Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Wtiberon]

Niall Ferguson recently wrote a book called Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power in which he says that the British Empire economically improved the areas of the world that it controlled (and even those that it didn't). What do you think did the British Empire usher the rest of the world into the modern era as Niall claims or did the fact that we did not allow these regions to develop naturally set back progress.

Personally I think that the British Empire DID improve certain areas of the world (India, America, Australia are great examples...and hurt other areas (middle east, Africa). So what do you think?

[Ned]

Yes.

[SlowwHand]

Sure. I wish to gawd you people could/would do something about Canada, but other than that, sure.

[Sava]

No

[Kirnwaffen]

I think it improved the world economically at an enormous social and human cost.

[yavoon]

british imperialism was easily the best imperialism. and if u look around in general ex british colonies have it pretty good compared to their neighbors.

so by just menial observation I'd go w/ yes.

[Sandman]

Asia: Damaged
Africa: Damaged
Middle-East: Damaged
Europe: Didn't even try
Americas: Can't be blamed for grabbing almost empty land, I suppose.
Oceania: Ditto.

[Sava]

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

[Spiffor]

It depends of your priorities. If you're first interested about economic growth and the instillation of the western's idea of progress, the British imperialism sure had a positive impact in these regards pretty much everywhere it went.

If you don't consider economic growth and scientific knowledge to be self-obvious aims for the human beings, and if you accept the validity of non-technologically bent societies, the answer is a firm no.

The European imperialism, with the British one being the most important, spread European values throughout a world that was still medieval (if not tribal), and that would have remained so much longer without that imperialism.
In order to success, this imperialism had in the best case to belittle these cultures, and in the worst case to genocide them.

Hence, from my perspective, the answer is no.

[SlowwHand]

Why am I so NOT surprised at some of the responses?

[Kirnwaffen]

Why am I so NOT surprised at some of the responses?

Two words: Loaded question.

[Spiffor]

Sloww:
Because you rightwingers are arrogant bastards overlooking the crimes against humanity because of some economic profit, whereas leftwingers are compassionate people who first feel for their fellow human ?

[yavoon]

only loaded cuz u took offense to it

[Ted Striker]

While I am the Brits biggest fan, colonialism in most cases left the places far more chaotic than they were originally, and, in many cases completely devastated areas.

Remember, that colonialism in most cases, the wealth travelled outside of the colony, and back to the motherland. That's a heavy resource drain.

Notice the following modern troublespots, all former colonies:

1) Israel/Palestine
2) India/Pakistan
3) Iran/Iraq

Coincidence that all of these places are at odds with one another?

The establishment of the British economic and educational systems bring the potential for greatness to many parts of the world, but unfortunatley, the fragmented state that many of these places have been left in, far outweighs any system. Africa, for example, is a disaster from colonialism.

Spiffor is right. Judging a country's progress by things like the existence of a stock market, freeways, and a higher education system is just plain wrong.

What's the name of that movie, I think it's, "The Gods Must be Crazy" ?

It's where the primitive african tribe is really happy, but then they find a simple coke bottle from the modern neighbors, and it ends up making all of them miserable.

[Kirnwaffen]

only loaded cuz u took offense to it

Who's offended?