its unfair representation its taxes would have remained low, washington wouldnt have been burned to the ground by Canadians and the Native Americans would probably be still around. Thats my OPINION anyhow

In many cases the government places and the ethnicities that inhabited them were either enitrely made up or made significantly more distinct by Belgian/British rule. Remember when we used to play Greeks and Turks against each other in Cyprus?

[Delmire]

His. I'm male.

Thanks, that will save me having to remember to put the options in.

Britain exists (bad)

Source for me saying this.

"No, here's a country that massacred native peoples the world over, stole land, raped the world and that some people still seem to think is a good thing."

Britain went into country (bad)

Yup.

Would you believe not always? "I wasn't arguing that being colonised automatically makes it worse for the country in question " Oh, you do. Being more powerful than the previous empire doesnt make you more evil, I will actually hunt out my Horrible History book and quote examples of the 'monsters' that Britain removed to puncture your historical bubble. Oh, and it wasnt always against the will of the people either.

Britain improved country to state better than before (omitted)

... and in the process ignored and/or subjugated the populations.

"The English parliamentary system served as the template for the governments for many former colonies, and English common law for legal systems." so Britain gave them law and order and justice to subjugate? Britain was a LOT easier on religion than many nations today, freedom of belief was not tampered with. And to be sure i dont think the kings/prince/emperors.etc that went before where any better, in historical context Britain was among if not THE best. (Though yes, as you state in every post it was an empire.)

Britain left (also bad, not soon enough!)

No, bad because it was badly managed. Have you actually read anything I've said?

did you read my whole article or just post reply sentence to sentence? see below for where your objection should have gone. As for the above statement are you saying that Britain shouldn't have left?

Country falls apart or remains in a state less than that of Britain (bad, Britain's fault for not staying or improving the country)

No, falls apart because of Britain dumping it in an economic shithole with arbitrary boundaries => bad

Oh, so its the lines on the map your so pissed about! How silly of Britain to give freedom and independence to those countries instead of spending another 10-20 years fighting revolts, revolutions, uprisings of said people who wanted freedom when it clearly hadn't used a bold enough pen on its maps and it needed to be all drawn and coloured in again, only much neater.
Britain drew the maps, if nations didnt accept it it was for them to sort out-dont be shocked that territory deputes resulted in conflict.
As for the ethnic/religious tensions, how do you draw houses on world maps? if I was to check how many religions would I find being worshipped not 10 miles from my front door? how many people of different coloured skin? of different national backgrounds and political beliefs? How EXACTLY could this have been avoided without staying for a long, long, long time? at what point in history (including today) did these kind of tensions NOT flare up? Please stop holding Britain responsible for human nature!

Right, and economies.. Since India was the only part of the empire that was actually considered an empire (Empress of india) with the rest being colonies, dependancies etc. and since Britons where nothing but money grabbing profit hunters, surely its logical to assume the economies of the colonies might have been improved? If not then back to the examples before: transportation, assess to the world market.etc.

Now I hope we can all see the flaw here,

Yup, you haven't been reading what I've written. Strawman.

I have, no matter which points and evidence used against them, they seem to always use the same disproved and exaggerated theories repeated over and over.

if Britain improved the country- transport system, wealth, security etc. of which there are so many that are obvious that do not need examples

There is nothing (or very nearly, but you aren't stating "things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to each other" or something similar, so it doesn't cover this situation) that is so obvious that it does not require evidence. I'll have some evidence of the Empire improving the lives of the people living in those countries please. (The people already living their mind, not the people that went over there).

That is not grammatically coherent, please reword it so I can tell what you are saying. Atleast the start

(but im guessing hes/shes going to ask how Britain changed the country while still stating that these changes

No, I'm going to tell you that they fucked over the natives and improved the lives of the colonists.

the colonists lived in these countries that now exist, along with all those improvements your talking about, ergo country now is improved over what it was.

(that he'she says didnt happen)

Source for me saying that.

