British Empire - Good or Bad?

[Planta Genista]

From the government website of Sealand:

So, uh, they fought a defensive war in which no one died then released the prisoners.

Your missing my point, they aren't a recognised nation, and that on a Micro-Nation level they have fought a war, something little to no micro-nations have. I did say a nation, meaning a recognised one, not a micro-nation.

[Muoip]

All empires are bad.

[Planta Genista]

North Korea: The mass oppression and genocide it imposes on it's own population
South Korea: Hangang Bridge bombing, Ganghwa massacre, The Sancheong and Hamyang massacre
The Korean Empire: Several massacres

I assumed not on its own people. But how about Monaco, or the many small island states in the pacific?

The South Korean examples were all on Koreans, As well as the North Koreans. The Korean Empire there were several massacres on the Chinese Population living in Korea.

My opinion of Monaco is that it has done a bad thing,but many will disagree with me. Many of the Island States have done bad things as well, but they are often better then that of other larger nations.

[Alyakia]

So, uh, they fought a defensive war in which no one died then released the prisoners.

Your missing my point, they aren't a recognised nation, and that on a Micro-Nation level they have fought a war, something little to no micro-nations have. I did say a nation, meaning a recognised one, not a micro-nation.

Isle of Man. (Govern themselves.)

[Parhe]

I assumed not on its own people. But how about Monaco, or the many small island states in the pacific?

The South Korean examples were all on Koreans, As well as the North Koreans. The Korean Empire there were several massacres on the Chinese Population living in Korea.

But the Korean Empire was a mere puppet of the japanese Empire, which wanted the Chinese people out of Korea.

So, how about Monaco, Lichtenstein, or the many island nations in the Pacific.

[Planta Genista]

Your missing my point, they aren't a recognised nation, and that on a Micro-Nation level they have fought a war, something little to no micro-nations have. I did say a nation, meaning a recognised one, not a micro-nation.

Isle of Man. (Govern themselves.)

The Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man did not protect it's native language of Manx, nor their native culture but allowed themselves to assimilate into a foreign culture - that in my opinion is bad.

[Parhe]

Isle of Man. (Govern themselves.)

The Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man did not protect it's native language of Manx, nor their native culture but allowed themselves to assimilate into a foreign culture - that in my opinion is bad.

Than again, the British Empire forced the conquered to do the same, or at least tried. And, if the people by choice happily decided for change, I can not see how its so bad.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Did not Sealand do some kind of shenanigans that they used to justify their actual existence? Andorra is in the Pyrenees and a lynx went extinct there. They should have done more to help the lynx.

How about Korea? The Korean War was a civil war that everyone else decided by choice to get involved in.

How does this wrong statement have anything to do with what we were discussing?
It was not a civil war. Two newly independent countries went to war. One invaded the other.

[Planta Genista]

The South Korean examples were all on Koreans, As well as the North Koreans. The Korean Empire there were several massacres on the Chinese Population living in Korea.

But the Korean Empire was a mere puppet of the japanese Empire, which wanted the Chinese people out of Korea.

So, how about Monaco, Lichtenstein, or the many island nations in the Pacific.

It wasn't always a puppet state, during the 1800's it was very much independent. Also, going back to the older Korean Kingdoms the same things happened.

I already addressed the islands and Monaco: I do not know enough of Liechtenstein's history to address it.

[Planta Genista]

The Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man did not protect it's native language of Manx, nor their native culture but allowed themselves to assimilate into a foreign culture - that in my opinion is bad.

Than again, the British Empire forced the conquered to do the same, or at least tried. And, if the people by choice happily decided for change, I can not see how its so bad.

I disagree... There are still native speakers of Maori in New Zealand, and the Maori Culture us still practised. There are still Punjab/Hindi speakers in India, and Indian culture still exists, there are not any native speakers of Manx, and the culture does not exist.

[Parhe]

Than again, the British Empire forced the conquered to do the same, or at least tried. And, if the people by choice happily decided for change, I can not see how its so bad.

I disagree... There are still native speakers of Maori in New Zealand, and the Maori Culture us still practised. There are still Punjab/Hindi speakers in India, and Indian culture still exists, there are not any native speakers of Manx, and the culture does not exist.

Please read the part where i said at least tried to. Just because they failed does not mean it was okay.

[Planta Genista]

I disagree... There are still native speakers of Maori in New Zealand, and the Maori Culture us still practised. There are still Punjab/Hindi speakers in India, and Indian culture still exists, there are not any native speakers of Manx, and the culture does not exist.

