Is the British Empire responsible for many of the worlds problems?

[BeBMan]

Anyway, I'm serious about this...



What's with that? You Europeans really get taught otherwise in your schools?

About colonialism? It's all teh evil here. But in school it gets overshadowed because we had not much colonies and ze Adolf was far more eviler.

In serious research there is a more balanced view, it's certainly still viewed with lotsa criticism though. Dunno 'bout them other Yurpeens what they get taught in school...

[Al B. Sure!]

You implied the British spread Christianity throughout India, which really isn't true. Most Indian Christians are Catholics thanks to Portuguese and French missionaries or some variation of eastern orthodoxy.

There are barely any Christians in India anyway. They are far outnumbered by Hindus and Muslims.

2.34% of Indians are Christian, which is a little more than Sikhs.

[Al B. Sure!]

About colonialism? It's all teh evil here. But in school it gets overshadowed because we had not much colonies and ze Adolf was far more eviler.

In serious research there is a more balanced view, it's certainly still viewed with lotsa criticism though. Dunno 'bout them other Yurpeens what they get taught in school...

The posts in this thread seem to indicate a lot of "rah rah! Long live the Queen and Britannia!" I don't know if it's a joke or what.

[giblets]

You implied the British spread Christianity throughout India, which really isn't true. Most Indian Christians are Catholics thanks to Portuguese and French missionaries or some variation of eastern orthodoxy.

Good point, I forgot French and Portuguese imperialism. But my point still stands: Christianity is the best religion because it has so many adherents, so former colonies of European nations should be thankful for it.

[notyoueither]

Oh fear not, I have nothing against the English language and I certainly would not claim that it's of no practical benefit to know it - just the guys' argument sounds to me as if it has some inherent benefit from the start or that it was given away to poor not-English-knowing-natives for altruistic reasons.

To me, it rather goes like "Knowing English is great because it is the lingua franca today esp. since British colonialism (maybe not exclusively, but to a good part) turned it into the lingua franca".

I would have thought that 'real countries' would indicate the presense of my tongue in my cheek.

[C0ckney]

Oh fear not, I have nothing against the English language and I certainly would not claim that it's of no practical benefit to know it - just the guys' argument sounds to me as if it has some inherent benefit from the start or that it was given away to poor not-English-knowing-natives for altruistic reasons.

To me, it rather goes like "Knowing English is great because it is the lingua franca today esp. since British colonialism (maybe not exclusively, but to a good part) turned it into the lingua franca".

well in a country with over 200 languages, it's good to have a lingua franca for reasons of unity, in a country which historically was never unified. a foreign tongue being the lingua franca also means that you avoid the problem of one native language group (and by extension one native group themselves) dominating the rest.

[Al B. Sure!]

well in a country with over 200 languages, it's good to have a lingua franca for reasons of unity, in a country which historically was never unified. a foreign tongue being the lingua franca also means that you avoid the problem of one native language group (and by extension one native group themselves) dominating the rest.

What about Hindi/Urdu?


And I'd say the Mughals had most of India under one government until the British showed up.

[Riesstiu IV]

There have been several empires that ruled all or most of India but none were lasting, including the Mauryan, Maratha, and Mughal dynasties. The Mughals reached there largest territorial extent by 1700 under Aurangzeb (at a great cost) but as soon as he died in 1707, his empire quickly disintegrated.

The problem that all these great Indian empires faced is that their strength could only be guaranteed so long as there was a strong and able ruler who could do the delicate balancing act of maintaing unity in disparate parts of their empires. The British were the first rulers to actually rule the whole of India for an extensive period of time by developing it economically and creating the bureaucratic foundations for a modern nation state.

[C0ckney]

What about Hindi/Urdu?


And I'd say the Mughals had most of India under one government until the British showed up.

see my second sentence. also, riesstiu is right, there were many great indian empires but they were all ephemeral. india is enormously diverse and every part has its own rich history, culture and traditions. ruling it as a single state was impossible for all but the most able of rulers.

[Egbert]

The posts in this thread seem to indicate a lot of "rah rah! Long live the Queen and Britannia!" I don't know if it's a joke or what.

Alby. The OP was most definitely a lot of ""rah rah! Long live the Queen and Britannia!". It was half serious.

BTW Alby. I suugest the British Empire was most definitely the reason why English is so widely spoken. It was, you might say, exported to the colonies such as the USA plus India, Oceania, big chunks of Africa the Carribean and other places.

Yep, the USA acquired the English language from England.

[Provost Harrison]

In the colonies! Not outside of the colonies!

And if you admit it was ONE factor which played A role, fine, I can live with that.

Albert, we controlled 2/5ths of the planet...it's a pretty critical mass.

And seriously, you ought to stop thinking you are the f**king centre of the universe. You do realise that, combined, the EU still has a much bigger economy than the US, no?

[Al B. Sure!]

Albert, we controlled 2/5ths of the planet...it's a pretty critical mass.

And seriously, you ought to stop thinking you are the f**king centre of the universe. You do realise that, combined, the EU still has a much bigger economy than the US, no?

If you want to act like American cultural exportation hasn't been HUGE, whatever...

[Provost Harrison]

It's a very recent phenomenon, that is all. It has perpetuated the current situation, but wasn't the primary cause.

[Provost Harrison]

On a side note though, why the hell do British schools teach French as the main second language? It is absolutely useless. I do business in Europe all the time and the language that I find most essential (and alas, I don't have) is German. German should be taught in British schools, not French!

[Dauphin]

If you want to act like American cultural exportation hasn't been HUGE, whatever...

American culture has certainly reinforced the English language around the globe, but the groundwork and foundations had been set down long before the US came out of isolationism.

Of course, it's not just "culture". English law and political structures are a lynchpin around much of the world.