NationStates Jolt Archive

Was it a good thing? Did it create the modern world we live in today? Can the cruelty that its people suffered (speaking specifically from an Irish point of view, but there are many other cases of cruelty throughout the empire) be forgiven for the advances gained in technology and eventually democracy? Discuss. Oh and sorry if this has been up before!

Well, it did create an infrastructure that allowed for effective opposition of the Nazis.

On the other hand, it oppressed and slaughtered countless amounts of natives.

So there's some of both in there.

Similar to the Romans...

Slaughtered a few 'peoples'... but the brought us straight roads :D

I like the Empire because my ancestors came from England, so their accomplishments are a source of pride. However, I also acknowledge that they did terrible things as well. Overall, I'd say the world would be worse off without the British Empire.

Like just about everything on this world, it has equal portions of good and bad.

Good! If there wasn't the British Empire, the France would still be dominating North America... :eek:

Come on, look at it! Even Australia turned out to be ok!

Like all things wordly, it has a mix of both. But, IMO, the good outweighs the bad in this case.

Well, it was certainly very big (http://www.safalra.com/other/britishempire.html), and bigger is better, right?

Well, it was certainly very big (http://www.safalra.com/other/britishempire.html), and bigger is better, right?

Colonies are cool. :cool:

As an Englishman, I'm pretty discusted by what we did. We used the world as a cash cow so the rich in England could get a whole lot richer. Eventually it screwed us but i think that serves us right.

However as one positive i think when you look at Africa and other areas our record on decolonisation, compared to other nations is to be admired.

Former British colonies fall into 2 categories, those that succeeded and those that didn't. The U.S., Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and New Zealand succeeded. Everything else didn't (maybe a few smaller nations I'm forgetting about). Many of the places are in shambles now. The big difference is that in most places the British killed off the natives and because the local population (with the exception of India, and New Zealand where the natives get along OK). In most cases the locals were left with no place in their own government, and when they were finally given independance there had been a century of people who had no experience or training in government.

The new institutions quickly fell apart.

The British Empire was a bad thing, it and the other European empires tended to either kill off or beat down entire races of people. Those that weren't killed got an even worse fate, they've been denied responsibility for generations and then had it foisted on them.

Colonization is not something to be proud of, and we're still paying for it with tons of relief money to fix problems we're directly responsible for.

Not when you are a native in the colony.

Former British colonies fall into 2 categories, those that succeeded and those that didn't. The U.S., Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and New Zealand succeeded. Everything else didn't (maybe a few smaller nations I'm forgetting about). Many of the places are in shambles now. The big difference is that in most places the British killed off the natives and because the local population (with the exception of India, and New Zealand where the natives get along OK). In most cases the locals were left with no place in their own government, and when they were finally given independance there had been a century of people who had no experience or training in government.

The new institutions quickly fell apart.

The British Empire was a bad thing, it and the other European empires tended to either kill off or beat down entire races of people. Those that weren't killed got an even worse fate, they've been denied responsibility for generations and then had it foisted on them.

Colonization is not something to be proud of, and we're still paying for it with tons of relief money to fix problems we're directly responsible for.

Very well said...please dont forget about Ireland tho!

I just voted and noticed most people voted "Yes". This is hysterical, and quite sad.

What the hell are you thinking. This is the forum full of people who are very liberal, against the Iraq war, often against the US, and some always bitching about how the US is "colonizing" and being so terrible in "invading other countries".

Yet you're proud of an empire which had legal segregation even as late as the 1980's, had government sponsored genocide of Indians, broke treaties, partook in Mercantilism, and beat unarmed protesters. Hyppocrites.

i like you lol

Yet you're proud of an empire which had legal segregation even as late as the 1980's,.

Umm...SA was independent by then.


had government sponsored genocide of Indians, broke treaties, partook in Mercantilism, and beat unarmed protesters. Hyppocrites

Can't deny this one.

Umm...SA was independent by then.



Can't deny this one.

Dont forget that the British invented what we now call "concentration camps" as a way of detaining and demoralising zulus and boers in late nineteenth century South Africa and contributed through their mismanagment to the halving of the Irish population in the mid nineteenth century...they did do some good though...first to abolish slavery (am i correct?) and introduce parliamentary democracy for instance...

Also, our spreading of English around the world layed the foundations for a powerful USA.

Also, our spreading of English around the world layed the foundations for a powerful USA.


One of your best contributions IMO. Thanks :)

Dont forget that the British invented what we now call "concentration camps" as a way of detaining and demoralising zulus and boers in late nineteenth century South Africa and contributed through their mismanagment to the halving of the Irish population in the mid nineteenth century...they did do some good though...first to abolish slavery (am i correct?) and introduce parliamentary democracy for instance...

Cant deny that either.

I have to admit that the way Queen Victoria supporteded Canada's quest for nationhood (thus influencing the Britsh Gov't. greatly) gives me a bias in favour of the Empire. But the way the oppressed the First Nations peoples and their horrible treatment of the Acadians, just to name examples from Canada's past, makes me think there were a lot of times where the Empire was a pretty horrible influence on the world. (Yes, Lousiana, you have the Brits to thank for your Cajuns)

As a French Canadian, I can't have a very positive view of the British Empire. We were, really, an opposition group. We rebelled in 1837-1838.
Well at least now we have the right to speak our language, thanks to modern liberties.

The brits were very rough with the Natives. In Quebec, we had to clean up the mess and sign a truckload of treaties through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. We had a lot of problem with the Mohawks, but they're the unlucky ones: their territory was Montreal, and we couldn't possibly give it back to them!
With the Inuit, Innu, Huron and other native people, we signed positive treaties and right now the relations are much better. Hey, they still exist as people and culture!
Quebec is really a land for survivors...

Yet you're proud of an empire which had legal segregation even as late as the 1980's

Eh?

Well, it was certainly very big (http://www.safalra.com/other/britishempire.html), and bigger is better, right?

Yellow? Since when has it not been pink? Some traditions you don't mess with.

Was it a good thing? Did it create the modern world we live in today? Can the cruelty that its people suffered (speaking specifically from an Irish point of view, but there are many other cases of cruelty throughout the empire) be forgiven for the advances gained in technology and eventually democracy? Discuss. Oh and sorry if this has been up before!
Pre-Victorian era, the Empire was more a tool of oppression and murder than anything else. After then, it became something of a nation builder. It was always the British who were countering Afrikaaner racism in South Africa, for example. They also brought democracy to India.

If not for the Brits, then there would be no Great American Imperium- err, Great American Republic :D

Anyways, who cares about what they did to Africa. Shaka showed that they could've fought back had they organized, but they let little things like tribal differences get in the way. They were outmaneuvered by the Europeans, simple as that, and since they're independant now they can clean up their own mess.

Aren't all polls supposed to have 'Myrth' options?

Dont forget that the British invented what we now call "concentration camps" as a way of detaining and demoralising zulus and boers in late nineteenth century South Africa and contributed through their mismanagment to the halving of the Irish population in the mid nineteenth century...they did do some good though...first to abolish slavery (am i correct?) and introduce parliamentary democracy for instance...
Thats the way i see it, some good, some bad.

ok, the United States of America would not have existed if it wasn't for the British empire, we spread the language across the globe, we introduced modernised civilisation to the world. Yes, we killed alot of people but this was a time frame of a totally different era. Racism was rampant, back then it wasn't considered wrong to enslave black people and natives were simply viewed as inferior.

The world would be about 100 - 150 years behind right now if it wasn't for the British Empire, and i am frankly proud to be british and have no shame of the british empire

ok, the United States of America would not have existed if it wasn't for the British empire, we spread the language across the globe, we introduced modernised civilisation to the world.
LOL

What good is a language? Why not another one?

