Talk:British Empire
The main reason for the creation of the British Empire was to ensure a secure supply of tea.--Bobbing up 14:45, 20 February 2009 (EST)
I have added scones , with jam and cream and cucumber sandwiches , viva le Empire ! Hamster (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] The empire of evil
As much pain and misery as the British Empire caused, I think it's a little ridiculous that no one has mentioned it here. To quote Ali G, the British empire is "fully more eviler than Skeletor"
All those other villians we love to hate are just cheap henchmen compared to what the British wrought. — Unsigned, by: 174.22.67.138 / talk / contribs
- While the British Empire did cause a huge amount of suffering and misery, it's open to question whether we were notably worse than, say, the Romans. I'm not discounting the bad things we did or saying "everyone did it", I just think it's rather pointless to say that any particular empire was "the worst ever" - Ebon (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 06:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Really?
On the other hand, the British Empire was largely built on slavery, and as a result of British meddling, cultures and peoples around the globe were suppressed, if not outright exterminated.
I would like to hear the justification for this quite frankly offensive statement. I'll concede the slavery bit, but don't forget that the British Empire was also the main reason that the international slave trade was eventually abolished (With our warships). Also, native Africans were the ones selling the slaves in the most part, we were just buying them. Doesn't excuse it of course but I do think a little proportion of blame is required. ProudTory (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- That was very nice of them to do. Really swell. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly."
- So you admit that the British Empire ended slavery? Or does that offend your worldview? (All about colonialism being some great evil etc.) Will you please justify your BS about 'extermination'? ProudTory (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- "A little proportion of blame", it isnt the place of this article to go into detail on the sins of those who dealed with the colonial powers. --Mikal 21:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Extermination. And there are many economic historians of the West Indies who argue that the British ended slavery more for reasons having to do with economic advantage than for unbridled humanitarianism. Fittingly, "Inglan Is a Bitch" just came up on the shuffler. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The brits didn't end slavery becaue of anything moral, the cost of the wars between france and spain was getting simply to high. and hello, THEY AND THE REST OF EUROPE FUCKING DESTORY THOUSANDS OF CULTURES. God, you're a good little troll, hum?
Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- What's next, the "Ayrabs did it too!" defense? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I heard a few Native American tribes fought with each other once. Clearly they deserved their genocide.
Acer Blue 22:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- British settlers and their African allies killed during Mau Mau: 200. Kikuyu killed during Mau Mau: 12,000-20,000. Totally proportional. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that some terrible things happened throughout the history of the British Empire, and any loss of life is of course deeply regrettable and to be condemned. In a modern context, it would be utterly inexcusable. But this was the Imperial age, a lot of great things happened under the Empire too, and we mustn't forget about that. Some truly magnificent things. A pax Brittanica, where people could walk in safety throughout huge sections of the world, and trade in peace, and speak freely, and educate their children, all in the name of progress. Easily the most humanitarian and open Empire in the history of mankind. Rome without as many centurions. ProudTory (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Only if you were British. How do you think the Aborigines in Australia enjoyed your "Humanitarian and open Empire"? What about the Indians? Also, please sort out your indentation so it is in line with others. DamoHi 23:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure we did lots of bad things, but its all ok because we spread the glowing light of civilization to the savages! im sorry, but no amount of "great things" will be able to cut the edge off all the terrible things, it only reminds people that the world is not black and white. --Mikal 23:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Only if you were British. How do you think the Aborigines in Australia enjoyed your "Humanitarian and open Empire"? What about the Indians? Also, please sort out your indentation so it is in line with others. DamoHi 23:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that some terrible things happened throughout the history of the British Empire, and any loss of life is of course deeply regrettable and to be condemned. In a modern context, it would be utterly inexcusable. But this was the Imperial age, a lot of great things happened under the Empire too, and we mustn't forget about that. Some truly magnificent things. A pax Brittanica, where people could walk in safety throughout huge sections of the world, and trade in peace, and speak freely, and educate their children, all in the name of progress. Easily the most humanitarian and open Empire in the history of mankind. Rome without as many centurions. ProudTory (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- British settlers and their African allies killed during Mau Mau: 200. Kikuyu killed during Mau Mau: 12,000-20,000. Totally proportional. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I heard a few Native American tribes fought with each other once. Clearly they deserved their genocide.
