Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Carver]

Originally posted by obiwan18

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.

Why are ignorant rightwingers always trying to attack democratic South Africa?

The economy is booming. Exports are booming. Tourism is booming. Get some actual data on the country before you try to criticize it.

And as for the crime rate which I'm sure you're about to mention: crime is just about the same as its always been, it just affects whites more now and is reported better.

And there's also the minor factors (which I'm sure you don't care about) that the state sponsored domestic gross human rights violations and the terrorism being exported by apartheid South Africa have ceased.

Furthermore, you need to learn that South Africa is not the only bright spot in sub-Saharan Africa. Ghana, Tanzania, Botswana, and Mozambique are all democratic and stable with strong economic growth rates.

Ignorance is stereotyping bliss isn't it?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by orange


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

At least the British didn't execute people by "Death by Thousand Cuts", "Impalement", "Drawing Quarter", and etc...

[Ben Kenobi]

before was considered to be the only bright spot in Africa.

Carver:

This is in the past tense... nothing against the other countires of Africa in the present.

ignorant rightwingers

Indeed. I admit my ignorance of the current situation in S. Africa. Do continue your argument as to the stability of the country at this time.

[Carver]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Including the construction of a railroad system, and improvements in irrigation? These two improvements transformed localised grain shortages from famines to feasts.

You will be hard pressed to demonstrate how the RRs benefitted the colonized peoples. The RRs simply aided the colonizers in removing wealth from the colony and sending it to the imperial power. If the RRs were meant to build up the local economy they would connect inland cities with other inland cities. But they don't, they run from the interior to the coast.

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

The fact that democracy has survived in India demonstrates that there were and are factors in India compatible with democratic government. Those factors have been culturally and historically obtained in India, they didn't come from British imperialism. With increasing communications and travel the spillover/contagion effect would certainly have agitated the democratic aspects of Indian society and ushered in democracy by now - without colonization.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The worst modern day result or effect of British Imperialism could be a Nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.

That assumes that Muslims and Hindus wouldn't have fought without the Brits.

Why are ignorant rightwingers always trying to attack democratic South Africa?

You can't really say though that the country is a safe place to travel to? I've known plenty of people that have gone to South Africa, who, while they loved it, definetly thought the crime rate was definetly over the top and resulted in unsafe conditions (well, unless you were in the rich parts of towns).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Che:

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

As I wrote, it was a mixed "blessing." You can't merely point to one aspect and say, it's good or bad. It was both a disaster and a necessary improvement.

The immediate result of British imperialsm was a massive downturn in the incomes of the locals. This state of affairs continued up until very recently in the case of India, and still continues today in Africa and the Middle East.

Where famines were localized before, they became generalized. Millians starved not because they were struck by drought, plague, or flood, but because some European drove them off their land. The increase in food production didn't profit the locals, who had lost the means to produce or purchase their food, but profitted Europe, who could now buy cheaper grain and coffee and tea.

British imperialism fairly well wrecked most of the old world. That was both a good and bad thing. It also brought capitalism and the Enlightenment to the rest of the world. This means that these countries now have the opportunity to create for themselves Western standards of living.

Of course, nothing is ever so simple. Imperialism defines the way capitalism grows in the colonial world, and the development there is not for the home market but for the needs of the First World. This is why it has been very difficult for former colonies to develop. Only a handful have done it. On top of this, dictators who were/are politically subservient to the interests of the West also tended to be (as dicatators so often do) rather corrupt, plundering their countries. For examples we need only look at Marcos in the Philippines who made off with $10 billion or Mbutu in Zaire, who even stopped paying his soldiers towards the end of his regime, or Somoza, who stole the relief money sent to help Nicaragua after the massive 1974 earthquake. Yes, they were S.O.B.s, but they were our S.O.B.s.

The silver lining in all this is that by bringing the world together into under capitalism, the way is cleared for the development of socialism.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You can't really say though that the country is a safe place to travel to? I've known plenty of people that have gone to South Africa, who, while they loved it, definetly thought the crime rate was definetly over the top and resulted in unsafe conditions (well, unless you were in the rich parts of towns).

