Did the British Imperialism improve the world?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet not far worse then British treatment of the aborigines.

Yes, actually far worse. The Spanish were so brutal that the British looked like Mother Teresa by comaparison.

[tinyp3nis]

Q cubed:

but i honestly think that east asia is a lot worse off because of the Western notions of rampant capitalism/industrialization (resulting in the desecration and destruction of many regions of the environment), the broken family (korea has one of the highest rates of divorce now), the consumerism (resulting in a much less family-oriented atmosphere in korea and a harsher environment), communism (nkorea and china--nuff said)...

I am puzzled how western culture made korea have large divorce rate.
Quickly thinking I would end up with the result that luxury+individual awakening is to be at fault, and yes these are part of the western culture, however I wanna know:
Is there any culture on earth that can overcome ingreasing luxury rate and knowledge? I mean, when people get money, and education, they become selfish "bastards". Don't blame the western culture if the people are just human.

But that's just quickly thinking, is there something I am missing?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by obiwan18
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.

Hey, if your going to avoid to see the difference between settler colonies like the Americas, Australia, etc and plantation colonies like most others then I'll bring up the disease. After a short time it was quite obvious to europeans what was happening and they often capitalized on this, as they capitalized on the natives weekness with alcohol.

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.

You count the formation of the US as a British improvement but they can disown all the ill effects of this great achievement? It was a British gentleman, George Washington, who ordered the sending of pestilence ridden blankets to the Iroquois, a practise which he learned from serving in the British army, this is the US with all the British institutions of humanity, rule of law and so on and so on that the Brits spread throughout the world?

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.

Hmm, you're right. Well, you're going to have to trust me on that (I doubt you will) because it was hard enough finding that link. However, though I did say "most brutal" I have to admit thats just a term I use and not a relative comparison to other colonizers. Bad choice of words.

Anyway, there are 4 countries that seem to be successful British colonies, helped along because they had a negligable amount of natives after the deprivations of disease, compared to how many failures. I don't think the benefits add up.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey, if your going to avoid to see the difference between settler colonies like the Americas, Australia, etc and plantation colonies like most others then I'll bring up the disease.

gsmoove:

I don't avoid the difference, I simply stated that there are colonies on both sides of the coin. It's a bit farther up in the thread.

It was a British gentleman, George Washington, who ordered the sending of pestilence ridden blankets to the Iroquois, a practise which he learned from serving in the British army, this is the US with all the British institutions of humanity, rule of law and so on and so on that the Brits spread throughout the world?

Well, one down with the scalps.

Did they ship the disease ridden blankets expecting the Iroquois to die? That's the key point, as well as the assertion that this was common British policy.

I thought this was intended to be humanitarian aid, ship them blankets to keep them warm.

Hmm, you're right. Well, you're going to have to trust me on that (I doubt you will) because it was hard enough finding that link.

Lacking evidence, not much I can do.

I can try to find some links to help your position.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~cpa/garchve3/1033dust.html

Unfortunately from the Guardian's archives.

[Sikander]

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. 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.

The question isn't "Was British colonialism driven solely by altruism?", so I think people who point out positive benefits are in the right as they are addressing the question at hand.

I find your idea that somehow this could have been done in a peaceful and cooperative way to be the more laughable one. In retrospect perhaps much of the pain could have been avoided, but the cost would have been much slower development on both sides, including btw the development that makes modern Westerners sad about the death, destruction and disruption caused by colonialism. People like to go on about how much of an impact Europeans had on other societies, but it is important to remember that this was a two way street, and other societies were responsible for a lot of the changes that happened in Europe during this time. New World crops alone had a large hand in quadrupling the population of Europe, and Eastern religions and philosophy is still having a large effect on Western philosophy and and religions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
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.

Yeah, that's a great movie.

I agree with Spiffor and you.

[MikeH]

If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking Spanish or Portuguese.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Four counterexamples:

Hong Kong
Singapore
Malaysia
India

Malaysia isn't doing bad, but I won't call it thriving. India has a lot to do, unfortuately its leaders have been obsessed with the dreams of a regional empire, thus pouring money into military intead of other more fundamental needs.

However, without the Brits, I'd say the India subcontinent would remain one whole country instead of splintered into a few.

As for Hong Kong and Singapore, they became prosperous not because of any British goodwill or planning, but were a result of fortuitous events, geographical location, and some solid long term planning in the case of Singapore.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

However, without the Brits, I'd say the India subcontinent would remain one whole country instead of splintered into a few.

The Indian sub-continent wasn't a single country when the British took over in the late 18th/early 19th century. Some bits of India they conquered but about 1/3 remained as nominally independent kingdoms with their own Maharajahs until 1948. They had to not act against British interests though or the ruler would be "replaced". It is not true to say India was a single united country before the British though.

The one mistake the British (Mountbatten in particular) have no excuse for was putting the predominantly muslim state of Kashmir into India rather than into Pakistan. Otherwise the British maintained and improved the infrastructure and got rid of a lot of the less attractive local customs.

[GeneralTacticus]

As I recall, the Brits didn't have a whole lot to do with Kashmir; they were trying to get out as quickly as they could, so they left the issue to be settled by whoever else wanted it. Naturally, the result wasn't at all pleasant.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MikeH
If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking Spanish or Portuguese.

No, we'd all be spekaing Finnish !

[gsmoove23]

I find your idea that somehow this could have been done in a peaceful and cooperative way to be the more laughable one. In retrospect perhaps much of the pain could have been avoided, but the cost would have been much slower development on both sides, including btw the development that makes modern Westerners sad about the death, destruction and disruption caused by colonialism.

Sure, I admitted it was laughable, but people keep mentioning the benefits of western culture as if the colonizers actually cared to transmit these things. The British did a fair job of teaching natives about a brand new way of looking at warfare, showed them the perfect example of oppressive government, methods of brutality that rivalled the native culture's if not surpassed. I still don't see the British systematically transmitting the humanitarian or educational merits of western society to all of the native cultures they colonized. You say that colonization did this quicker then more peaceful means would have but what has it done? In most cases the British ruled for centuries and it can't be clearly said that in most cases they left the natives better off then when they came.

Obiwan,

Wow, thanks for finding the link. Much respect.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As I recall, the Brits didn't have a whole lot to do with Kashmir; they were trying to get out as quickly as they could, so they left the issue to be settled by whoever else wanted it. Naturally, the result wasn't at all pleasant.

The same thing with Israel or Palestine as it was. The British ruled with the optimism that they could do no wrong and somewhat good intentions, but when it seemed that there was no good solution to the mess they made they booked and let the cards fall where they may. This is a perfect example of the 'benefits' of British colonization.

[GeneralTacticus]

I know; I think they did a very bad job with Kashmir, but their fault was in what they failed to do, rather than what they did do.