And you haven't introduced modern civilization, you have plundered entire continents.

ok, the United States of America would not have existed if it wasn't for the British empire, we spread the language across the globe, we introduced modernised civilisation to the world. Yes, we killed alot of people but this was a time frame of a totally different era. Racism was rampant, back then it wasn't considered wrong to enslave black people and natives were simply viewed as inferior.

The world would be about 100 - 150 years behind right now if it wasn't for the British Empire, and i am frankly proud to be british and have no shame of the british empire

:confused:
we introduced modernised civilisation to the world
:rolleyes:
Yes, we killed alot of people :confused:


Interviewer : What do you think of western civilisation ?

Mohandas Gandhi : I think that might be a good idea !


have no shame of the british empire

Ever heard of Jalian Walla Bagh massacre ? Bengal Famine (3 to 4 million dead)?

Oh and that thing about shamelessly holding on to the loot stolen around the world (ex, Kohinoor).

Be very proud of being the museum of the world. :)

I'd like to thank the British Empire for spreading parliamentary system across the world, for showing that absolute monarchy can be limited, not only overthrown in a bloody uprising (although they tried the latter in 1640s). The Empire abolished slavery early on and did its best to curb the Atlantic slave trade. Unlike many other imperial states, Great Btitain continued to develop democratic institutions at home.

The British Empire was a cruel oppressive state, driven by tradng interests of British companies, that trampled on the lives of Natives. The results of its divide et impera policy are felt even today in many parts of the world.

For me the advantages of the British Empire outweigh the drawbacks. But that's for me.

I could only think of it as a good thing. After all, if there was nothing so completely bad my ancestors would have had no reason to flee.

ok, the United States of America would not have existed if it wasn't for the British empire, we spread the language across the globe, we introduced modernised civilisation to the world. Yes, we killed alot of people but this was a time frame of a totally different era. Racism was rampant, back then it wasn't considered wrong to enslave black people and natives were simply viewed as inferior.

The world would be about 100 - 150 years behind right now if it wasn't for the British Empire, and i am frankly proud to be british and have no shame of the british empire
*smacks you*

Then we wouldn't have the whole global warming problem now, would we?

As with any empire. even at the time of Alexander, there are the good and bad sides of it. Why would one travel hundreds and thousands of miles into foreign lands if not because we wanted something good for ourselves? Admittedly this would of course be the cause of misery for the local population, but then many good things also comes with the bad. i think even democracy has its bad sides. much like the Romans, the good thing about the empire is that it brought along its culture and technology to nations who were behind in such areas, though i think culture should be up to the local populace, but then i'm sure as much as the british spread their culture, they were a little bit influenced by the culture of others as well. Personally I think its wrong to simply say the british empire was good because it spread technology or language or culture, or to say it was evil for oppressing and killing so many natives. Just like human beings, there is a capacity of both evil and good in it.

I have to say mixed feelings. While the Brits were evil to blow China's doors open in 1839, without British protection I doubt whether Hong Kong could be as successful as today and whether I'd be alive at all.

... but then i'm sure as much as the british spread their culture, they were a little bit influenced by the culture of others as well.

No, that can't possibly be true. I utterly refute your statement. Now I'm going to sit down and enjoy a traditional British curry, maybe pop out for a kebab later... theres a nice little place near to the sikh temple in Neasden...

:D

The Empire created globablisation, which can be a good or bad thing depending on your point of view. It treated some natives pretty shittily, but the Royal Navy dedicated itself to stomping on the slave trade. It was an Empire of conscience and strong moral beliefs, though it imposed those ethics, morals and beliefs on others. It drew natural resources from countries, but built infrastructure that is still in heavy use by the former colonies. On the balance, its pretty... well, balanced.

The fact that it contributed to its own collapse in order to hold back an evil that would have treated everyone a couple thousand times worse I think weighs positively in its favour.

And the fact that it has contributed immensely to my personal enrichment certainly does. I might as well be honest.

as an Aussie, we generally dont like the Poms, they sent us wonderful people out here on prison ships, however, Cheers cause c'mon who would want to be stuck in damn dank dark dingy england! i luv the beach, and England doesnt have a 'real' beach, but when it comes to WW2, the pom's were absolute cowards! they sent us Aussies (and Canadians) to the front line to get the living daylights shot out of us, to protect the home boys, as a general rule they did improve the lively hood of their fellow englishman, the Anglo-saxon population of Australia is doing really well, the aboriginal community isnt as well off on average, altho theyre better than they were, currently, they really aren't doing us any harm, altho we dont need them any more, cant say im a republican, cause there really isnt any need for them to be out of our lives, altho we always seem to follow the poms into trouble... ect WW1, we had no reason at all to get involved, but once again, the Aussies helped a mate, a favour that wasn't returned in Vietnam or Korea... so as a general rule i see the english race as cowards, however, i do think that they were benificial to their own, which had fringe benifits for any natives in the area

One last things, Poms cant play sport! thank you, goodnight!

Eh?
The British empire may have been gone, but the system remained, and it's not like they tried to get rid of it.

How can you people say the US is colonizing, yet be proud of this? You didn't spread any civilization, you wrecked civilizations and imposed your own rulers. Western Europe single handedly manged to rape the African continent, and then you actually blame them for not setting up their own functioning governments. If you keep someone locked in a cage for 40 years and continually beat them, then one day open the door and just run away, would you expect them to function.

That's basically what you did. Most colonies went from being under full rule to having no troops in one week. That in itself was maybe worse than the actual colonization. It wasn't a kind act, it was a final slap in the face. You people are disgusting.

Racism is so deeply embedded on the European continent that even the liberals have it.

Racism is so deeply embedded on the European continent that even the liberals have it.

I'd dispute that. Other than a few nutjobs the majority of Europe can live with people's skin colour just fine. The US has it's fair share of this too.

The Empire had some good (India, America etc have become successful due in art to the Empire) plenty bad (Africa, concentration camps, 'moral duty' to invade 'backward' peoples).

as an Aussie, we generally dont like the Poms, they sent us wonderful people out here on prison ships, however, Cheers cause c'mon who would want to be stuck in damn dank dark dingy england! i luv the beach, and England doesnt have a 'real' beach, but when it comes to WW2, the pom's were absolute cowards! they sent us Aussies (and Canadians) to the front line to get the living daylights shot out of us, to protect the home boys,

Learn your history, the only time that happened was with the attack on Dieppe. If you acutally look at the accounts the Australian commanders they wanted to show what Australians could do on the battle field.

If we were such cowards then we would have put you guys into Arnhem..but we chose not to.

Now had you said world war 1 that might have been different...oops nope wrong again because if you remember British troops were busy being slaughtered on the fields of France and Belgium.

That's basically what you did. Most colonies went from being under full rule to having no troops in one week. That in itself was maybe worse than the actual colonization. It wasn't a kind act, it was a final slap in the face. You people are disgusting.

Yes, because each and ever European alive today was part of at least one colonial administration :rolleyes:

Racism is so deeply embedded on the European continent that even the liberals have it.


So much hot air, so little substance....

Racism is so deeply embedded on the European continent that even the liberals have it.

...Really?....i am racist?.....perhaps my pal nathan (black- british/african) is racist as well.....

One last things, Poms cant play sport! thank you, goodnight!


Swing low
Sweat chariot

Well, one good thing it help spread the Irish all over the world, so we can spread the program of taking it over with great whiskey and stout. However some of us are still wandering...

Yes, because each and ever European alive today was part of at least one colonial administration :rolleyes:




So much hot air, so little substance....
Of course not, but an awful lot of the Europeans here are saying they supported it, and at the same time you're the same people against the Iraq war. You can support the British empire, but to turn around and berate the US is hyppocritical.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9134951&postcount=30

we introduced modernised civilisation to the world
Hmm, I think that was part of the justification for the Iraqi invasion, as democracy comes with this civilization thing. Most of the invaded countries had thriving civilizations which were painted as barbaric. There were even great African leaders, but we know almost nothing about them because all written works were burned and cities destroyed.