LOL, see your post above: "I'll have some evidence of the Empire improving the lives of the people living in those countries please."

are the reason these countries later fell apart...)

No, that was the way the disbandment was handled, particularly the arbitrary borders, as I have repeatedly stated, as you would know if you actually looked down from constructing those strawmen for long enough to read my posts on occasion.

Firstly, I should look UP, not down. Though thank you for the suggestion I am some kind of god...or really tall guy I guess (whats it with you and size?) Secondly all of the British empire wasnt Britain.. those lines on the map existed before (may have moved slightly) during (provinces, klient knigdoms.etc.) and after in which if anything, Britain made them smaller which it would seem you are arguing for? this is your reply to my post that the Britain introduced unity "And that is a good thing because?" Either its a problem or it isnt, please decide.

though examples have been provided not only of British work in these countries but that the countries weren't exactly 'great' beforehand, infact many where simply smaller empires themselves!!

So? The British built infrastructure to support their colonists, not the natives, and "they were doing it too" is not a good argument for anything.

so Britain would have left it for the natives and therefore would have been better than before. This is going to be my main argument as you havent even seen trains in India...They are so famous for them they actually had one for the opening of the commonwealth games made out of people and the many aspects of Indian heritage and culture (which where not attacked by the British and thus again, remain.)
Your also going to have to realise that 'They where doing it too' is a good reason for many a thing, we would still be in the stone age if everyone had looked at the guy using bronze and gone "What an Evil man. I'll stick to stone."

So..considering the countries had to fall apart (Britains fault for not re-invading or maintaining control by putting down revolts

No, because they set up countries that were going to fall apart by putting the borders in fucking stupid places.

Like where they where before?, or where borders hadn't existed at all before? and again, why is it Britains fault if people cant get along? Britain set a very good example with other cultures and religions, if they didnt pick up on it (as the colonies did) then why was it bad Britain was there compared to another unsympathetic, often 'native' empire that would just kill everyone that offended them.

-which is also wrong and the examples he/she provides for WHY Britain was wrong..)

Correct.

Thus your contradictory statements

should be proof in itself that Britain at least had a stabilising influence and let those countries able to go and that wanted to go, go, and that if anything those countries had a BETTER chance than they had before the empire (the British one.)

No, it's evidence that the person that drew up the new borders took no account of the people living there. Source for the Empire asking the countries in advance if they wanted independence under these lines. Source for those countries having a better chance (the natives, mind, not the colonists).

"In 1947, British rule in India ended with the creation of two new nations: the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, while British suzerainty over the 562 Indian princely states ended. According to the Indian Independence Act 1947, "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States", so the states were left to choose whether to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent."

You cant really get much smaller than that unless, as I said, you divide streets and towns etc. in two... which is just silly, and again these smaller borders where probably already in existence, and again how is it Britains fault for people not agreeing to lines on map?? Britain itself has had many, many dividing lines as nations within and invaders from without waxed and waned, no one blamed the cave men!

The topic we are suppose to be commenting on is whether the British empire was a good or bad thing, not if it did bad, as it has already been established EVERY nation, empire, person even has done (yet i dont wish anyone out of existence)- because it also did good and denying that (please dont ask for more obvious examples) is obviously a bias view. I have tried to balance that but now its got so far flung i hope a look at the logic of these arguments will convince you to look again.

Yup. That still isn't an argument for doing it. I'll have some examples. I can't think of any that improved the lives of the natives. It's not biased, that would be your blind support of it. My arguments are all logically cohesive and built from a few axioms, are yours?

pushed to mirror your exaggerated, repeated claims that dont leave any room what so ever for the idea that Britain might somewhere have improved the local lot. You dont post with regard to the actual topic question but instead spout hate against empires in general with no nod towards how they are both part of human nature and have helped to shape the world we live in today. You sound like your telling a story out of a fantasy book!

