Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[gsmoove23]

First of all, can we finally get countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand out of the equation? These are not cases when colonialism has improved the world. Whether it was Britain or the governments that followed British rule all these countries used the most brutal means to slaughter and marginalize the indigenous people that survived the diseases that Europeans brought with them. Nothing was improved for the native inhabitants, it was simply Europeans filling up 'empty lands'.

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?

You make these assertions with the opinion that humanism, the rule of law, liberal education, a free press and other benefits of western culture have actually been successfully transferred to most of the cultures that have been colonized which doesn't seem to be true. Most of these countries are no better off then they were in those departments, so no, I don't think colonialism changed things quicker. Most colonial governments were horribly oppressive and these are the lessons they passed on to succeeding governments.

If the west made a concerted effort to transfer the things that are felt to be good about western culture to these areas in a way that would have respected native cultures and allowed them to merge these ideas into cultural creations of their own then I believe we would have a much different world, not perfect, but different. Of course this is pie in the sky star trek thinking but no less ridiculous then arguements that try to pass off the benefits that colonialism brought as worth all the pain.

[chequita guevara]

Things in India got worse under Britain for quite some time. The caste system, for example, was considerably more flexible than we think of it today. The Brits came along, figured it made a good way to keep India under its thumb, and rigified their society.

Indian cloth manufacturing, which was the largest in the world, was almost completely destroyed. Eventually they had to buy all their clothes from Britain. Why do you think Gandhi spining his cloth was such a revolutionary action? The same with Indians making their own salt. India was a very prosperous region, until the British came along. There is a reason Britain and Europe wanted it. It is only now recovering, in large part because it ignored the IMF and had massive state intervention and protectionism.

In the long run, the world is better off for British imperialism, but the effect of it upon those who were colonized was an absolute disaster (especially in those areas where British colonists committed genocide).

BTW, most improvments in food and health and education are post-imperial. The Green Revolution came in the late 60s and early 70s, health care changes are largely a result of antibiotics (which the 3rd World has) and sanitation improvements (which they don't have). Education of Africans and Indians under British rule was limited to members of native elites and fortunate servants. For most of the colonized, it was forbidden.

[Myrddin]

How about some sources to support your generalisations:

those areas where British colonists committed genocide

Education of Africans and Indians under British rule was limited to members of native elites and fortunate servants. For most of the colonized, it was forbidden.

It is only now recovering, in large part because it ignored the IMF and had massive state intervention and protectionism.

[Ben Kenobi]

gsmoove:

First of all, can we finally get countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand out of the equation?

Last I checked they were British Colonies. They have to count.

Whether it was Britain or the governments that followed British rule all these countries used the most brutal means to slaughter and marginalize the indigenous people that survived the diseases that Europeans brought with them. Nothing was improved for the native inhabitants, it was simply Europeans filling up 'empty lands'.

That's a different point altogether. You have to counterbalance this with the improvements brought by the British, assuming all your points to be true. But are they?

British rule all these countries used the most brutal means to slaughter and marginalize the indigenous people that survived the diseases that Europeans brought with them.

Completely false. Most brutal? Look at the Spanish colonialisation or the French and Portugeuse in Africa. Far worse than the British in North America.

Secondly, please cite an example of this 'brutal slaughter of indigenous peoples'. It would greatly substantiate your point.

Nothing was improved for the native inhabitants, it was simply Europeans filling up 'empty lands'.

Your argument is not even self-consistent! If there were natives living earlier, then the land cannot be empty. Most of the indigenous peoples rightly assert that they never left the land! If the land were truly empty, I can use this as an argument because to fill empty land is to greatly improve.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yes, I think that British Imperialism DID improve the world......... when it DIED!

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned
The movement to decolonize was lead by the United States -- because of Wilson's belief in the right of self-determination.

I thought i was cause the US had finished off the last
Native resistance in 1908, after that came the right of
of self-determination (for people in other peoples countries that is, Not the Apache eh).

[Ben Kenobi]

che:

Things in India got worse under Britain for quite some time. The caste system, for example, was considerably more flexible than we think of it today. The Brits came along, figured it made a good way to keep India under its thumb, and rigified their society.

So the British are responsible for upholding the institutions already present? Seems to me a good argument for the adaptability of the British to an Indian environment. As for rigidifying? This is a tough point to prove. Is the caste system more rigid before the British than after? I would have to say so, especially if you take into account the increased democratisation introduced by the British.

Indian cloth manufacturing, which was the largest in the world, was almost completely destroyed. Eventually they had to buy all their clothes from Britain. Why do you think Gandhi spining his cloth was such a revolutionary action? The same with Indians making their own salt. India was a very prosperous region, until the British came along. There is a reason Britain and Europe wanted it. It is only now recovering, in large part because it ignored the IMF and had massive state intervention and protectionism.

How much of that prosperity before the British came trickled down to the people of India under the Raj? That's the big question you keep skirting.

Secondly, it is true the Brits were protectionist of their manufacturing and cloth industries. But it is a fallacy to say that the British policy of trade with India impoverished the general population. In fact, increased trade benefits both Britain and India.