So, how can you support the British Empire because it modernized the world, but not support the Iraq war. We didn't enslave the Iraqis (for the record I don't support either). At least be consistent.

The racism thing does hold truth, so don't talk about "hot air and no substance". The US had it's share of racism, but the difference is that it's out in the open. With the civil rights movement, things were brought to the surface. The KKK hoods came off, and it no longer became an acceptable thing. There are racists, but they're in the open. In Europe, there was no such movement. The last shreds of racism are still embedded, they weren't brought to the surface. And besides, you people have been saying it yourself for 3 pages, many of you honestly believe that these places had no culture before Europe. Hell, it was the Muslims who were most responsible for pulling Europe out of the middle ages.

Of course not, but an awful lot of the Europeans here are saying they supported it, and at the same time you're the same people against the Iraq war. You can support the British empire, but to turn around and berate the US is hyppocritical.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9134951&postcount=30


Hmm, I think that was part of the justification for the Iraqi invasion, as democracy comes with this civilization thing. Most of the invaded countries had thriving civilizations which were painted as barbaric. There were even great African leaders, but we know almost nothing about them because all written works were burned and cities destroyed.

So, how can you support the British Empire because it modernized the world, but not support the Iraq war. We didn't enslave the Iraqis (for the record I don't support either). At least be consistent.

That's quite the leap of reason.

Some Europeans were against the Iraq war.
Some Europeans think favourably of the British Empire.

Therefore Europeans are hypocrites

:confused:

I agree that it is hypocritical to hold both views, but to label all Europeans as hypocritical for this is inane.

Like saying Americans are hypocritical for both being racist and anti-racist.

Some Americans are racist.
Some Americans are anti-racist

Therefore Americans are hypocrites.

The racism thing does hold truth, so don't talk about "hot air and no substance". The US had it's share of racism, but the difference is that it's out in the open. With the civil rights movement, things were brought to the surface. The KKK hoods came off, and it no longer became an acceptable thing. There are racists, but they're in the open. In Europe, there was no such movement. The last shreds of racism are still embedded, they weren't brought to the surface. And besides, you people have been saying it yourself for 3 pages, many of you honestly believe that these places had no culture before Europe. Hell, it was the Muslims who were most responsible for pulling Europe out of the middle ages.

What? You really are showing your ignorance here. There have been many similar movements and counter movements in Europe over civil rights for minorities.

And the idea that an area needs to go the same route as the US to exhume latent racist feelings is just absurd.

And please stop treating us like when one speaks they speak for all of us. That's just absurd too. You are making erroneous assumptions about us based on your prejudices and the thoughts of a few.

One last things, Poms cant play sport! thank you, goodnight!

England are going to beat you in this years ashes tour, you cant deny it...i mean...you lost to somerset!

Well, one good thing it help spread the Irish all over the world, so we can spread the program of taking it over with great whiskey and stout. However some of us are still wandering...

hahaha :D

I'd like to thank the British Empire for spreading parliamentary system across the world, for showing that absolute monarchy can be limited, not only overthrown in a bloody uprising (although they tried the latter in 1640s). The Empire abolished slavery early on and did its best to curb the Atlantic slave trade. Unlike many other imperial states, Great Btitain continued to develop democratic institutions at home.

The British Empire was a cruel oppressive state, driven by tradng interests of British companies, that trampled on the lives of Natives. The results of its divide et impera policy are felt even today in many parts of the world.

For me the advantages of the British Empire outweigh the drawbacks. But that's for me.

You hit the nail on the head by pointing out Britain's Imperial policy of 'divide et impera' or 'divide and rule'. Its still being felt all over the world today, the french canadian question, northern ireland, india-pakistan, south africa, middle east, somalia-somaliland and other examples. This system of governance and oppression, along side unfair trading tarriffs, can be seen as the most negative aspects of the British empire in that there effects can still be seen today.

Personally, I am totally against the British Empire - as a British Citizen, I am disgusted by not only what was carried out (and yes, a lot of good was done in places) but the attitude with which it was done. Good may have resulted, but it was all totally self-serving, and even with 'natives' whom the British liked they were patronised and seen only as one small step above the native animals of the countries.

Let us look at some current and ongoing trouble spots around the world,

The situation in:

Ireland - a result of British colonisation

Cashmere - also a result of British colonisation

Cypress - you guess

Israel - stupid bloody brits. You don't promise them both your support in 1947 and then bugger off because you're sure the side you promised more to will win anyway...

On the other hand, it gave Israel red post boxes, so it can't all be bad, can it mate? Saved me bother trying to look for foreign looking ones

considering i am an uper class british person...i-..no to hell with it...

Rule, britania, britania rules the wa waves...etc

considering i am an uper class british person...i-..no to hell with it...

Rule, britania, britania rules the wa waves...etc

Heh heh heh, at least you're sticking up for your roots, nothing wrong with that. Don't get me wrong - although I hate the Empire, Britain itself saved my family from certain death, so I'm kinda fond of it in a deeply cynical and crotchety way

You hit the nail on the head by pointing out Britain's Imperial policy of 'divide et impera' or 'divide and rule'.

Imperial Britain also divided the Indians into "Aryans" and "Dravidians" by employing Max Mueller into inventing this mythical white skinned Aryans who conquered the Indus Valley.

This was used as a justification for the British rule.. "hey we did it once and gave you darkies civilisation , we are doing it again, now be quiet" ;)

Of course this idea of racial superiority was taken up by German nationalists and Hitler and went to its extreme absurdities resulting in WW II.

Ah I love it when the Empire bashers descend with their 1960s revisionist histories. It is so nice to crush them.

1. Slavery

The British Empire was the first nation to permanently ban slavery (France did after their Revolution but Napoleon reversed that), banning the slave trade in 1806 and finally finishing off the job in the 1830s. However an often neglected part of history is that the British naval superiority was then used to quash slavery in many other countries. The British navy effectively blockaded the slave trade. The British were responsible (mostly) for the slave trade in the first place but they are one of the few countries who tried to correct their injustice and put their wealth into preventing that abombinable trade. Not many other countries can claim this.

2. India

India is the best example for the British Empire being a benefit for a colony. Prior to the British occupation of India, it was a split land of squabbling kingdoms, most of which were ruled by a Muslim minority left over from the Mughal Empire. The British united India politically and geographically for the first time and thus essentially made the modern nation of India.

The British Empire introduced education to India, establishing many of its finest universities which still stand today as well as many countless schools that still exist throughout the country. This education system still produces some of the finest minds ever seen, including Mahatma Gandhi (who also went to Oxford or Cambridge to study law).

The British introduced a government burecracy to India based on the British Civil Service. This firm, burecratic base is what has made India the largest and one of the most stable democracies in the world. Without it, democracy would not have had a stable base upon which to grow and develop.

The British concept of common law was introduced and for the first time, justice was no longer arbitary but instead decided upon in courts fairly. The issue of caste became irrelevant before justice.

The British also brought industrial and economic experience to India. Huge amounts of British capital was invested in developing Indian industry which meant machinery and factories were introduced. Railways, roads and communications networks were also introduced and as such industrial India was born. The British businessmen brought their experience to the Indians who were able to use it to make their own businesses and thus help self dependency.

Finally, religion and culture was not quashed in India as many will claim it was. In fact, British missionaries were forbidden from leaving British encampments for a time so as to maintain the goodwill of the local religion. Many of the British administrators and judges sent out were expected to learn local languages, customs and religion so they could do their jobs better. The British often took excessive care in the case of India to ensure the religions were protected as such issues were extremely vulnerable - they triggered the Indian Mutiny of 1858 where a rumour (it was in fact false)spread that the British used cow and pig fat to grease the bullets of their guns.

