Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Seeker]

hee...sedimentary Arabs must grow in the desert, over thousands of years?....sorry, I'm an English instructor.

Yes, the action, etc deal with the bedouin, but I'm thinking more of the sequences dealing with General Allenby and his discussions of what to do with the Arabs while in Damascus.

If you've seen the movie, you'll note that David Lean puts some words into the Saudis' mouth when he says 'we are fighting for Damascus' (i.e. a unified Arab state).

The point is that the Arabs revolted from the Ottomans because they wanted an independant Arab state, which was promised to them in non-binding gentlemans agreement terms, which they were unsophistcated enough to believe. When the war was over, witness the fate of the Arab delegation at Versailles....

The Brits wanted what we have today: crappy little arab states with crappy little despots to extract resources from. The Arabs wanted (in 1918) what Nasser wanted: a united Arab state. IMO.

[gsmoove23]

The absence of colonialism does not presuppose the absence of long distance trade and competition. Europe could have developed faster if instead of using trade revenues to build and maintain overseas empires and fund the many wars needed to keep them they focused on progress within their own countries, who knows.

I just think coming to the conclusion that we're better off because of a horrible system like colonialism is sort of like explaining away the holocaust. It happened, there's no changing it, but please don't start saying it was all for the best, we have no idea what could have taken its place.

[yavoon]

the idea that "u have no idea wut could have taken place" is hardly justification for saying it wasn't beneficial. even given ur moral gripes. which are perfectly valid.

[Az]

The absence of colonialism does not presuppose the absence of long distance trade and competition. Europe could have developed faster if instead of using trade revenues to build and maintain overseas empires and fund the many wars needed to keep them they focused on progress within their own countries, who knows.

That may be correct to some extent with the Old world, but it certainly is not the case with the new world. In any case, the discussion here is not whether things could be done better. Of course lots of terrible things were done, but you don't actually expect people of that era to not fight and not conquer, if they have the power to. The question here is whether the good surpassed the bad. I say yes.

I just think coming to the conclusion that we're better off because of a horrible system like colonialism is sort of like explaining away the holocaust. It happened, there's no changing it, but please don't start saying it was all for the best, we have no idea what could have taken its place.

What good did the holocaust bring to the world? The Empirial Era's consequences are numerous, many of them good, and many of them bad. I think that the good things surpass the bad things to some extent.

[gsmoove23]

the idea that "u have no idea wut could have taken place" is hardly justification for saying it wasn't beneficial. even given ur moral gripes. which are perfectly valid.

Neither is "look what happened, must be a benefit of colonialism".

[gsmoove23]

The British openly supported Jewish immigration at first and promised the "Jewish national home" then later on their policy towards Jewish immigration became muddled, officially limiting it with little effect because many individual Brits were sympathetic to the Zionist cause. Its hard to imagine zionism being so strong today without that initial British alliance, however when they left the British threw up their hands knowing the Jews and Arabs would fight it out and probably believing the Arabs would win.

If British administration hadn't been so muddled the ME would be a different place today.

[Az]

The British openly supported Jewish immigration at first and promised the "Jewish national home" then later on their policy towards Jewish immigration became muddled, officially limiting it with little effect because many individual Brits were sympathetic to the Zionist cause. Its hard to imagine zionism being so strong today without that initial British alliance, however when they left the British threw up their hands knowing the Jews and Arabs would fight it out and probably believing the Arabs would win.

The brits severly hampered jewish immigration for the most part of the British rule. Also, it is improtant to remember that British rule came instead of another rule, the one of the Turks. After the fall of the Ottomans, and their replacement by my avatar, the way things would've been solved is a big question mark. If things would've continued similarly to the way they did before British rule, I think that Zionism would've had it easier, since the situation before the British rule was close to a state of lawlessness. Jewish immigration wouldn't face any obstacles, and a larger portion of jews of europe would've arrived to this land. Also, without more than half of palestine "dissappearing" under the rule of Abdullah the 1st, the pie we have to share today would've been much larger, and a more peaceful solution would've been possible.

