Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Az]

Sure, I admitted it was laughable, but people keep mentioning the benefits of western culture as if the colonizers actually cared to transmit these things. The British did a fair job of teaching natives about a brand new way of looking at warfare, showed them the perfect example of oppressive government, methods of brutality that rivalled the native culture's if not surpassed. I still don't see the British systematically transmitting the humanitarian or educational merits of western society to all of the native cultures they colonized. You say that colonization did this quicker then more peaceful means would have but what has it done? In most cases the British ruled for centuries and it can't be clearly said that in most cases they left the natives better off then when they came.

As you said yourself, the local ways of governing of the colonized people were often quite a match to the worst of the colonizers. This goes even with comparison to the Spaniards.

But imperialism and colonialism brought you lots of technological developements that wouldn't exist without the US ( which is a product of colonialism ), as well as introduced crops to the old world that enabled it's population to grow immensly.

I'd say that it was a mixed blessing.

[MRT144]

azazel, dont you realize nobody wants grey answers, they only want black and white.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
But imperialism and colonialism brought you lots of technological developements that wouldn't exist without the US ( which is a product of colonialism ), as well as introduced crops to the old world that enabled it's population to grow immensly.

I'd say that it was a mixed blessing.

This is a weird arguement since the technological advancements made in America didn't happen because of colonialism or because there were a bunch of europeans in America. Its equally possible that they could have happened in Europe.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ramo
Bengal was an extremely rich area prior to British colonization, certainly one of the richest areas in the world. Clive considered Dhaka comparable to London. The region had very advanced industry for the day, in terms of textiles as well as shipbuilding and metalworking. The region produced high quality cotton.

bull****.

Civilizations collapse from within, not from outside forces, (normally, the Boer war is an exception)
if they were so rich, educated and prosperous they would have spent a couple of coppers on guns
and been organized enough to defend themselves.
It was the beening not organized that usually was fatal.
Stagant 14th century societies don't usually survive contact with 18th century ones. Romantic paradises
these places were not, so cut the noble savage bull****.

[Az]

This is a weird arguement since the technological advancements made in America didn't happen because of colonialism or because there were a bunch of europeans in America. Its equally possible that they could have happened in Europe.

Not it isn't. Colonialism pushed the european economies a lot, even though it was done through the inneficient economy of mercantilism ( or completely wasted, in the case of Spain. should've kept them jews. Stoopid. ). It was one of the enabling factors of the advancement of philosophical thinking, science, and technology.

Also, the sheer increase in human population is a very hefty plus.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

However, without the Brits, I'd say the India subcontinent would remain one whole country instead of splintered into a few.

I strongly disagree. Before the British began scarfing up the subcontinent India was divided into continually warrring petty states. The last of the great Moghul emporers, Aurangzeb, had doomed his empire to split apart by instituting a host of policies that discriminated against the Hindus. Moderate Muslim princes deserted the empire, and rebel Hindu states gradually gained in power.

The British didn't divide and conquer India, it was already divided and ripe for conquest, In fact native princes eagerly assisted the British for just such a reason. Modern historians consider the Plessey as the decisive battle between the British and the French. It was this battle that decided which power would dominate India. The reason the British won however was because both Hindu and Muslim alike feared the intrusion of crusading Christianity into their terrirtory. The night prior to the battle a British general promised the native allies of the french that the British would never send missionaries into their domains. The next day the majrity of the native troops allied with the French refused to fight and the french were utterly defeated. The British won India because native rulers thought them to be the lesser of two evils.

Finally, you have to realize that the nation of India is largely a British invention. In its 4000 year history prior to British domination India was unified for a total of only about 100 years. Prior to British rule there was no linguiistic unity either. Modern Indians like to point out that the majority of the inhabitants of India speak Hindi, or dialects that are more closely related than Spanish and Portugese. They fail to take into account that in the 19th century the British encouraged linguistic unity both by requiring that native documents be written in Hindi, and by actually re-writing the dialects of the subcontinent to make them more compatible.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The same thing with Israel or Palestine as it was. The British ruled with the optimism that they could do no wrong and somewhat good intentions, but when it seemed that there was no good solution to the mess they made they booked and let the cards fall where they may. This is a perfect example of the 'benefits' of British colonization.

Palestine fell into their hands as a result of WW1, not by
an evil imperial plot. They never wanted it. The Jews and
Arabs were already there, fighting away as they have for time immerorial,why would they spent British lives and treasure on the thankless and profitless task of chasing down terrorists like Begin for a worthless strip of sand and rock.

[Ned]

One could summarize this thread in terms of the omlette. It was made, but a few eggs were broken in the process.

Just a couple of points: I don't recall any time in recorded history where India was united under one rule. The Brits got very close. The result was a vast commonwealth from Afghanistan to Thailand. This certainly was better for everyone within its borders when compared to what preceded it. This commonwealth was comparable the Roman Empire which brought to the people of the Empire a vast commonwealth stretching from Hadrian's wall in Britannia to Parthia.