As you can see, the British gave to India (and places like Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even America) a great deal of useful and beneficial things that have allowed to flourish into world class powers.

3. Massacres

It is a common myth spread by anti imperialists liberals that the British massacred many of the natives but this is in fact not true. The few massacrs that did occur (the Amistar massacre,the treatment of the Boer civillians and the Irish famine) were isolated events during many years of British rule.

Some of these 'massacres' have been blown out of proportion altogether. For example the creation of concentration camps in the Boer War is often granted the definition attributed toi Nazi concentration camps. However the concentration camps were not intended to mass murder their inhabitants. They were instead intended to keep the Boer women and children out of the way of the war that was in process throughout the cities of South Africa. However due to dire standards of hygene, many of the women and children died. This is trully horrendous but it was not done out of malice - it was due to ignorance of hygene and clinical conditions that caused the large body count, not a wish to racially exterminate the Boers.

The same is true of the Irish famine - the British cannot claimed responsible for the failure of the potato crops. Indeed during the first year of the famine, the Conservative government under Peel did set up an effective aid package which held off the worst of the famine for a year. They also repealed the Corn Laws with Ireland in mind but that act allowed the Liberals to gain power. It was held by the Liberal governments of that age that in order to attain self dependence from Britain, the colonies had to learn to deal with their own problems. This, combined with racial steroetypes of the lazy Irish and a general ignorance of the British government as to the situation in Ireland, caused the worst years of the famine. Although this is not excusable, it is at least clear that the Irish situation was not caused by a malicious desire to exterminate the Irish population, as is held by nationalist historians. It was a terrible miscalculation not a genocide.

In conclusion, it is apparent that the British Empire did far more good than bad if viewed from an objective and unemotive viewpoint. The systems which it gave to its colonies have enabled many of them to become world class powers with strong economies and strong democracies. The British Empire certainly did some bad things but are they any worse than those committed by over nations? Americans often forget their attempt at racial exterrmination when they tried to clear the Indians out of their continent. In comparison to many of the European Empires, the British Empire stands out as the most liberal of them all.

Land of Hope and Glory
Mother of the Free
How shall we extol thee
Who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider
Shall thy bounds be set
God, who made thee mighty
Make thee mightier yet...
God, who made thee mighty
Make thee mightier yet

Oh how I love those words *teary eyed*

Imperial Britain also divided the Indians into "Aryans" and "Dravidians" by employing Max Mueller into inventing this mythical white skinned Aryans who conquered the Indus Valley.

This was used as a justification for the British rule.. "hey we did it once and gave you darkies civilisation , we are doing it again, now be quiet" ;)

Of course this idea of racial superiority was taken up by German nationalists and Hitler and went to its extreme absurdities resulting in WW II.

I sense you really dont like the empire much.... *waves swastika.*

Imperial Britain also divided the Indians into "Aryans" and "Dravidians" by employing Max Mueller into inventing this mythical white skinned Aryans who conquered the Indus Valley.
LOL
The Dravidians are probably descendants of the original Indus Valley civilization. They had built large cities, domesticated animals, and perfected agriculture long before most other civilizations did. Even before the Egyptians. So hmmm, I'd say Dravidians should be proud of what their ancestors did. Whatever the color of their skin. Duh.

So what's the big deal about Indo Aryans, except the fact that they had a language loosely related to European languages, a brutal society based on castes, and no interesting architecture whatsoever.

If I had to choose an extinct civilization, , I'd choose the Hittites. They were Indo-Europeans too, they kicked Assyrian ass, had a cold war with Egypt, and they invented iron weaponry. Not bad.

I sense you really dont like the empire much.... *waves swastika.*

Lol, there are a million swastikas from where I come from.

yep. I have no love lost for the imperial and colonial Britain.

Ah I love it when the Empire bashers descend with their 1960s revisionist histories. It is so nice to crush them.
I've been to India, and I'd say that most people there wouldn't agree with you.
If Indians have profited *so much* from the British Empire, why aren't they happy about their colonial past? Why don't they thank the British people on an everyday basis?

I'm not talking about Berkeley hippies here, who see things from a 10,000km distance... I'm talking about real, educated Indians I've met in their own country.

PS: In British India, if a carpet weaver tried to sell his carpets himself, without relying on a British merchant, he had his hand cut. In fact, the whole economic system in colonial India was based on British merchants making huge profits. Just look at the rich mansions in Kashmir and Assam. Wow. Thanks Empire.

I've been to India, and I'd say that most people there wouldn't agree with you.
If Indians have profited *so much* from the British Empire, why aren't they happy about their colonial past? Why don't they thank the British people on an everyday basis?

I'm not talking about Berkeley hippies here, who see things from a 10,000km distance... I'm talking about real, educated Indians I've met in their own country.

PS: In British India, if a carpet weaver tried to sell his carpets himself, without relying on a British merchant, he had his hand cut. In fact, the whole economic system in colonial India was based on British merchants making huge profits. Just look at the rich mansions in Kashmir and Assam. Wow. Thanks Empire.

Children dont like taking medicine yet its good for them. Colonies do not like imperialism yet it was (in many ways) good for them.

Also many view it from an entirely emotive view point which is not wise to take when discussing history as it leads to the destruction of objectivity.

It's impossible to say that something in history was "good" or "bad." I think if I had lived in the 18th or 19th centuries, I would have opposed imperialism because the motivations behind it were profit, nationalism and ignorance. However, seeing as how I enjoy my situation in the world today, I can't exactly condemn the historical events that brought me to this wonderful middle class house in the USA.

Children dont like taking medicine yet its good for them. Colonies do not like imperialism yet it was (in many ways) good for them.

Also many view it from an entirely emotive view point which is not wise to take when discussing history as it leads to the destruction of objectivity.

Completely and utterly correct

Children dont like taking medicine yet its good for them. Colonies do not like imperialism yet it was (in many ways) good for them.
I don't see how economic exploitation would be considered a "medicine" to anything.

That's quite the leap of reason.

Some Europeans were against the Iraq war.
Some Europeans think favourably of the British Empire.

Therefore Europeans are hypocrites

:confused:

I agree that it is hypocritical to hold both views, but to label all Europeans as hypocritical for this is inane.

Like saying Americans are hypocritical for both being racist and anti-racist.

Some Americans are racist.
Some Americans are anti-racist

Therefore Americans are hypocrites.


Alright, bad wording. this forum tends to be against the Iraq war, for the most part. I'd say more than half. Almost half think the British empire was good, and way more than half think it was good or neutral.

Therefore, there must be an overlap between those 2 groups. That overlap is full of hyppocrites.

Alright, bad wording. this forum tends to be against the Iraq war, for the most part. I'd say more than half. Almost half think the British empire was good, and way more than half think it was good or neutral.

Therefore, there must be an overlap between those 2 groups. That overlap is full of hyppocrites.

Fair enough. Im a hypocrite. *grumbles*

anything that lets me say the word "hegemony" can't be all bad..

Ah I love it when the Empire bashers descend with their 1960s revisionist histories. It is so nice to crush them.


like how you crushed the natives ? ;)


2. India
The British Empire introduced education to India

:rolleyes:
Britain introduced "English" to India. Its educational instituitions made us a nation of clerks, to serve the british administration.

Prior to the "english education", Many provinces had their own educational systems in their own respective languages.

It's not like you have to know English to be counted as "educated".

establishing many of its finest universities which still stand today as well as many countless schools that still exist throughout the country.


The finest Universities of India like the IITs, RECs, IISc etc were all established after Independance.