"And the ugly, evil, hobbling British with a taste for human flesh came pounding down the mountain despite having made claims in their 'un-lyrical' language that they would not do so. They then proceeded to over throw the noble, advanced space fairing elves who didnt have an army because that would be mean and so where forced to fight with their many books on democracy instead while the British raped their daughters and wives and spit roasted their children over open fires. The End."

Instead ask: Would I rather the British empire had never existed. Thats an easier way to decide if in the end the benefits out weighed the negatives.

Not in the slightest. "Was it a good thing" innately asks about weighing the positives against the negatives, whereas "would I rather it never existed" asks for an unsupported opinion.

'Good or bad?' is the original question- and you are not weighing any good things, you haven't even conceded to one despite evidence posted to you by multiple posters, have you even glanced at the pole on the topic?

Given that, 'would I rather it had never had existed?' thus throws open a lot more to speculation, and hopefully opens your mind too. hating it is one thing, but if it didnt exist then hold the phone! because a lot of the things you love wouldnt exist either, therfore you have been forced to balance your views. Instead you avoided this question and miss-posted the original...

I admit that I would rather the British empire existed than it hadn't, of course there are many wrongs (-a 1/4 of the worlds population, its the human race silly, with that much responsibility-population-area etc. something wrong was probably done every day!) but generally what the world would be now if it hadnt existed...

That is not grammatically coherent, please reword it so I can tell what you are saying.

It ok to me, maybe you cant argue with it so your unconscious mind is protecting you. Let me translate it to you in baby steps.

1. I admit that I would rather the British empire existed than it hadn't.

2. Of course there are many wrongs -(I admit to negatives, I challenge you to find an example of you accepting a good thing about the British empire.)

3. But given that it ruled over a 1/4 of the worlds population, which consists of humans silly, then with all that population and land area something wrong was probably done every day! (-I admit to more wrongs!!)

4. Despite these wrongs, I believe that generally the world is better now than if it hadn't existed. (weighed them up, got an answer!!)

PS. Many of the countries you listed as fighting in ww2 during the named period wouldnt have existed without Britain eg. Greece, Canada etc.

Source on Greece existing because of the empire.

"Later, however, as Greece became embroiled in a civil war, the Sultan called upon his strongest subject, Muhammad Ali of Egypt, for aid. Plagued by internal strife and financial difficulties in keeping the fleet in constant readiness, the Greeks failed to prevent the capture and destruction of Kasos and Psara in 1824, or the landing of the Egyptian army at Methoni. Despite victories at Samos and Gerontas, the Revolution was threatened with collapse until the intervention of the Great Powers in the Battle of Navarino in 1827."

"...three Great Powers, Russia, the United Kingdom and France, decided to intervene in the conflict and each nation sent a navy to Greece. Following news that combined Ottoman–Egyptian fleets were going to attack the Greek island of Hydra, the allied fleet intercepted the Ottoman–Egyptian fleet at Navarino. Following a week long standoff, a battle began which resulted in the destruction of the Ottoman–Egyptian fleet."

"During this period, the two first instalments of the English loan had arrived, and the position of the government was strengthened;"
"Ibrahim had captured the city of Argos and was within striking distance of Nafplion. The city was saved by Commodore Gawen Hamilton of the Royal Navy who placed his ships in a position.."

Im pretty sure it was also thanks to churchill after ww2 that Greece didnt become part of Russia's puppet state regime group, but alas google has failed me.
Britain also gifted the Ionion isles to Greece, for free. What a monster.

And of those countries those that choose to fight did so because of the empire (Canada, Australia etc.) if the empire hadnt existed what would they have cared for another petty war in europe?

Nope, but equally, the war would probably never have happened.

Again, LOL. War was around before after and during the British empire, and you deny bias? your blaming every conceivable evil in the world on Britain! Did Britain also invent the lie and cannibalism?? Also you are now contradicting yourself when you said it was wrong to conduct this argument under the 'what if.' The only reason the war wouldnt have happened is because Napoleon might have got there first all those years ago!

