Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Q Classic]

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.

very true. nor would my mother have come to this part of the world.

all i'm saying is that european imperialism has exacted a horrid toll on non-european peoples, and it's something that has to be remembered.

remembered, and then something that just has to be taken as a fact. it's unchangeable, and it's just something one has to accept. one will never know what those other peoples could have come up with, simply because they were never given that chance.

what we have now is a world which benefitted greatly from some european/western ideals, and suffered greatly because of those same ideals. it's a fact.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by obiwan18


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?

But in the end, it's the same thing, isn't it? The local population gets killed off or pushed to the margins. Whether intentional or not, it still has the same net effect. And the Brits (and their decendants) certainly pushed the remaining natives to the periphery in almost every settler colony.

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

There was a certain adoption of "the ways of the land", but again, in the end (but even before independence), what did these colonies more closely resemble, the pre-colonial areas, or Britain? White settlers used European farming and manufacturing techniques on lands once occupied by natives. Hardly much of an adoption of local methods.

Four counterexamples:

Hong Kong
Singapore
Malaysia
India

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

Granted, successful, although definitely in the minority. Still, it needs to be noted that while not settler colonies, Singapore and Hong Kong benefitted greatly from being pretty closed city-states.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by 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.

[Ned]

Why are you guys focused on Africa? Think Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Australia, a lot of Islands in the Carribean, Canada, and even the Imperialist Americans.

BTW, what were the British colonies in Africa? South Africa and Rhodesia. What else?

[Ted Striker]

.

[Ted Striker]

Molly Bloom has spare copies of this map too.

[Kramerman]

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.

Im Kman!

[Ben Kenobi]

Hardly much of an adoption of local methods.

Consider agriculture.

How has this changed since Europeans came into contact with the New World? Many crops that have become world staples did not originate in Europe.

I call that a revolution in terms of the effects that the new world had on the old.

Molly Bloom has spare copies of this map too.

Ted:

Good. Why should I be afraid of the truth?

It seems bizarre. Here a Canadian is arguing the benefits of British Imperialism against a Brit who's country reaped the biggest benefits.

Kontiki:

Granted, successful, although definitely in the minority.

In terms of what? The overall number of British colonies? If you are looking at the overall effects on the world, it makes sense to look at the population. By this ranking I have addressed most of the population of the British Commonwealth.

[cinch]

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

Whaaaaaaaat?

Define 'great'.

The Iroquois people, pre-colonisation, had one of the most democratic and 'civilised' (not in technology, but I'd argue that that's not the sole measurement of culture) systems on the planet.

Most Native tribes just had a different idea of 'progress', as compared to the Europeans. How does this make them inferior?

[chequita guevara]

It depends on how you define improved the world. India, the Middle East, and Africa were absolutely destroyed by British imperialism, but North America and Oceania did quite well. In addition, Britain spead capitalism throughout the world, sweeping feudalism and other primative economies aside, building up the productive forces of humanity, and laying the groundwork for socialism.

[orange]

Americas: Can't be blamed for grabbing almost empty land, I suppose.

Empty?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by orange


Empty?

yeah, by the time various plagues swept through, the 60 some odd million population of the New World was cut down to just a few million...

still no empty, i suppose, but compared to Africa and stuff, North America had a much smaller population density when full scale colonization was underway

[orange]

IMHO, Western civilization, with its respect for human rights...

and we can stop right here. The spread of British Imperialism was done with respect for Human Rights??

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Good. Why should I be afraid of the truth?

Oh, it's an inside joke from another thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

Che:

India, the Middle East, and Africa were absolutely destroyed by British imperialism,

Including the construction of a railroad system, and improvements in irrigation? These two improvements transformed localised grain shortages from famines to feasts.

Also, do note that India houses the world's largest democratic nation. Would this be so without the British?