The Macaulay system of education that the British established was primarily oriented to produce clerks and "Gumastas" and Brown Sahibs.

in Macaulay's own words,
http://www.geocities.com/bororissa/mac.html
I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books, I would abolish the Madrassa and the Sanscrit college at Calcutta. Benares is the great seat of Brahmanical learning; Delhi, of Arabic learning. If we retain the Sanscrit college at Benares and the Mahometan college at Delhi, we do enough, and much more than enough in my opinion, for the Eastern languages. If the Benares and Delhi colleges should be retained, I would at
least recommend that no stipends shall be given to any students who may hereafter repair thither, but that the people shall be left to make their own choice between the rival systems of education without being bribed by us to learn what they have no desire to know. The funds which would thus be placed at our disposal would enable us to give larger encouragement to the Hindoo college at Calcutta, and to establish in the principal cities throughout the Presidencies of Fort William and Agra schools in which the English language might be well and thoroughly taught.

more about Macaulay,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1833macaulay-india.html
I have conversed both here and at home with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves.
I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.
..
We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.

here's more of how the Macaulay education wrecked the native type.
http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/kbn001.html


The British also brought industrial and economic experience to India. Huge amounts of British capital was invested in developing Indian industry which meant machinery and factories were introduced.
..
The British businessmen brought their experience to the Indians who were able to use it to make their own businesses and thus help self dependency.


Bollocks. ;)

Britain WRECKED the local industries. The colonial policies favored dumping of mass produced items over local industries which made many jobless. Many contend that this dumping of goods from britain and destruction of local industries as the main factors behind the rise of poverty in India after the 17th century.

for ex, in the early 1800s imports of Indian cotton and silk goods faced duties of 70-80%. British imports faced duties of 2-4%!

As a result, British imports of cotton manufactures into India increased by a factor of 50, and Indian exports dropped to one-fourth! A similiar trend was noted in silk goods, woollens, iron, pottery, glassware and paper. As a result, millions of ruined artisans and craftsmen, spinners, weavers, potters, smelters and smiths were rendered jobless and had to become landless agricultural workers.

here's some stuff on comparitive wages
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n158/ai_20466711#continue
Rethinking wages and competitiveness in the eighteenth century: Britain and South India

Some statistics.
Quoting from the Chapter Shaking the Pagoda tree in the book, the people of India
Between 1814 and 1835 the number of Indian cotton piecegoods imported into Britain fell from 1,250,000 pieces to 306,000 pieces; by 1844 the number had dwindled to 63,000 pieces. During the same period British cotton manufactures exported to India rose from less than 1,000,000 yards to over 51,000,000 yards. The value of Indian cotton goods exported between 1815 and 1832 fell from 11.3 million to below £100,000, whereas the value of English cotton goods imported into India rose from £26,000 to £400,000. India had for centuries exported cotton goods to the whole world; her fine fabrics were
used four thousand years ago by Egyptians to wrap their mummies and were prized by the Greeks under the name of "gangetica"; but by 1850 she was importing one-fourth of all British cotton exports.

Other British products poured into India alongside of cotton goods. Between 1818 and 1836 the export of cotton twist from England expanded 5,200 times. Silks, woolens, ironwork, pottery, glass and paper were sent to India in ever increasing quantities. Indian steel had been well-known throughout the world. The famous Damascus blades were forged from steel imported from Hyderabad in India. In a previous chapter mention has been made of the superb iron column in Delhi. "In India steel was used for weapons, for decorative purposes and for tools," writes D. H. Buchanan, "and remarkably high grade articles were produced. . . . Remains of old smelting furnaces found throughout India are essentially like those in Europe prior to modern times. . . .

"The Agarias, or iron smelting caste, were widely dispersed, and the name lohara (from "loha," iron) is applied to a great many districts producing iron ore. But the introduction of cheaply made European iron has taken away nearly all their trade, and most Agarias have turned to unskilled labor."

The policy of discouraging the development of industries in the colonies was applied to the American colonies as well. For example, when the smelting of iron had reached some importance in New England in the eighteenth century, the manufacture of iron and steel goods there was prohibited, and the raw iron had to be shipped across the Atlantic to England, from where the Americans had to import manufactured iron goods for their own use.

The Indian spinners, weavers, and other artisans and handicraftsmen, lacking modern machinery and without State protection, were completely ruined. In England, too, hand-looms had been displaced by modern machinery; but the unemployed handicraft workers had been sponged up by the factories springing up everywhere. But in India there was no compensating development of industries, nor was such development permitted.

Within a short time the prosperous, old, populous manufacturing towns of India were in ruins. Dacca, Murshidabad, Surat, Tanjore, and other places were as desolate as though a pestilence had swept over them. "The population of the town of Dacca has fallen from 150,000 to 30,000 or 40,000," testified Sir Charles Trevelyan at the Parliamentary enquiry in 1840, "and the jungle and malaria are fast encroaching upon the town . . . Dacca, which was the Manchester of India, has fallen off from a very flourishing town to a very poor and small one; the distress there has been great indeed." "The decay and destruction," declared the historian Montgomery Martin at the same enquiry, "of Surat, of Dacca, of Murshidabad and other places where native manufactures have been carried on, is too painful a fact to dwell upon. I do not consider that it has been in the fair course of trade; I think it has been the power of the stronger exercized over the weaker." And in 1890 Sir Henry Cotton wrote: "Less than a hundred years ago the whole commerce of Dacca was estimated at one crore (ten million) of rupees, and its population 200,000 souls. In 1787 the exports of Dacca muslin to England amounted to 30 lakhs (3 million) of rupees; in 1817 they had ceased altogether. The arts of spinning and weaving, which for ages afforded employment to a numerous and industrial population, have now become extinct. Families which were formerly in a state of affluence have been driven to desert the towns and betake themselves to the villages for a livelihood . . . This decadence has occurred not in Dacca only, but in all districts. Not a year passes in which the Commissioners and District officers do not bring to the notice of Government that the manufacturing classes in all parts of the country are becoming impoverished."

Millions of dispossessed and disinherited artisans and craftsmen, spinners, weavers, potters, tanners, smelters, smiths, and others were leaving the towns. But where could they go? Ironically enough, connection with the first industrialized country in the world brought a retrogression in the economy of India; where the unemployed British handicraft workers had flocked to the rising industrial metropolises, the Indians were forced to return to the villages and fall back on agriculture. This was the beginning of the terrible overpressure on land which to this day remains one of the most pressing problems of Indian economy.

India was not only to be exploited as a market for British goods, but as a producer of raw material as well. Thomas Bazley, President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, declared before the 1840 Parliamentary Committee: "In India there is an immense extent of territory, and the population of it would consume British manufactures to a most enormous extent. The whole question with respect to our Indian trade is whether they can pay us, by the products of their soil, for what we are prepared to send out as manufactures."

This was simple and clearcut enough. Even before Bazley spoke, in 1833, Englishmen were given permission to acquire land and set up as planters in India. Slavery had been abolished the same year in the West Indies; but the plantation system which developed in India merely skirted the laws against slavery. In fact, there was a rush from America and the West Indies of planters experienced in handling slaves, who brought their own ideas and practices with them. An example of how they operated is furnished by the Indigo Commission of 1860, which was set up as a result of violent outbreaks in the indigo plantations. It was found that the planters treated the workers as slaves, cheated them in the measure of the land and of the weed, put them in stocks, flogged and otherwise oppressed them. Dinabandhu Mitra, the great dramatist of Bengal, exposed the condition of indigo workers in a brilliant play, Nil Darpan (The Mirror of Indigo). The play was proscribed, and Rev. James Long, a missionary, was fined and imprisoned by the High Court of Calcutta for translating this play into English. European indigo planters were curbed after 1859.

Conditions were no better in tea plantations. Simple peasant men and women were bound down by penal clauses, upon their signing a contract, to work in "tea gardens" (sic) under appalling conditions. The contract signed by the plantation workers was aptly termed by Indians "the Slave Law," and workers received no relief until the twentieth century.