- What's next, the "Ayrabs did it too!" defense? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I, for one, reject murder and war as appropriate tools of national policy. But I do recognise that the British Empire did a lot of good as well. It is only fair that we recognise and celebrate that contribution to the improvement of the human condition. Many of these primitive cultures were incapable of improving themselves in isolation anyway. How do you think Europe developed initially? Because of the Roman invasions! What about the Meditterean world? The Greek colonies! A lot of good can happen when a superior civilisation interacts with an inferior one. (Nothing to do with race by the way, just an observation about the relative sophistication of various cultures) ProudTory (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The use of "superior" is where you and me will never have meaningful dialogue.--Mikal 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I, for one, reject murder and war as appropriate tools of national policy. But I do recognise that the British Empire did a lot of good as well. It is only fair that we recognise and celebrate that contribution to the improvement of the human condition. Many of these primitive cultures were incapable of improving themselves in isolation anyway. How do you think Europe developed initially? Because of the Roman invasions! What about the Meditterean world? The Greek colonies! A lot of good can happen when a superior civilisation interacts with an inferior one. (Nothing to do with race by the way, just an observation about the relative sophistication of various cultures) ProudTory (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I forgot about political correctness (Though people will essentially make the same argument using kinder words, so really the only difference is your squeemishness and antagonism towards reality) ProudTory (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- By "superior" I presume you mean "more muskets". Interesting way to view history I suppose. Refreshingly honest. DamoHi 23:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- More weapons certainly, but also an advanced economic, social, cultural and political system by any system of comparison. Thats the honest part of it. ProudTory (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- what would you blame the currently numerous problems of africa on, my proud friend?--Mikal 23:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Much of Africa is booming economically as we speak, just beginning to get over decades of misgovernance. Africa has the resources to be as wealthy as any other part of the globe. For too long, western guilt over colonialism gave dictators a carte blanche to do what they liked to their own people. We should have intervened, militarily, and installed more amenable transitional regimes after the formal process of decolonialisation began. ProudTory (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, more imperialism. Do you even care what the African people might have thought of that? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing as they are inferior, what they think clearly doesn't matter, TOP
Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- African people suffered more under post colonial dictatorships than they did under British rule. Don't let facts get in your way. Such an inconvenient thing, is a fact. Also, Godot, do not seek bad intent where it is not there. Nowhere did I say the Africans were 'inferior', biologically they are the same as us. For a variety of geographic and historical reasons their societies were less developed is all. ProudTory (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ahh, less developed societies, the best solution is to conquer them with our military and force them to be like us. Nevermind what they want. --Mikal 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would beg to differ that they "suffered more", though i know nothing about Africa, i'll leave that to TOP. i can talk about Native Americans and how wonderfully well European colonialize treated them, and continues to treat them today. The cultures were not "inferior", they just hadn't developed in the same way - and may or may not have. giving people technology is frankly, quite different than handing them a Book of Order and saying "worship or die", which is largely what Europeans in general said and did.
Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- In some ways the approach in Australia was more humane. You just pretend that no humans lived there. That way you don't have to worry about any issues of land theft or genocide - there are no people to steal from or kill. You also don't have to worry about granting them citizenship or letting them vote till the 1960's. Simple solution. DamoHi 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, because Americans treated Native Americans so well. ProudTory (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps is Britain had done its job as lord of the world and intervened militarily, it could have been stopped./ or perhaps had Britain not taught us that treating the natives that way was perfectly ok... --Mikal 01:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You do understand that the treatment of native americans is largely a British thing (well, european), since, you know "americans" were european colonizers. It's not like "americans" were the native Lakota speaking people saying 'iyaya, wisichakun'. just saying....
Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You do understand that the treatment of native americans is largely a British thing (well, european), since, you know "americans" were european colonizers. It's not like "americans" were the native Lakota speaking people saying 'iyaya, wisichakun'. just saying....
- Perhaps is Britain had done its job as lord of the world and intervened militarily, it could have been stopped./ or perhaps had Britain not taught us that treating the natives that way was perfectly ok... --Mikal 01:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, because Americans treated Native Americans so well. ProudTory (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- In some ways the approach in Australia was more humane. You just pretend that no humans lived there. That way you don't have to worry about any issues of land theft or genocide - there are no people to steal from or kill. You also don't have to worry about granting them citizenship or letting them vote till the 1960's. Simple solution. DamoHi 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would beg to differ that they "suffered more", though i know nothing about Africa, i'll leave that to TOP. i can talk about Native Americans and how wonderfully well European colonialize treated them, and continues to treat them today. The cultures were not "inferior", they just hadn't developed in the same way - and may or may not have. giving people technology is frankly, quite different than handing them a Book of Order and saying "worship or die", which is largely what Europeans in general said and did.
- Ahh, less developed societies, the best solution is to conquer them with our military and force them to be like us. Nevermind what they want. --Mikal 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- African people suffered more under post colonial dictatorships than they did under British rule. Don't let facts get in your way. Such an inconvenient thing, is a fact. Also, Godot, do not seek bad intent where it is not there. Nowhere did I say the Africans were 'inferior', biologically they are the same as us. For a variety of geographic and historical reasons their societies were less developed is all. ProudTory (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing as they are inferior, what they think clearly doesn't matter, TOP
- In other words, more imperialism. Do you even care what the African people might have thought of that? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Much of Africa is booming economically as we speak, just beginning to get over decades of misgovernance. Africa has the resources to be as wealthy as any other part of the globe. For too long, western guilt over colonialism gave dictators a carte blanche to do what they liked to their own people. We should have intervened, militarily, and installed more amenable transitional regimes after the formal process of decolonialisation began. ProudTory (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- what would you blame the currently numerous problems of africa on, my proud friend?--Mikal 23:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- More weapons certainly, but also an advanced economic, social, cultural and political system by any system of comparison. Thats the honest part of it. ProudTory (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- By "superior" I presume you mean "more muskets". Interesting way to view history I suppose. Refreshingly honest. DamoHi 23:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Legacy of the British Empire
There are multiple problems with this section. Attributing the spread of democracy and industrialisation to the British Empire specifically, rather than wider cultural, political, social & economics shifts within the European world and its sphere of influence, is rather facile. Plus the list of "some of the strongest democracies" presented here includes Malaysia and Singapore, which our articles actually identify as dictatorships in all but name. The British Empire's "quest to uplift the rest of the world" is also rather a romantic view of activities, & I'm not sure how accurate the statement about hunter-gatherer peoples is. I'll try & look at revising this tonight, but if anyone wants to make an effort to sort it out in the meantime, please be my guest. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 14:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- That whole section was added by an MC sock on a trolling binge. It's gone now. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, his fake plastic Tory. Good riddance. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, his fake plastic Tory. Good riddance. Wėąṣėḷőįď