British Empire - Good or Bad?

[SD_Film Artists]

I wonder where you'd draw the line there.

Nazi Germany and Japan were imperial, and i think many would agree that British empire forces were no where near as oppresive as they

What I mean is, how isolated does a country have to be before it's non-imperial?

[Vestr-Norig]

All nations based on imperialism are bad, including Britain

Name one country that has never used force to try and expand its borders and influence. I'll even believe you.

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

[Muspelheim II]

What kind of world was Nazi Germany living in as opposed to the British when they were making their empire? It's downright stupid to try and impose modern day ethics and morality to people who lived 200-300 years ago, they had completely different outlooks on a ton of things.

Maybe I should make a thread saying how the Roman Gladiatorial games were barbaric, or how the Aztecs and Mayans were bloodthirsty savages that pretty much deserved to be wiped out.

Maybe you should, I agree the games were barbaric and the Aztecs and Mayans were somewhat savage like. But I wouldn't call them exactly bloodthirsty, and I wouldn't say they deserved to be wiped out.

You wouldn't call them bloodthirsty? The Aztecs used to sacrifice thousands of people at a time for their gods. The Spanish on entering Tenochtitlan commented on the stench of dead bodies and were horrified by the brutal scenes they witness (okay it may be biased but it still holds some water). How much more would you like for it to be considered blood thirsty?

[SD_Film Artists]

Name one country that has never used force to try and expand its borders and influence. I'll even believe you.

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

Are you kidding me? Saxon England disagrees. And if we're going by modern times; Libya.

[Parhe]

Name one country that has never used force to try and expand its borders and influence. I'll even believe you.

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

Other than Iceland, they all did, except possibly Finland

[Vestr-Norig]

I wonder where you'd draw the line there.

Nazi Germany and Japan were imperial, and i think many would agree that British empire forces were no where near as oppresive as they

I would disagree. You only have to look to Ireland, how natives were discriminated and how badly the Brits treated the Irish

[Shikarta]

I never have, nor will I ever identify myself as British. I've always identified myself as Scottish when asked for a nationality, or as an ethnic Gael when asked for ethnicity.

Why not, though? If a Highland Gael is able to appreciate their Scottishness that is shared with the Lowlanders who discriminated against them, then why on Earth is the notion of also appreciating what one shares with England, Northern Ireland and Wales so unpalatable?

I suppose it's because we're both somewhat ashamed of being 'British', and also because our indigenous culture(s) may be effaced by a British identity. To perhaps oversimplify it, it's a reaction against a perceived threat.

[Parhe]

Maybe you should, I agree the games were barbaric and the Aztecs and Mayans were somewhat savage like. But I wouldn't call them exactly bloodthirsty, and I wouldn't say they deserved to be wiped out.

You wouldn't call them bloodthirsty? The Aztecs used to sacrifice thousands of people at a time for their gods. The Spanish on entering Tenochtitlan commented on the stench of dead bodies and were horrified by the brutal scenes they witness (okay it may be biased but it still holds some water). How much more would you like for it to be considered blood thirsty?

The reason I say this is because I think of bloodthirsty as killing for mere fun, but the Aztecs killed in believe in a God, though I believe they were pretty flawed.

[Greto]

It helped spread values of freedom, democracy, and industry it also spread Anglo culture and the English language it also has given rise to some of the most powerful nations of Earth(America and Canada) though like all other Great Powers it has it's dark side including the genocide of the native populations of the Americas with the highest estimate I have ever seen was 50 million by different things mostly warfare and spread of European diseases(this can also be blamed on all the other European powers as well).

[Angleter]

Why not, though? If a Highland Gael is able to appreciate their Scottishness that is shared with the Lowlanders who discriminated against them, then why on Earth is the notion of also appreciating what one shares with England, Northern Ireland and Wales so unpalatable?

I was born in Scotland, that is the nation and country I was born in. I do not like the culture of the Lowlands, nor do I "appreciate it". All I can do is say the country I was born in. There are Americans who are not proud to be American, does this mean they can't call themselves americans? I'm Scottish, because it's the country I was born in, but I'm proud of the Highland Culture I was raised in.

But by that definition, you're also British, since the Union has yet to be dissolved. Would you favour an independent Highlands?

[SD_Film Artists]

Why not, though? If a Highland Gael is able to appreciate their Scottishness that is shared with the Lowlanders who discriminated against them, then why on Earth is the notion of also appreciating what one shares with England, Northern Ireland and Wales so unpalatable?

I suppose it's because we're both somewhat ashamed of being 'British', and also because our indigenous culture(s) may be effaced by a British identity. To perhaps oversimplify it, it's a reaction against a perceived threat.

I'm from Norfolk and proud of it, but I still fly the union jack.

[Vestr-Norig]

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

Other than Iceland, they all did, except possibly Finland

Norway wasn't formed before 1905, although it existed as a medieval kingdom, until after the black death. I'm not sure about Switzerland, but they have been neutral for centuries

[Vellosia]

Overall, well into the good zone. Had its bad times and its good times, but I think the good far outweighs the bad.

[SD_Film Artists]

Other than Iceland, they all did, except possibly Finland

Norway wasn't formed before 1905, although it existed as a medieval kingdom, until after the black death. I'm not sure about Switzerland, but they have been neutral for centuries

Funny that, the Scottish Nats here seem to like forgetting 1900, or indeed anytime post-union.