The export of raw material from India increased rapidly, especially after 1833. In 1813, India exported 9 million pounds of raw cotton; in 1833 it was 32 million; in 1844 it was 88 million, and in 1914 it had risen to 963 million pounds.

Export of sheep's wool rose from 3.7 thousand pounds in 1833 to 2.7 million in 1844; linseed from 2,100 bushels in 1833 to 237,000 bushels in 1844.

There were similar rises in jute and other raw materials. The rise in the export of food grain was equally steep. In 1849 it was valued at £858,000; in 1858 it rose to £3.8 million; in 1877 it was £7.9 million; in 1901 it had grown to £9.3 million; and by 1914 it bad reached the sum of £19.3 million.

India thus became an agricultural colony of British capitalism.





3. Massacres

It is a common myth spread by anti imperialists liberals that the British massacred many of the natives but this is in fact not true. The few massacrs that did occur (the Amistar massacre,the treatment of the Boer civillians and the Irish famine) were isolated events during many years of British rule.


It is the manner in which the massacres occured and the aftermath of these massacres that define the British Imperialism.

Case in point. Jalian Walla Bagh massacre.

1650 rounds of .303-inch ammunition were fired at a gathering of 20,000 unarmed civilians in a closed space, who were peacefully protesting the Rowlatt Act (legislation put in place to allow British authorities to arrest any Indian without a trial, even on a suspicion of sedition.)

official count 379, unofficial more than 1000.

It should be noted that the shooting stopped because the troops ran out of bullets.

The Poet Rabindranath Tagore renounced his Knighthood after this incident.
"The time has come when the badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part, wish to stand shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings".
(Tagore's Protest letter to the Viceroy on May 31, 1919, renouncing Knighthood.)

It should also be noted Gen.Dyer was not punished for this. He was let go free by Michael O'Dwyer, the Lt. Governor of Punjabwho supported him.

For this, a Sikh, Udham Singh came all the way to England and shot dead O'Dwyer at Caxton Hall in London.

Oh and lest I forget, the man made famines of Bengal !!

bet you did'nt know that small thing about 30 MILLION people dying in various man made famines cause by british policies
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Famine
The exports of food, appropriation of arable land, and price inflation dangerously disrupted the local Bengali harvests and agriculture, leading in 1943 to the onset of a massive famine similar to those which had killed over 30 million Indians in the late 1800s. Lord Mountbatten, the British commander in Southeast Asia, and Lord Wavell, the Viceroy of India at the time, both endeavoured to draw attention to and provide food aid to citizens in the famine-stricken regions. However, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill was opposed to any changes in the Bengal policy.

The Bengal Famine ultimately killed 3-4 million Bengalis by starvation. American author Mike Davis and Indian author Amartya Sen specifically linked the 1943 famine and its predecessors in the region to British policies in the state of Bengal. Sen was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998 for his studies of the Bengal and other famines in Asia and Africa.

more about the bengal famines.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s19040.htm
Bengali Famine
Summary:
The famine in British-ruled Bengal in 1943-44 ultimately took the lives of about 4 million people. The speaker talks of how this man-made famine is absent from the history books and virtually unknown to most people.

Gideon Polya

I have recently published a book -- "Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial Rapacity, Holocaust Denial and the Crisis in Biological Sustainability" -- that deals with the two century holocaust of man-made famine in British India and its effective deletion from history. It deals with this "forgotten holocaust" that commenced with the Bengal Famine of 1769-1770 (10 million victims) and concluded with the World War II man-made Bengal Famine (4 million victims) and took tens of millions of lives in between. The lying by omission of two centuries of English-speaking historians continues today in the supposedly "open societies" of the global Anglo culture. This sustained, continuing lying by omission in the sophisticated but cowardly and selectively unobservant culture of the Anglo world has ensured that very few educated people (including Indians) are aware of these massive past realities. In contrast, nearly all are aware of the substantially fictional "Black Hole of Calcutta" of 1756 that demonized Indians and indeed became part of the English language.

Such deletion of unpleasant realities from history is described in my book as "Austenizing" after Jane Austen, whose elegant novels were utterly devoid of the ugly social realities of her time. While Jane Austen’s family and others related to it were intimately involved in the rape of India, it was perfectly legitimate for Jane Austen, the artist, to remove social horrors from her exquisite literary canvas. However, the continuing Austenizing of British Indian history is a holocaust-denying outrage that ultimately threatens humanity by ignoring the massive man-made famine disasters of the British Raj and hence the underlying causes of racism, greed and moral unresponsiveness.

Repetition of immense crimes against humanity such as the World War II Holocaust is made much less likely when the responsible society acknowledges the crime, apologizes, makes amends and accepts the injunction: "Never again." However, when it comes to the horrendous succession of massive, man-made famines in British India, no apology nor amends have been made and it is indeed generally accepted that such horrors will be repeated on an unimaginably greater scale in the coming century. While British prime minister Tony Blair has apologized for the mid-19th century Irish famine that killed over a million people, he has not even commented on the mid-20th century man-made famine in British-ruled Bengal that took four million lives. (He is aware of this, having acknowledged receipt of a copy of my book).

In the World War II Bengal Famine, when the price of rice rose above the ability of the landless rural poor to pay and in the absence of a humane colonial government, millions simply starved to death or died of starvation-related causes. While there was plenty of food potentially available, the price of rice rose as a result of a number of factors including the following: cessation of imports from Japanese-occupied Burma; a massive war-time decline in requisite grain imports into India; a deliberate strategic slashing of Indian Ocean shipping by Churchill; British seizure of rice stocks in certain sensitive areas of Bengal; the seizure and destruction of boats critically required for food acquisition and distribution; the failure to actually declare a famine under the colonial Famine Code and the "divide and rule" policy of giving the various Indian provinces control over their own food reserves. "Market forces" determined that industrial Calcutta, cashed up as a result of the wartime boom, was able to pay for rice and sucked food out of a starving, food-producing countryside.

The 1943-1944 Bengal Famine was accompanied by a vast multitude of starvation, near-death and terminal horrors. The world is rightly indignant about the large-scale, wartime "comfort women" abuses of the Japanese Army. However, it is not aware of the civilian and military sexual abuse of starving Bengali women and girls that was conducted on such a massive scale that it is reflected in demographic survival statistics. Ultimately millions suffered and died because their colonial British rulers did not care for them. Their ultimate ruler, wartime British prime minister Winston Churchill, had a confessed hatred for Indians, confiding to the Secretary of State for India in 1942 that "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." Not surprisingly, the Bengal Famine, that was responsible for 90% of total World War II British Empire military and civilian casualties, is not mentioned in Churchill’s 6-volume "History of the Second World War." Churchill astonishingly asserts in his book: "No great portion of the world’s population was so effectively protected from the horrors and perils of the World War as were the people of Hindustan. They were carried through the struggle on the shoulders of our small Island."

It was in the following way that my book was inspired, in part, by Jane Austen's writings. My father was a refugee to Australia from Nazi Europe in 1939 and I am deeply conscious of the Holocaust that wiped our extensive and gifted family from the face of Europe. I always had a deep interest in history and one can readily imagine my consternation on learning of the Bengal famine of 1943-1944 and the massive loss of life involved through the film Distant Thunder made by the pre-eminent filmmaker Satyajit Ray. My consternation turned to indignation when I turned to my large personal library to find that an event of a similar magnitude to the Jewish Holocaust and occurring at the same time was comprehensively absent, except for a brief, 3-word mention in a German historical encyclopaedia. Recourse to a major university library quickly established the reality of this "forgotten holocaust" but also confirmed the outrageous, near-comprehensive deletion from British history of this man-made disaster, and indeed two centuries of such crimes against humanity in British India.