Finally, Gandhi also said that the Indians were ready to run things on their own. The British trained enough of them so that they could learn to do things themselves.

In the long run, the world is better off for British imperialism, but the effect of it upon those who were colonized was an absolute disaster (especially in those areas where British colonists committed genocide).

Game set and match.

As for the effects of those colonialised, the British were the first to abolish the slave trade, and did set up educational systems for Indians. Granted these did not reach everyone, but the British needed to train Indians so that they could run many of the colonial operations in India. Feeding the people is another substantial benefit by the British.

BTW, most improvments in food and health and education are post-imperial. The Green Revolution came in the late 60s and early 70s, health care changes are largely a result of antibiotics (which the 3rd World has) and sanitation improvements (which they don't have).

Where do I attribute these improvements to the British? Increased irrigation also improved farm yields, as well as the shipments of grain to areas under famines. All I have to argue is that the situation improved.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

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.

So, now Britain's war against Saddam is to undo its prior errors?

Bull!

Saddam is a creature of the Ba'ath Party, which was founded in 1941 on "socialist" principles, including a one-party state.

Sound familiar?

1941?

One party socialist state?

And you blame Britain and not our commie friends in the USSR?

[Lazerus]

Simply : Yes

Ill prob end up repeating somebody elses arguement at this stage and im not gonna read 100+ posts at this time
Improvement never comes cheap or easy but sometimes it must occur.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ozz


I thought i was cause the US had finished off the last
Native resistance in 1908, after that came the right of
of self-determination (for people in other peoples countries that is, Not the Apache eh).

Ozz, I beleive all Native American tribes have self-government. I am not so sure that they are all democracies, though.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned

Ozz, I beleive all Native American tribes have self-government. I am not so sure that they are all democracies, though.

Just making the point that the US was an imperialist
colonial power in it's own right, 1812, 54/50 or fight
the Spanish american wars. Self determination came
convently after the USA had cleared the decks of it's
own wars of expansion.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by obiwan18
That's a different point altogether. You have to counterbalance this with the improvements brought by the British, assuming all your points to be true. But are they?

Well the most obvious affect of european colonization in America and Australia was rampant disease that made most of the populations simply disappear. Next was the removal of the remaining people from their land, either forcefully or by using up the resources natives required for existance either intentionally or unintentionally. This was followed by ridiculous attempts at re-education, the kidnapping of children into european schools of education and forcefully converting the population. Its hard to weigh any supposed improvements on that.

Completely false. Most brutal? Look at the Spanish colonialisation or the French and Portugeuse in Africa. Far worse than the British in North America.

Yet not far worse then British treatment of the aborigines. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/se...eno-s07.shtml. In the US the worst of the treatment came after the revolution when diseased blankets and payments for scalps tended to be the norm, all improvements that wouldn't have existed without british colonialism.

Your argument is not even self-consistent! If there were natives living earlier, then the land cannot be empty. Most of the indigenous peoples rightly assert that they never left the land! If the land were truly empty, I can use this as an argument because to fill empty land is to greatly improve.

Uh, I put empty in quotes which is meant to mean, while there were natives the colonialists often looked at the lands as empty and saw it as their destiny to fill them. Why would filling empty land be an improvement? I don't see the connection between filled land and improvement, this is simply what happened.

[Ben Kenobi]

gsmoove:


My apologies for misinterpreting the 'empty lands' quote. 'Empty' lands might have been more clear.

Well the most obvious affect of european colonization in America and Australia was rampant disease that made most of the populations simply disappear.

This is unavoidable with European contact. At the time, there was not even a germ theory of disease, so it seems unreasonable for the British to avoid what they do not know.

In the US the worst of the treatment came after the revolution when diseased blankets and payments for scalps tended to be the norm, all improvements that wouldn't have existed without british colonialism.

Key words 'after the revolution'. Not British policy, but American. To cite the evidence of British and not American improvements, we can only look at what they did in the US region prior to the revolution.

Umm, there is also something wrong with your link.

I'm not sure about the British policy with the aborigines, but you qualified your previous statement which was the point I wanted to make.

[Q Classic]

Ned, that little bit about saddam is to counter your comments that western influence has invariably been a good thing.

obviously, saddam wasn't a good thing for iraq or for the arab world. but he is very much a part of western thought.

it is quite true that if the west hadn't bothered to even go to that part of the world and bring the notion of a westphalian state, odds are iraq wouldn't have been formed, nor constituted in the manner it was.

britain is included in "the west".

[Ramo]

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.

The problem started far, far before the Bangladeshi Independence War against Pakistan or even the Partition of British India.

Bengal was an extremely rich area prior to British colonization, certainly one of the richest areas in the world. Clive considered Dhaka comparable to London. The region had very advanced industry for the day, in terms of textiles as well as shipbuilding and metalworking. The region produced high quality cotton. But when the Brits came, they destroyed all the native industry they could since Dhaka textile mills had a comparative advantage over London textile mills. The Brits brought about the de-industrialization of India.

The first major victim of British imperialism (besides Ireland), Bengal, had been converted from one of the richest to one of the poorest regions in the entire world. So, I'd have to say that your assertion that "the longer the British stayed, the less of a basketcase the countries
are today" is bull****.