[Parhe]

It helped spread values of freedom, democracy, and industry it also spread Anglo culture and the English language it also has given rise to some of the most powerful nations of Earth(America and Canada) though like all other Great Powers it has it's dark side including the genocide of the native populations of the Americas with the highest estimate I have ever seen was 50 million by different things mostly warfare and spread of European diseases.

Many tribal groups have freedom, I believe, more than when they were occupied, and though they did have democracy in the home islands, I believe it was pretty much oppressed in the colonies themselves. I do agree that in most cases industry was developed, for selfish reasons but still. The spread of Anglo culture and the English language wouldn't exactly be a good or bad aspect, and had America or Canada not become powerful nations, others would have, whether good or bad the consequences.

[Shikarta]

I suppose it's because we're both somewhat ashamed of being 'British', and also because our indigenous culture(s) may be effaced by a British identity. To perhaps oversimplify it, it's a reaction against a perceived threat.

I'm from Norfolk and proud of it, but I still fly the union jack.

How anyone can be 'proud' of wherever they arbitrarily happened to be born, I'll never understand. Nevertheless I suppose the reason the English are so quick to adopt a British identity is because English and British culture are largely synonymous, which forms part of what I was trying to explain above.

England has also always been the 'centre' of the Union, politically, culturally and geographically, so it makes sense that those cultures at the periphery should be less inclined to join in.

[Lackadaisical2]

Name one country that truly shaped the world without racking up a body count.

So 'shaping' the world according to your own culture excuses the committing of crimes against humanity, does it?

It can be, if your culture is worthwhile.

[Parhe]

Other than Iceland, they all did, except possibly Finland

Norway wasn't formed before 1905, although it existed as a medieval kingdom, until after the black death. I'm not sure about Switzerland, but they have been neutral for centuries

Those would still be of the same people and culture for the most part, wouldn't it. That is as if ignoring all the past dynasties of China.

[Matthew De Vareil]

Well, given that the most apparent and noticeable product of the British Empire is America, and that if the British had stayed home, we'd probably be dealing with the Mexican Empire today, you decide whether that would have been good or bad.

If it wasn't for the 13 colonies, I'd live in Liverpool.
British Empire was definatley a good thing

[Parhe]

So 'shaping' the world according to your own culture excuses the committing of crimes against humanity, does it?

It can be, if your culture is worthwhile.

That seems very biased, claiming one culture to be better than another.

[Angleter]

Name one country that has never used force to try and expand its borders and influence. I'll even believe you.

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

Finland: Continuation War 1941-44.
Norway: the Vikings?
Iceland: Granted, but they did establish Vinland, and what would've happened to them had it survived is up for debate.
Switzerland: Switzerland grew in number of cantons throughout the medieval era, but admittedly not too often by force.

[Lackadaisical2]

Living in a former British colony, Canada, I feel, on the whole, that the impact of the British Empire was equally good and bad, in various aspects and various places. I still oppose it on the basis, however, that the idea of empire is unappealing to me, and I believe that people everywhere should be able to manage their own affairs. I'm also opposed to it from a colonial perspective, and think that areas that were colonized by Europeans and had their native populations nearly wiped out - the Americas and Oceania in particular - should be returned, where possible, to their original inhabitants.

All the original inhabitants died a loooong time ago.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm from Norfolk and proud of it, but I still fly the union jack.

How anyone can be 'proud' of wherever they arbitrarily happened to be born, I'll never understand. Nevertheless I suppose the reason the English are so quick to adopt a British identity is because English and British culture are largely synonymous, which forms part of what I was trying to explain above.

I thought you were Scottish, but your views seem to be that of an American or other person who isn't familier with Britain and its history- mistaking "Britain" for "England".

England has also always been the 'centre' of the Union, politically, culturally and geographically, so it makes sense that those cultures at the periphery should be less inclined to join in.

Care to elaborate? The only thing that made Britain more English is that the capital is in England and majority of Britons are English. Though the average Englishman is no more British than the average Scot.

[H-Alba]

I was born in Scotland, that is the nation and country I was born in. I do not like the culture of the Lowlands, nor do I "appreciate it". All I can do is say the country I was born in. There are Americans who are not proud to be American, does this mean they can't call themselves americans? I'm Scottish, because it's the country I was born in, but I'm proud of the Highland Culture I was raised in.

But by that definition, you're also British, since the Union has yet to be dissolved. Would you favour an independent Highlands?

I would favour an independent Scotland that allows more recognition of the Gaelic Culture and Language then that of the current UK.

[Vestr-Norig]

To expand one nation's borders if the area culturally, religious and etnic, as well as historical belongs to the nation, is not imperialism. If the nation takes by force others nations or areas, where the people is not willing to be a part of that nation, and do not culturally belong to the nation, is imperialism. Imperialism is bad, while nationalism is good.

And nations that have never used force to expand its borders and influences; Finland, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, just to mention a few

Finland: Continuation War 1941-44.
Norway: the Vikings?
Iceland: Granted, but they did establish Vinland, and what would've happened to them had it survived is up for debate.
Switzerland: Switzerland grew in number of cantons throughout the medieval era, but admittedly not too often by force.

Finland: they defended themself against the soviet union, they only wanted to ceep on to their current land
Norway: That is a reaaly long time ago, and Norway first got independence as the nation we see today in 1905
Iceland: Yes, Vikings from Western Norway did settle in Iceland, Greenland and Vinland, but truly this can't be compared to the British imperialism in modern history?