My wife, Zareena, is a Fiji Indian whose grandparents went to Fiji from Bengal and Bihar as indentured labourers for the British. She introduced me to Jane Austen’s work Northanger Abbey and a key passage finally precipitated my literary and historical journey. Jane Austen was aware of the prolonged public trial of Warren Hastings, an important family connection, and the allegations against him of immense crimes against humanity in India. In Northanger Abbey, the heroine Catherine Morland, spooked by the gloomy abbey, surmises that Henry Tilney’s father may have done away with Henry’s mother. Henry reproves her thus:

"If I understand you rightly, you have formed a surmise of such horror as I have hardly words to. Dear Miss Morland, consider the dreadful nature of the suspicions you have entertained. What have you been judging from? Remember the country and the age in which we live. Remember that we are English, that we are Christians. Consult your own understanding, your own sense of the probable, your own observation of what is passing around you. Does our education prepare us for such atrocities? Do our laws connive at them? Could they be perpetrated without being known, in a country like this, where social and literary intercourse is on such a footing, where every man is surrounded by a neighbourhood of voluntary spies, and where roads and newspapers lay everything open? Dearest Miss Morland, what ideas have you been admitting?"

The world currently has a population of about six billion, of whom about two billion suffer food scarcity and nearly one billion suffer chronic malnourishment. About twenty million die prematurely each year from starvation-related causes. Conservative, status quo estimates would predict thirty million such deaths per year by 2050. If by 2050 the Third World returns from the current annual mortality of about 10 per 1000 to the 35 per 1000 obtaining in British India in 1947, then we will see an "excess mortality" of a staggering 200 million people per year. This is nevertheless avoidable provided there is a global moral responsiveness in our economically globalized world of a kind absent in relation to both the searingly remembered Jewish Holocaust and the now "forgotten" Bengal Famine of 50 years ago. That responsiveness is only possible if past, present and likely future man-made famine holocausts are unavoidably, remorselessly and continually presented to global public perception.

World over-population is the basis of the current mounting crisis in global sustainability and must be urgently addressed. Clearly greatly increased female literacy as well as Third World debt relief and enhanced economic security represent effective partial solutions. Humane solutions can and indeed must be found -- we cannot walk by on the other side. We must resurrect the "forgotten holocausts" of colonial India and resolve: "Never again."

It should be noted that Independant India never had any more famines like those after the British left.


In conclusion, it is apparent that the British Empire did far more good than bad if viewed from an objective and unemotive viewpoint.


British empire was good to those who derived benefits from it. This includes the elites of the natives.

But to the vast majority of the natives it was a disaster.

The British Empire certainly did some bad things but are they any worse than those committed by over nations? Americans often forget their attempt at racial exterrmination when they tried to clear the Indians out of their continent. In comparison to many of the European Empires, the British Empire stands out as the most liberal of them all.

I shudder to think what a "conservative" British empire would have done. :rolleyes:

I've been to India, and I'd say that most people there wouldn't agree with you.
If Indians have profited *so much* from the British Empire, why aren't they happy about their colonial past? Why don't they thank the British people on an everyday basis?

I'm not talking about Berkeley hippies here, who see things from a 10,000km distance... I'm talking about real, educated Indians I've met in their own country.


True.

More and more Indians are coming out of this "white-washed" colonial past (pun intended :D )

I would say a lot of revisionism is going on in areas like the Aryan invasion theories, India always poor theories, etc.

Just because we take it from where the British left ( in terms of infrastructure, system of governance etc) it does not mean that we all love the British empire or feel good about it.

I mean, come on, its not like , if not for the British, India would have never progressed, eh? :rolleyes:

And it's not like these things were done for the betterment of the natives.

Every policy and action were designed for the interests of the colonial power and whatever good that came out were unintended consequences and as such should be viewed along with the overall policy and not as a stand alone thing.

anything that lets me say the word "hegemony" can't be all bad..


Dare I say it again.....hegemony.... The word rolls off the tongue like magic..

like how you crushed the natives ? ;)


:rolleyes:
Britain introduced "English" to India. Its educational instituitions made us a nation of clerks, to serve the british administration.

Prior to the "english education", Many provinces had their own educational systems in their own respective languager.

It's not like you have to know English to be counted as "educated".



The finest Universities of India like the IITs, RECs, IISc etc were all established after Independance.

The Macaulay system of education that the British established was primarily oriented to produce clerks and "Gumastas" and Brown Sahibs.

in Macaulay's own words,
http://www.geocities.com/bororissa/mac.html


more about Macaulay,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1833macaulay-india.html


here's more of how the Macaulay education wrecked the native type.
http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/kbn001.html



Bollocks. ;)

Britain WRECKED the local industries. The colonial policies favored dumping of mass produced items over local industries which made many jobless. Many contend that this dumping of goods from britain and destruction of local industries as the main factors behind the rise of poverty in India after the 17th century.

for ex, in the early 1800s imports of Indian cotton and silk goods faced duties of 70-80%. British imports faced duties of 2-4%!

As a result, British imports of cotton manufactures into India increased by a factor of 50, and Indian exports dropped to one-fourth! A similiar trend was noted in silk goods, woollens, iron, pottery, glassware and paper. As a result, millions of ruined artisans and craftsmen, spinners, weavers, potters, smelters and smiths were rendered jobless and had to become landless agricultural workers.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2279/is_n158/ai_20466711#continue
Rethinking wages and competitiveness in the eighteenth century: Britain and South India

Quoting from the Chapter Shaking the Pagoda tree in the book, the people of India






It is the manner in which the massacres occured and the aftermath of these massacres that define the British Imperialism.

Case in point. Jalian Walla Bagh massacre.

1650 rounds of .303-inch ammunition were fired at a gathering of 20,000 unarmed civilians in a closed space, who were peacefully protesting the Rowlatt Act (legislation put in place to allow British authorities to arrest any Indian without a trial, even on a suspicion of sedition.)

official count 379, unofficial more than 1000.

It should be noted that the shooting stopped because the troops ran out of bullets.

The Poet Rabindranath Tagore renounced his Knighthood after this incident.[quote]
"The time has come when the badges of honour make our shame glaring in their incongruous context of humiliation, and I for my part, wish to stand shorn of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so-called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings".
(Tagore's Protest letter to the Viceroy on May 31, 1919, renouncing Knighthood.)[quote]

It should also be noted Gen.Dyer was not punished for this. He was let go free by Michael O'Dwyer, the Lt. Governor of Punjabwho supported him.

For this, a Sikh, Udham Singh came all the way to England and shot dead O'Dwyer at Caxton Hall in London.

Oh and lest I forget, the man made famines of Bengal !!

bet you did'nt know that small thing about 30 MILLION people dying in various man made famines cause by british policies
.

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


more about the bengal famines.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s19040.htm
Bengali Famine
Summary:
The famine in British-ruled Bengal in 1943-44 ultimately took the lives of about 4 million people. The speaker talks of how this man-made famine is absent from the history books and virtually unknown to most people.

Gideon Polya



It should be noted that Independant India never had any more famines like those after the British left.



British empire was good to those who derived benefits from it. This includes the elites of the natives.

But to the vast majority of the natives it was a disaster.



I shudder to think what a "conservative" British empire would have done. :rolleyes:

Your sources are mostly biased, many of them from clearly Indian viewpoints. As mentioned before, it should be noted that imperialism must be looked at objectively rather than through the eyes of those under it.

Your sources are mostly biased, many of them from clearly Indian viewpoints. As mentioned before, it should be noted that imperialism must be looked at objectively rather than through the eyes of those under it.

We are discussing British Empire. India was the "Jewell in the crown" of the British empire.

I fail to see why a "clearly Indian viewpoint" becomes automatically biased.

imperialism must be looked at objectively rather than through the eyes of those under it

Yes Yes. Imperialism must be looked at objectively ONLY through the eyes of those above it, viz, the imperialists themselves.