THAT is why unifying the world was so important a gift from Britain, it may not have been Britains decision for them, but it allowed them to choose. The rest got invaded...not sure if you can hold that up, and I already made special mention of the resistance groups and China, which you missed out. Its also ironic that your source for the massacre is the same source from which i got the sentence about holding the flag of democracy alone, contradicting your source?

Bullshit. It took away their right to self determination, period. I didn't mention the resistance groups because I agreed with those points. No, those two points do not contradict each other. It is possible to fight a dictator whilst also committing massacres. This does not come out as a positive, it comes out as (at best) slightly less bad than the other guy.

*Sigh* again, countries like Canada DID choose, dont take that away from them. For India, it was seen as the cost of freedom, if India fought then it would get its freedom- They wernt cattle whipped into fighting, and they didnt fight like cattle either! they where brave courageous and skilled men who valued their cause, even if the idea of an independent India didnt properly settle after the war.

Also worth noting countries like Canada didnt exist before Britain...

Oh, and 'slightly less bad than the other guy' im taking as meaning improvement.

[The Super Drogs]

You can't say Franco was good because he wasn't as bad as other dictators. Or Mussolini was good because he got the trains running on time. You can't use the word "good"' to describe the British Empire. Sure you can discuss the positive things that it did. But you can't deny the inherent evil of imperialism. I have absolutely no idea how many innocent people died at the hands of the British empire over the duration of its existence. I wouldn't be surprised if it ran into millions. I think saying the British empire was "good", is a bit disrespectful to all those countless people who met an unjust and violent death in the name British profits. And if you name British territories that turned out very well (e.g. Hong Kong,), I can name just as many that turned out very badly (e.g. the middle east, Zimbabwe, Kashmir)

The British Empire murdered, raped and plundered their way around the world to steal the wealth from other lands. The British Empire was bad. I really see it as a no brainer.

[Parhe]

That depends entirely on your standard of impressiveness. I grade conquering vast amounts of land against the will of the inhabitants in the same direction as killing millions of people - whilst technically arguably difficult, not something that we should be impressed by.

As has been mentioned, often these were lands ruled by despots, dictators suchlike who were in some cases really not nice people.

Which is why I (and others) talk about comparative judgments, the British were often taking land off those with no legitimate right to it and in some cases were better than their predecessors and improved the lives of the natives.

This is why I support the British empires much more than the japanese empire. That and my biased.

[Lauenberg]

No matter what stance anyone takes on this issue, remember this: our British Commonwealth provided military protection, financial assistance, oftentimes the first formal educational institutions, healthcare, Government structure, and roads. Without such assistance, a quarter of the globe would have remained unsettled and poor for untold decades. I applaud the work of our ancestors, and have nothing but praise for the British Commonwealth. God Save the Queen!!

[Delmire]

You can use the word good to describe it, otherwise every country, county, state, town and village by your definition is 'evil', a word to easily thrown around now a days.

Going back to the prime example of everything, WW2, where the allies 'Evil' for killing people? after all, you cannot deny the inherent evil in war, and yet they fought, and as by product all the medical and technological advantages (not to mention political and civil freedoms, prevention of serious wars in the future etc.) that came from it, there is a belief that admitting good came from the empire means that you support the bad things that happened or that some how you support those deeds. It doesn't, it means you recognise humanity for what it is, flawed, and are grateful for the fact that those said 'bad' things are not all there is, but that there WAS good.

But that doesn't mean you can tar a century or more of people and all their achievements and good that they did do with the same brush as those that did wrong, there is no definite pure 'good' and 'evil', even Hitler was a vegetarian and banned hunting, and he's the closest you'll probably get to 'Evil'.

You cant brand football an evil sport because some one took a bribe, and some thugs fought the supporter thugs of another team. You will be judged as harshly in the future as you judge the British empire today, and you dont even twig that so much you take for granted are the results of those empires. It is wrong to look back upon a time from atop your high horse and brand everything and everyone affiliated with that nation as 'Evil', can you understand why I am so unnerved by your views?