Please read the part where i said at least tried to. Just because they failed does not mean it was okay.

No, but it failed is what I was trying to say. I have already stated in my first comment that it did bad things, but it did good things.

[Terra Mariana]

Even most ex-colonials today will acknowledge they were better off under British rule than they are now, under petty dictators and warlords of their own.

Not to mention that British Empire in 1914 marked the high point of the glorious Western civilization.

Yes, the high point of civillization, preparing to slaughter our broth- wait

Well, WWI kind of did mess things up, and WWII finished the job, breaking the iron spine of the West. Sad that we destroyed this splendour ourselves, something no Third World savage could ever hope to achieve. Now our civilization is like a fresh carcass, still mighty and still warm, yet dead, and deep down the bacteria are already starting to break it down. Sensing meal, Third World vultures now descend upon the West to devour the mighty beast of industrial steel and cold logic that once reigned the world.

[Parhe]

How about Korea? The Korean War was a civil war that everyone else decided by choice to get involved in.

How does this wrong statement have anything to do with what we were discussing?
It was not a civil war. Two newly independent countries went to war. One invaded the other.

the People's Republic of Korea was in 1946 was occupied by two different foreign powers in different area's, in preparation of creating a unified state. However, two different systems were created and created into a government of north and south, which did not recognize each other.
If this is not a civil war, how was the American civil war one?

[Parhe]

Please read the part where i said at least tried to. Just because they failed does not mean it was okay.

No, but it failed is what I was trying to say. I have already stated in my first comment that it did bad things, but it did good things.

It did do good and bad things, there you've got me as I also have been supporting this earlier, though I thought the thread died.
I still don't see how it failing makes the act any better though?

[Delanshar]

I'd say of the European Colonialist Empires, the British Empire was the best. It was definately a lot better than the barbaric Spanish Empire. It brought the light of European civilization to the rest of the world, with minimal side-affects (genocide, smallpox, etc)

[Vellosia]

Yes, the high point of civillization, preparing to slaughter our broth- wait

Well, WWI kind of did mess things up, and WWII finished the job, breaking the iron spine of the West. Sad that we destroyed this splendour ourselves, something no Third World savage could ever hope to achieve. Now our civilization is like a fresh carcass, still mighty and still warm, yet dead, and deep down the bacteria are already starting to break it down. Sensing meal, Third World vultures now descend upon the West to devour the mighty beast of industrial steel and cold logic that once reigned the world.

I like your analogies. And I'm inclined to agree.

[Casta Nal]

Lots of civilization at one point in there history were Empires, sure they did some good at the cost of taking control of another person's nation and being liberal with their resources...

[Salandriagado]

Sorry about the delay, internet troubles.

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."

No, that's "Britain massacred native peoples the world over, stole land and raped the world, bad", not "Britain exists, bad

[quoet]

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.[/quote]

Source for a single occasion on which the British (or hell, any) empire made things measurably better for the natives. I never said it does make you more evil. I said it doesn't make you less evil. Removing one nutjob and replacing him with your own is not a good thing. On what occasions did the natives request Britain to invade?

... 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.)

Oh yeah, the Westminster system was used for the political structures. After, mind you, they'd killed or otherwise persecuted the natives and largely replaced them with their own populations. The original question was not "was the British Empire better than most Empires" (a generally pretty damn bad bunch), it was "was the British Empire good" (possibly paraphrased, done from memory). Being better than other things does not make something good.

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?

No, I'm saying that Britain should have pulled out properly, by actually considering the natives when they drew in the new boundaries, to avoid stuff like this:

Political boundaries drawn by the British did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions, contributing to conflicts in formerly colonised areas. The British Empire was also responsible for large migrations of peoples. Millions left the British Isles, with the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand coming mainly from Britain and Ireland. Tensions remain between the white settler populations of these countries and their indigenous minorities, and between settler minorities and indigenous majorities in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Settlers in Ireland from Great Britain have left their mark in the form of divided Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland.

(Wikipedia, "British Empire#Legacy)

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.

See above.

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.

Yeah, the nations didn't accept it. Of course they didn't accept it, the borders were ridiculous.

[quote[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![/quote]

For gods sake, get some sense of scale please. They put the borders through the middle of the roaming grounds of nomadic peoples, forced ethno-religious groups that had never had anything to do with each other beyond some minor conflicts well back in the mists of time to acknowledge each other as part of the same countries and separated them from the people that they had known and worked with for centuries. This is a bit fucking different from having a couple of different religious people who have chosen to live next to each other.