The country was a damn dangerous place before 1994 too. In fact, I probably would have been killed if I had gone there. Whereas today I am quite sure I can navigate the country safely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it STILL isn't dangerous. Liberation of the country has done nothing to stop the immense crime rate.

The silver lining in all this is that by bringing the world together into under capitalism, the way is cleared for the development of socialism.

Being clear for something and that thing actually happening are two very different things.

[Ben Kenobi]

Che:

I don't doubt that imperialism is a mixed blessing, some positives combined with the negatives.

I just believe the positives outweigh the negatives, particularly concerning India.

Looking at the economic conditions, do you believe that the poor castes in India before the British came were better off? The Mughals and all the princes siphoned off most of the profits from the land.

Carver:

You will be hard pressed to demonstrate how the RRs benefitted the colonized peoples. The RRs simply aided the colonizers in removing wealth from the colony and sending it to the imperial power. If the RRs were meant to build up the local economy they would connect inland cities with other inland cities. But they don't, they run from the interior to the coast.

They allow grain to be shipped from one area of India to the other, as well as encouraging the development of industry.

Part of the problem that the British had with the route was compensating the individual princes for the use of land required for the railroad construction. They could not build wherever they liked, as in Britain.

The fact that democracy has survived in India demonstrates that there were and are factors in India compatible with democratic government. Those factors have been culturally and historically obtained in India, they didn't come from British imperialism.

What are some sources for these 'cultural factors' provoking democratisation, present in India before the arrival of the British?

You don't get a Democratic government without exposure to the British system. Governmental systems do not arise from osmosis.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I must agree with obiwan about India, at the very least. Indians are very highly educated because of the educational system put into place by the Brits. These schools and systems are STILL used.

Before the Brits came to town, the caste system was in no danger of falling. It would have lasted for centuries without British intervention, I'm sure of it.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara The immediate result of British imperialsm was a massive downturn in the incomes of the locals. This state of affairs continued up until very recently in the case of India, and still continues today in Africa and the Middle East.

Thats if they had incomes.

Are you actually saying that the common man was
better off under the Rajahs? with their thuggie,
water borne dieases, famines and petty wars and
almost non-existant trade. Not to mention their
jewels, palaces and autocratic rule. I won't even
begin with Africa and it's slavery, cannibalism and
famines.

Yup, real paradises they had before the British
came.

One thing i have noticed, the longer the British
stayed, the less of a basketcase the countries
are today.

[Lord Merciless]

It should be: the better a colony learned the British ways, the better they are off now. Of all the colonies that weren't colonized by the British, Hong Kong and Singapore learnt the most and are the most well off.

[Sandman]

Empty?

I consider it to be totally unrealistic to expect the Europeans, or anyone else, to leave N. America and Ocaenia uncolonised, particularly after the effects of diseases.

I don't consider it unrealistic for Britain to have attempted to treat the Asian and African states as more equal trading partners, as they did for a while.

[yago]

The moral values of the British slave trader:

An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa (London, 1788).

Upon the Negroes refusing to take sustenance, I have seen coals of fire, glowing hot, put on a shovel and placed so near their lips as to scorch and burn them. And this has been accompanied with threats of forcing them to swallow the coals if they any longer persisted in refusing to eat. These means have generally had the desired effect. I have also been credibly informed that a certain captain in the slave- trade, poured melted lead on such of his Negroes as obstinately refused their food.

On board some ships the common sailors are allowed to have intercourse with such of the black women whose consent they can procure. And some of them have been known to take the inconstancy of their paramours so much to heart as to leap overboard and drown themselves. The officers are permitted to indulge their passions among them at pleasure and sometimes are guilty of such excesses as disgrace human nature....

[Az]

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.

Almost completely agree.

Thing is, we forget that the amount of cruelty that was used by the british is very much on par with any cruelty that would've been practiced there in any case, as a built-in part of systems that ruled many of those places.

It also caused the emergence of the US that was home to the creation of countless technological improvements, that made living much easier to everyone, even in the poorest of nations.

So I would put a '+' mark. Not a huge one, but still a plus mark.