The ability to trade across vast distances without substantial risk of piracy coupled with the absence of war inside the borders of the commonwealth by itself allowed civilization to advance at a rapid pace.

[Az]

Palestine fell into their hands as a result of WW1, not by
an evil imperial plot. They never wanted it. The Jews and
Arabs were already there, fighting away as they have for time immerorial,why would they spent British lives and treasure on the thankless and profitless task of chasing down terrorists like Begin for a worthless strip of sand and rock.

Now I know you don't know anything about history of this place. The first violent clash between Jews and arabs occured in the 20s. The brits were there already.

They may have not wanted this place for more than a connection between two very important regions ( Egypt, and the Gulf Region), but saying that they were forced to take it, or something similar, is ... strange.

[Az]

One could summarize this thread in terms of the omlette. It was made, but a few eggs were broken in the process.

Less pinkcoloured glasses please.

lots of bad things happened. But overall, the result was positive. We, all humanity, should learn about all of it's consequences.

[Seeker]

Heh, watch 'Lawrence of Arabia'...there is a lot of truth in that movie about the Anglo-French wheeling dealing in 1914-19....

Although one should note that Zionist immigrants had been going to whatever the Ottomans called the 'holy' land since the 1870s, there were already a lot of dedicated jewish colonists who had been there for decades, as ned said generally fighting over some scrub desert.

There would have been Israeli-Palestinian fighting regardless.

[Ramo]

Civilizations collapse from within, not from outside forces, (normally, the Boer war is an exception)

That's an absurd generalization. Are you saying that it's impossible for one region to impoverish another?

In this specific circumstance, British trade barriers de-industrialized India. That's the nature of imperialism between industrialized regions.

if they were so rich, educated and prosperous they would have spent a couple of coppers on guns and been organized enough to defend themselves.

Rome was conquered by uncivilized Germanics. China was conquered by uncivilized Mongols and later Manchus, etc., etc. Economic prosperity doesn't determine military success. BTW, Bengal was under the rule of the Mughal Empire prior to British conquest; another example of lowtech conquering hightech.

There are a number of reasons why the Brits were able to conquer Bengal - the Mughal authority in Delhi was practically impotent, the provincial governor of Bengal was hated by Bengalis, the Brits were far more seasoned at war, etc.

It was the beening not organized that usually was fatal.

Yes, the instabilities of Indian politics guaranteed British conquest. I never said otherwise.

Stagant 14th century societies don't usually survive contact with 18th century ones.

It wasn't a stagnant 14th century society. Again, it was comparable to England in the 18th century. It was an industrialized, prosperous society by the standards of the day.

Romantic paradises
these places were not, so cut the noble savage bull****.

I never said Bengal was a "romantic paradise" or that Bengalis were "noble savages." I said that prior to British conquest, Bengal was economically comparable to England. And British rule changed that.

[Az]

True, that.

A very imprortant thing is to differentiate between the Semi-nomadic arabs, and the sedementary arabs. Lawrence of Arabia dealt with the former, while the jewish-arab conflict is the later.

[Ned]

Ozz, I do not claim to have a complete picture of the relationship between the Jews and the Arabs/Muslims, but for most of history, the relationship was very good. The Jews actively cooperated with the Arabs in their "liberation" of Jerusalem in 632. As the Arab conquered West through Roman territories in Africa, the Jews again cooperated. The Berbers were Jewish or had a substantial Jewish population when they surrendered in the late 600's. They converted in name only. Next the Jews of Hispannia called for help from the Berbers when the Goths began forcing them to convert or die. As a result, the Jews cooperated with the Berber/Arab invasion of the early 700's.

In recognition of the Jewish/Arab alliance, the Arabs allowed the Jews to practice their faith openly and granted them special privileges. The result was a golden age of learning and scientific advancement in Arabia.

I believe the relationship between the Jews and the Arabs remained cordial and mutually supportive until 1920. The Arabs had been promised Palestine as a part of the deal with the Brits to revolt against the Turks. When the Brits renegged on that deal and took over Palestine - and the French took over Damascus and kicked Faisal off the throne of Syria - which included Palestine - Faisal and the Arabs of Palestine revolted against the British Mandate. The revolt extended to the Jews living in Palestine at that time.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned
Just a couple of points: I don't recall any time in recorded history where India was united under one rule. The Brits got very close. The result was a vast commonwealth from Afghanistan to Thailand. This certainly was better for everyone within its borders when compared to what preceded it. This commonwealth was comparable the Roman Empire which brought to the people of the Empire a vast commonwealth stretching from Hadrian's wall in Britannia to Parthia.

India was never as large as it was under British rule, but then the British even incorporated Burma into India for awhile. Asoka's empire incorporated the Indus valley, the Gangeitic valley, the central plains and a large part of southern India, and so in my opinion could be considered a unified India. His empire fell apart within a generation. Two other dynasties, including ther Moghuls, prior to British rule managed to nearly achieve this feat. None of them managed to hold on to even three of the four zones (Indus, Ganges, Central, South) for more then one or two generations.