Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Kirnwaffen]

The Africans already had an Oral tradition, and, given time, would likely have developed a written language on their own. The British interfered with the natural development of the continent without stopping to consider that perhaps these people weren't ready for the 'wonders' of western civilization.

[Ben Kenobi]

Technology, perhaps, but not the necessary moral guidance to use it in a constructive way.

That's an interesting argument K-man. Perhaps the British should have stayed longer to ensure the proper transfer and self-determination of the former British colonies.

Look at some of these colonies:

1. Canada. One of the G-7 nations, transformed from a backwater French colony into one of the most democratic nations on Earth.

2. USA Strongest economy in the world, extremely strong trade connections with Britain, even after the revolution.

3. Australia
Not one of the strongest economies, but much better off since colonisation.

4. New Zealand
Same, much better off after colonialisation than before. Even the Maori population is rebounding.

5. Singapore
Economic powerhouse for such a small Island

6. Hong Kong
Very similar to Singapore.

7. India
The lot of you want to pin the blame for Pakistan on the British. This is incorrect as the British kept the Muslim and Hindu factions together. The Muslims preferred British rule to Hindu, and the Hindus preferred British rule to Muslim control, as had been the case under the Mughal empire. Once India gained independence, the Muslim factions feared the Hindu rule, and voted for a partition. This partition was approved by Gandhi just before the British handed India over, setting the stage for the massive bloodshed that continues today.

8. South Africa
Again, the British left too soon. The country is a mess now, but before was considered to be the only bright spot in Africa.

9. Malaysia
Economically starting to turn the corner and industrialise. Much more stable than Indonesia.

10. Egypt
Suez canal construction.

The list goes on.

Compare this to any other European imperialist power. Can they claim any list even close to comparable with the British Empire?

[Q Classic]

IMHO, Western civilization, with its respect for human rights, democracy and the family, and its emphasis on education for all, is worth spreading to more "primitive" cultures.

IMHO, Western civilization, with its respect to brutal capitalization, communism, and the broken family, and its emphasis on the almighty dollar as god, is responsible for butchering many more "primitive" cultures.

I am willing to bet that those who here believe in the equal validity of all cutlures were anti-war on Iraq; while those who believe in the value of Western culture are pro-war

not true. i believe in the value of western culture, but that's because i'm a product of it.

but i honestly think that east asia is a lot worse off because of the Western notions of rampant capitalism/industrialization (resulting in the desecration and destruction of many regions of the environment), the broken family (korea has one of the highest rates of divorce now), the consumerism (resulting in a much less family-oriented atmosphere in korea and a harsher environment), communism (nkorea and china--nuff said)...
indeed, it was westernization that led japan on its little jaunt all over east asia.
it was westernization that resulted in the opium wars and the boxer rebellion.

before you say it's worth spreading western ideals over "primitive" cultures roughshod, remember the cost and the brutality that resulted in its wake.

indeed, thinking of these cultures as "primitive" is dangerous, because it dehumanizes them and places us above them simply because we think we are more advanced.

family in east asia was once based on the confucian ideal. meaning no elder was cast out and sent to one of those "retirement homes". people felt loyalty to their family and saw themselves as one with it, rather than as a piece of it.

the idea of order, the introduction of education, and the obvious introduction of labor. that have had risidual effects that weren't planned but it doesn't make them ne less nice.

confucian order worked amazingly well in asia for a good long time. it was only when allowed to run to excesses did it begin to bog down everything. education also existed in asia a good long time. labor also existed as a concept in asia.

You have obviously understood nothing to what was Africa before the colonization. If the only thing you are able to put up against my arguments are one-liner misconceptions, I think it is time to end this argument.

spiff, you're not alone in feeling this way. the argument style in question lacks any sort of academic or logical rigor.

[yavoon]

yes they definitely didnt stop to consider whether or not they were ready. and given the exponential advancement after writing was developed, and THAT was several thousand years ago.

I'd say that given their own pace africa would have no made no noticable progress by itself over the past 300 years. I also dont see any mechanism for their society to introduce ne kind of social change

I am not a fortune teller but ne contact w/ the wests technology even w/o imperialism would have lead to certain tribes attempting to gain fire arms to invade other tribes. and hell isnt that going on right now?!

[Q Classic]

i will grant, however, british imperialism was a lot les destructive than other nations'.

this doesn't necessarily make it right, however. it's a moot point now, since it was done in the past. what do you want, an apology? take it and move on, and learn from those horrid mistakes.

[DinoDoc]

It gave birth to the US. Given that, I'd say that it was an unqualified boon to the world.

[Q Classic]

at the cost of millions of dead non-whites.

[Kontiki]

Remember that the "success" seen in settler colonies like Canada, the US, Australia, New Zeland, etc. came about by exterminating/marginalizing indigenous populations. The only reason these areas can be defined as successful imperialism is because they essentially ripped up a little part of Europe and transplanted it with no regards for the natives. You'd see the same thing if Europeans moved en masse into Africa, almost totally eliminating the locals and setting up shop. It doesn't necessarily make it "successful" in any sense other than making another new Britain.

[Ben Kenobi]

Qcubed:

(korea has one of the highest rates of divorce now)

Can we confine ourselves to a discussion of British imperialism? Korea was never a British colony.

Imperialism in general has had poor effects, but what about British Imperialism in particular?

this doesn't necessarily make it right, however. it's a moot point now, since it was done in the past. what do you want, an apology? take it and move on, and learn from those horrid mistakes.

I'm not saying that the British were 'less bad' I'm saying that they markedly more successful. Look at my list! Would the world be better off without any of these nations? Far from horrid mistakes, they left their colonies in better shape when they left, then before they arrived.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
at the cost of millions of dead non-whites.

Party pooper.

[Q Classic]

I'm not saying that the British were 'less bad' I'm saying that they markedly more successful. Look at my list! Would the world be better off without any of these nations? Far from horrid mistakes, they left their colonies in better shape when they left, then before they arrived.

i admit later that the british were the least of the evils, didn't i?

[Ben Kenobi]

Remember that the "success" seen in settler colonies like Canada, the US, Australia, New Zeland, etc. came about by exterminating/marginalizing indigenous populations.

Not true, at least in the case for the British.
Most of the deaths of indigenous peoples came about from smallpox. This is unavoidable with european contact.

Could you please cite an example of the British slaughtering indigenous peoples?

The only reason these areas can be defined as successful imperialism is because they essentially ripped up a little part of Europe and transplanted it with no regards for the natives.

Lots of stuff in Canada comes from the natives. In order for people to survive, they had to adopt the ways of the land.

You'd see the same thing if Europeans moved en masse into Africa, almost totally eliminating the locals and setting up shop. It doesn't necessarily make it "successful" in any sense other than making another new Britain.

Four counterexamples:

Hong Kong
Singapore
Malaysia
India

Hardly majority white people, yet these former colonies are thriving.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Look at my list! Would the world be better off without any of these nations? Far from horrid mistakes, they left their colonies in better shape when they left, then before they arrived.

Well, the thing is : they haven't left this place yet...

[Q Classic]

Can we confine ourselves to a discussion of British imperialism? Korea was never a British colony.

that was actually targeted at the notion that "western culture" was superior to "primitive culture"s.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
at the cost of millions of dead non-whites.

If they had not driven the natives into a corner, there would be no University of Chicago.

Cynical or not, Native Americans would have never, ever created a great nation such as USA.

I would rather have USA dominating the world than any of those xenophobic and hypocritical European countries.