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

Malaysia isn't doing bad, but I won't call it thriving. India has a lot to do, unfortuately its leaders have been obsessed with the dreams of a regional empire, thus pouring money into military intead of other more fundamental needs.

Compare with Indonesia? I'd say they are in much better shape.

As for Hong Kong and Singapore, they became prosperous not because of any British goodwill or planning, but were a result of fortuitous events, geographical location, and some solid long term planning in the case of Singapore.

Who designed the city of Singapore? The Brits.
I'm not foolish enough to admit that all the credit goes to the British for the success of Singapore, but you have to admit that they did a good job.

[Q Classic]

Is there any culture on earth that can overcome ingreasing luxury rate and knowledge? I mean, when people get money, and education, they become selfish "bastards". Don't blame the western culture if the people are just human.

But that's just quickly thinking, is there something I am missing?

i'm sure there are, had the shock of both western ideals not arrived at roughly the same time.
however, we'll never know, because all over the world, those ideals did arrive at the same time.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
The brits severly hampered jewish immigration for the most part of the British rule. Also, it is improtant to remember that British rule came instead of another rule, the one of the Turks. After the fall of the Ottomans, and their replacement by my avatar, the way things would've been solved is a big question mark. If things would've continued similarly to the way they did before British rule, I think that Zionism would've had it easier, since the situation before the British rule was close to a state of lawlessness. Jewish immigration wouldn't face any obstacles, and a larger portion of jews of europe would've arrived to this land. Also, without more than half of palestine "dissappearing" under the rule of Abdullah the 1st, the pie we have to share today would've been much larger, and a more peaceful solution would've been possible.

The British did a very poor job of hampering Jewish immigration, considering many British officers were unwilling to crack down it. Plus post-WW2 and before 1948 massive numbers were allowed in regardless.

Under the Ottomans or the Turks its ridiculous to imagine immigration high enough for a Jewish state to be formed since once the arab palestinians began to protest the leaders would have found it difficult to ignore muslim interests. Plus, they would have never allowed a quasi-Jewish government to be formed and worked closely with it as the British did until 1948.

Anyway, I'm not making value judgements on the British support for Palestinians or Jews, simply saying when they packed up they left a God-awful mess as a result of their muddled palestinian policies.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

You don't know squat, try reading something besides
Romantic jewish propaganda comics. The Clashs (more
like riots) were because of Jewish immigration. That
wouldn't have happened under the Turks. If the Jews or Arabs acted up under the Turks, the Turks would have had their nuts for door knockers.

Started fighting in the 20s, more like 20 BC. The Jews
always fought with their neighbours, the Greeks or the
Arabs (or whatever tribes the Arabs were called then)
right up to the present day.

Strange, No it just fell into their hands, Nobody else
had any use for it, knowing it would be more trouble
than it was worth.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned
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 thrown 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.

Minorities usally co-operate with majorites.

Good post BTW, The british had no power to promise
the Arabs anything but their good will. The French and
later, Italians would have to agree. For harassing a
railroad line and supplying some irregular light cavalry
the arabs were to recieve syria, palestine, Jorden, and
Saudi arabia? Sounds a bit too good to be true, don't
it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW, Bengal was under the rule of the Mughal Empire prior to British conquest; another example of lowtech conquering hightech.

You know that is bull. The Brits were in NO way 'lowtech' compared to Bengal. I'm talking about non-military tech, btw.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ramo
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.

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.

Rome collapsed to corruption, plague, military rule and economic stagation. Same with China, lowtech does'nt conquer hightech unless hightech becomes a total
basketcase.

If Bengal was economically comparable to England. They
wouldn't have been conquered, they would have conquered India themselves [/QUOTE]

[Ned]

Just a small point. The real reason the Brits kept Palestine and backstabbed Hussein was .... OIL! Yes OIL.

They wanted to build a pipeline from Iraq to Haiffa. They set up their mandates and zones of influence to control the entire distance from the Iraqi oil fields to Palestine.

Well they built their pipeline. It was closed in 1947. The Israeli's are now talking with the Jordanian about reopening that pipeline.