Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Bereta_Eder]

As far as I can tell and by taking as examples the economic indicators of certain regions such as Cyprus, before and after the decolonization, I have to say a resounding, No.

[Ned]

Originally posted by C0ckney
what contry is that yago, germany has the 3rd largest economy in the world.

to echo what others have said about india, were it not for the british there would still be lots of petty kingdoms, some ruled well, some not, but none ruled democratically. as for cultural factors, that's a good one, the caste system hardly promotes democracy.

Japan?

[gunkulator]

The question really isn't "Was British Imperialism good?" it's "Whose (if anyone's) Imperialism would have been better?" Some great power would have inevitably risen to dominate the world. Powerful nations always dominate weaker ones. Long before Europeans colonized Africa, the Bantus systematically wiped out almost all other sub-saharan nations. Likewise, the Incas smashed all their enemies at spearpoint in Central and South America. Would the world be better off if these people came to dominate the world?

[Sandman]

Where does this idea come from that Britain got rid of the caste system in India? It's still going strong.

As for the railways, many places got them without having to be conquerered by Britain first. The Indians would have taken them up eventually.

[gsmoove23]

Colonialism of any sort didn't improve the world. In most cases it made a huge mess and committed crimes that far outway any side-benefits it might have brought to the country in question. Most of the benefits that people site here are laughable since they were put in place with the aim of european profit above all else. Things like the Suez canal and railroads are laughable as benefits(look how generous we are, we made transport through your country much faster so we can bring goods more quickly to us). Things like sanitation and medicine were only brought to areas where europeans had to live and could have just as easily been transmitted as ideas without colonization.

In fact all of the 'benefits' of colonization could have been brought in a more peaceful and cooperative way to the profit of all involved, though its almost impossible to believe humans would be that evolved, especially in an earlier day and age. Maybe we'll do it right the next time around when we colonize the stars, assuming we're not colonized first.

[gsmoove23]

British colonialism wasn't so much better then any other form of colonialism. The only reason this assumption exists is because of the relatively enlightened rules of India and Egypt, both countries with large amounts of educated people and relatively 'advanced' cultures. In both cases the British found it more profitable to take a more cooperative approach to rule and to embellish on already strong educational systems which allowed for more skilled workers and administrators to assist in colonization.

In other countries, not so 'advanced' the British offered little education(it created an educated class that was thought to be dangerous to British rule), and did little to foster the self-government that would be needed after the British left.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The [Roman] empire is to some extent idolized as moving the advance of civilisation onward and the nasty bits such as massacres, mass enslavement and their favoured public entertainments are treated impersonally because it was long ago.

Totally agree. I believe in 1000 years, British colonialism will be seen as a good thing. Something that helped progress the rest of the world. Basically, it WILL be seen like Roman imperialism (which is generally thought of as a benefit).

[Ned]

The underlying assumption that the benefits of Western civilization would have come to colonized nations without colonialism may be true -- but how long would it have taken? The world, in large measure, prior to Western imperialism, was run by very primitive governments who were simply not open to democracy, to a free press, to liberal education for all. Look at Iraq. If we hadn't intervened, how long would the people of Iraq have suffered under the cruel boot of Saddam?

The movement to decolonize was lead by the United States -- because of Wilson's belief in the right of self-determination. However, the right of self-determination does not mean the right of a dictator to brutalize his people or the right to end democracy and human rights or to prevent its introduction.

In a way, our effort in Iraq is Imperialism. It seeks to remove a dictator and to impose democracy. There can be no self determination without democracy.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Colonialism of any sort didn't improve the world. In most cases it made a huge mess and committed crimes that far outway any side-benefits it might have brought to the country in question.

Remember both the US and Australia were once British colonies. I'd say both countries are net positives for the world although I know others disagree. Colonialism is not a uniquely western phenomenon. All powerful nations have practiced it. It is the norm of human societal contact, not the exception.

In fact all of the 'benefits' of colonization could have been brought in a more peaceful and cooperative way to the profit of all involved, though its almost impossible to believe humans would be that evolved, especially in an earlier day and age.

An amusing assertion that I find hard to believe. Concepts like the rule of law, democracy and human rights are meaningless in a tribal society.

[Arrian]

It all boils down to what you mean by "improved."

-Arrian

[Japher]

It all boils down to what you mean by "improved."

I world with many, many bananas... and white, english speaking people everywhere...

[Q Classic]

If we hadn't intervened, how long would the people of Iraq have suffered under the cruel boot of Saddam?

If britain hadn't been in that part of the world, Saddam probably would never have risen to power.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
It is still too soon to give a definitive answer. The Roamn empire is to some extent idolized as moving the advance of civilisation onward and the nasty bits such as massacres, mass enslavement and their favoured public entertainments are treated impersonally because it was long ago.

The British empire began to seriously break up less than 60 years ago and it will IMHO probably be another century before the real long term effects can be assessed.

My view is that the long term benefit of humanity will be best served by a unified global political and economic system. In that context the British empire was a major step forward in establishing links around the globe, not least a commonly used language. Long term, as the bad bits are sorted out and largely forgotten, I think the British empire will be seen as a major step forward in human progress.

nice post i agree with this

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ramo
*cough*Bangladesh*cough*

Nay, Banga"mess" is an Indian creation, so is Pakistan for that matter. Same goes for the ME too. Britain didn't
draw the borders, the WW1 allies did.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yago:

The moral values of the British slave trader:

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

Irrelevant.

1834: British abolish slavery as an institution within the Empire.