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.

No. The money was used to bolster the BRITISH economy and to a lesser extent the economy of the settlers. The natives only came into it where they could help with those aims. The bolded parts do not follow from each other.

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.

Source? You're the one claiming that the Empire was a good thing without providing any significant evidence in favour of this point.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.)

Except they didn't leave it for the natives. Anything that was mobile was taken back, the rest was left to rot and some natives managed to fix it, with no help from Britain. And you are seriously claiming that the British didn't attack Indian culture? Really? Pretty sure that brutally murdering most of their leaders and forcing the remainder to change their actions to match the desires of the British is a fairly major attack on their culture. That also brings up the very interesting point of the 1857 rebellion, when the Indian people gave the most clear indication possible that they wanted independence, but weren't to gain it for the best part of another century.

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."

That is incoherent. It is blatantly obvious that my meaning was on moral matters, not technological ones. There is also a considerable difference between "this new technology might improve my ability to improve my (and others) quality of life" and "that guy's off killing some other people, let's join him".

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.

No, they were relatively stable before, and had been for centuries to millennia, depending on which bit of the empire you're talking about, with borders dictated by long-standing tradition, until the British turned up and put the borders in the wrong places. Because of that, and because of the British Empire making it its business by invading them in the first place, it is absolutely the business of the empire to deal with the results thereof. It is not a matter of being better than the other guy, as per the original question, it is a matter of being good, period.

Thus your contradictory statements

What? You will have to clear up precisely what I have said that is contradictory.




Size is singularly irrelevant. Take a look at Africa, for example. How many natives do you think got to vote on where the suspiciously straight borders that were more to do with ease of mapping than the people living there? It is the fault of the Empire because the Empire drew the fucking borders in stupid places. How many times does this have to be stated before you actually listen to it?



I said I can't remember any. Give me some examples. I post absolutely in regard to the question - "is it a good thing". Not "was [insert other empire here] worse". That is not a matter of debate. Invading other people for imperialistic reasons is bad, period. It infringes on the rights of the people living there. Unless you can provide some actual evidence, that isn't changing. They are not part of human nature, as there are plenty of countries that have never partaken in imperialism (ever heard of Luxembourg going for imperialism?). Have helped to shape the world we live in today does not imply good, it implies existed and did anything at all. I'm pretty sure that there's massacres that have helped to shape the world we live in today. I'm stating logical facts from a few basic ethical assumptions, namely:
1) infringing on the rights of other people is bad
2) forcing people to be part of your country against their will infringes on their right, particularly on a mass scale. (See the Berlin wall, it's a very similar situation, one forced people to join your country against their will, the other forced them to stay there)

[qutoe]"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."

Not even vaguely like what I said. At all. Strawman.

'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...

No, it asks for an opinion from your perspective, without considering the rights of anyone else involved, rather than the actual question, which asks you to weigh it from an empirical view.

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.

Works only from your perspective. I'm fairly sure there's plenty of people whose ancestors were killed by the Empire that would disagree with you.

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.)

Singularly irrelevant, ad hominem.

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!!)

Again, singularly irrelevant. If each and every problem was done purely on a local level, you might (just) have a point. Unfortunately, they weren't. They were, in many cases, centrally mandated and government approved.

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!!)

So a slightly different Greece would have existed. That does not equate to your original statement. Incidentally, point on Churchill was after the timeframe requested.



Once again, "everyone else is doing it" is not a viable argument. The fact remains that the British Empire encouraged and participated in war, which is singularly irrelevant to your point. That specific war would probably never have happened. That was the entire extent of the point I made. There are a million other ways that it would never have happened, notably that the Treaty of Versailles (heavily pushed for by the Empire and a considerable aid to Hitler coming to power) would never have been signed, or at least it would not have been as ridiculously punitive as it was, which would have reduced the probability of the war happening.



The Canadian SETTLERS chose. The people who lived their before didn't. Forcing people to fight for you in return for a basic right is still not a good thing. The bravery of the Indian soldiers has nothing to do with how the British compelled them to fight.



Aha, you have hit the proverbial nail squarely upon its proverbial head. Canada didn't exist. The native countries that were wiped out or persecuted by the empire did.

That was the intention. It does not, however, imply a final positive value. Going from a mass murderer to someone who merely enslaves and tortures millions is arguably an improvement, but that doesn't make slavery and torture a good thing.