"unbiased" opinion

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/10/21/the-flight-to-india/

The Flight to India

The jobs Britain stole from the Asian subcontinent 300 years ago are now returning. Is this a good thing or a bad one?

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 21st October 2003

If you live in a rich nation in the English-speaking world, and most of your work involves a computer or a telephone, don’t expect to have a job in five years’ time. Almost every large company which relies upon remote transactions is starting to dump its workers and hire a cheaper labour force overseas. All those concerned about economic justice and the distribution of wealth at home should despair. All those concerned about global justice and the distribution of wealth around the world should rejoice. As we are, by and large, the same people, we have a problem.

Britain’s industrialisation was secured by destroying the manufacturing capacity of India. In 1699, the British government banned the import of woollen cloth from Ireland, and in 1700 the import of cotton cloth (or calico) from India.1 Both products were forbidden because they were superior to our own. As the industrial revolution was built on the textiles industry, we could not have achieved our global economic dominance if we had let them in. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, India was forced to supply raw materials to Britain’s manufacturers, but forbidden to produce competing finished products.2 We are rich because the Indians are poor.

Now the jobs we stole 300 years ago are returning to India. Last week the Guardian revealed that the National Rail Enquiries service is likely to move to Bangalore, in south-west India. Two days later, the HSBC bank announced that it is cutting 4000 customer service jobs in Britain, and shifting them to Asia. BT, British Airways, Lloyds TSB, Prudential, Standard Chartered, Norwich Union, BUPA, Reuters, Abbey National and Powergen have already begun to move their call centres to India. The British workers at the end of the line are approaching the end of the line.

There is a profound historical irony here. Indian workers can outcompete British workers today because Britain smashed their ability to compete in the past. Having destroyed India’s own industries, the East India Company and the colonial authorities obliged its people to speak our language, adopt our working practices and surrender their labour to multinational corporations. Workers in call centres in Germany and Holland are less vulnerable than ours, as Germany and Holland were less successful colonists, with the result that fewer people in the poor world now speak their languages.

<snip>

So is the flight to India a good thing or a bad thing? The only reasonable answer is both. The benefits do not cancel out the harm. They exist, and have to exist, side by side. This is the reality of the world order Britain established, and which is sustained by the heirs to the East India Company, the multinational corporations. The corporations operate only in their own interests. Sometimes these interests will coincide with those of a disadvantaged group, but only by disadvantaging another.

For centuries, we have permitted ourselves to ignore the extent to which our welfare is dependant on the denial of other people’s. We begin to understand the implications of the system we have created only when it turns against ourselves.

"unbiased" opinion

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/10/21/the-flight-to-india/

I would agree with you on every point you have made. Not only India, but Britain did little or nothing for the majority of Ireland and its only Ireland's position geographically and the fact that so many of its sons and daughters went to england, australia and the states, raising money and support that it has to thank for it not being an LEDC (Less Economically Developed Country) like most ex-British colonies (south of the equator anyways).

I would agree with you on every point you have made. Not only India, but Britain did little or nothing for the majority of Ireland and its only Ireland's position geographically and the fact that so many of its sons and daughters went to england, australia and the states, raising money and support that it has to thank for it not being an LEDC (Less Economically Developed Country) like most ex-British colonies (south of the equator anyways).

Thank you.

As such I do not have any hatred for modern day Britain/British folks. I regret the way history has happened and since it is history, we have no choice but to move on and make good of our present and future.

But it gets my goat when someone tell me that I was enslaved and my country colonised for my own good :confused:

And this canard that India was a British creation while clearly Indians had a consciousness of themselves as a common people. (see here (http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305879))


Let's see some excerpts and quotes from "unbiased" sources

source: India: A World in Transition - By Beatrice Pitney Lamb p. 71 & 358.
Much of the wealth that made possible Britain's Industrial Revolution was earned, fairly or unfairly, within her Indian empire. In seventeenth century India had been far wealthier than England, the relative positions were sharply reversed by the end of the nineteenth century. Then, too, the British policy of free trade tended to prevent the development within India of the mechanized industries then coming into being in the West. Densely populated, with no new land to exploit and with a centuries-long history of invasions, India faced severe economic handicaps at independence. Ironically, India was seen by Western travelers in classical times and in the Middle Ages as a land of fabulous wealth.

The very word "LOOT" is a Hindi word which entered the English lexicon after the battle of Plassey, a momentous battle in which Robert Clive defeated the Nawab of Bengal by bribing the Nawab's uncle Mir Jaffar (who controlled the artillery) to defect. British rule started after this battle.

From India Britannica - By Geoffrey Moorhouse c. prologue.

Lord Curzon in 1901, one of 11 viceroys of British India (from 1898 to 1905), said
"While we hold onto India, we are a first rate power. If we lose India, we will decline to a third rate power. This is the value of India."


Edmund Burke:
Speech in Commons on India, 1783

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1783Burke-india.html

Despite the act if 1773, there were still concerns about the administration of India.

... Our conquest there, after twenty years, is as crude as it was the first day. The natives scarcely know what it Is to see the grey head of an Englishman. Young men (boys almost) govern there, without society, and without sympathy with the natives. They have no more social habits with the people, than if they still resided in England; nor, indeed, any species of intercourse but that which is necessary to making a sudden fortune, with a view to a remote settlement. Animated with all the avarice of age, and all the impetuosity of youth, they roll in one after another; wave after wave; and there is nothing before the eyes of the natives but an endless, hopeless prospect of new flights of birds of prey and passage, with appetites continually renewing for a food that is continually wasting. Every rupee of profit made by an Englishman is lost for ever to India.


The seggregation practiced by the Brits was even more humiliaring. "Dogs and Indians not allowed" were the signboards in many "European only" clubs.

The Discovery of India - By Jawaharlal Nehru. p.295

In India every European, be he German, or Pole or Rumanian, is automatically a member of the ruling race. Railway carriages, station retiring rooms, benches in parks, etc. are marked 'For Europeans Only.' This is bad enough in South Africa or elsewhere, but to have to put up with it in one's own country is a humiliating and exasperating reminder of one's enslaved condition.

About the "British gave India the Railways" thing, again it is not like the Indians would have never built railroads. The purpose of the railroad was to exploit India more efficiently and quickly. Not for the betterment of the natives.

Mark Tully's article.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/04/17/tully.column/
But above all was the fear that the railways would not make money.

This problem was eventually solved by issuing bonds with interest guaranteed by the Indian tax payer.

So it was a win-win situation for Britain -- Indians took the risk and the British got trains that brought cheap cotton to the ports to be exported to the mills of Manchester and then distributed the cloth they manufactured to outlets throughout India.

From American historian Will Durant book "A Case For India"

It might have been supposed that the building of 30,000 miles of railways would have brought a measure of prosperity to India. But these railways were built not for India but for England; not for the benefit of the Hindu, but for the purpose of the British army and British Trade. If this seems doubtful, observe their operation. Their greatest revenues come, not as in America, from the transport of goods (for the British trader controls the rates), but from the third-class passengers – the Hindus; but these passengers are herded into almost barren coaches like animals bound for the slaughter, twenty or more in one compartment. The railroads are entirely in European hands, and the Government refuse to appoint even one Hindu to the Railway Board. The railways lose money year after year, and are helped by the Government out of the revenues of the people. All the loses are borne by the people, all the gains are gathered by the trader. So much for the railways.


btw, I forgot to mention what was the treatment given to Gen.Dyer who ordered and supervised the Jalianwallah Bagh massacre.

Though he was censured by the House of Commons, he was exonerated by the House of Lords and was given an honourable discharge, a purse of 80,000 pounds and a bejewelled sword inscribed 'Saviour of the Punjab'. :eek:

It was a great burden, this white man's burden. I guess us ingrates should be happy for being enslaved and colonised.

What do us "children" know of the "medicine" administered to us? :rolleyes: