Were they the good guys or bad guys?
The perfidious Albion is never the good guy to anyone but himself
Compared to the Spanish, Portugese and French imperialists of the age they were the loveliest people imaginable.
The British Empire is on par with Rome. What you should ask yourself is whether American Neo-Imperialism is a force for general good, or bad?
The British gave us
-Common law
-Free Trade
-Habeas Corpus
-Trial by jury
-Industrial revolution
-Magna Carta
-Incorruptible administration
-Infrastructure that still survives today centuries after the fact (See: India)
-Once of the first and only counties in the world to end slavery
There is a reason that all members of the commonwealth generally regard British colonialism as a positive. A few countries that weren't even colonized by Britain begged to join the commonwealth.
The British Empire was on the whole a "force for good" in the world, which is more than can be said for the American Empire -- which is almost universally hated, for good reasons.
>>1278111
>morality
>>1278111
Good because they gave the world something of a unifying language and writing system
>good guys or bad guys
>in history
How's being 13, OP?
>>1278644
>incorruptible administration
>>1278644
>Israel
>Africa
>good
>>1278608
Absolutely false.
>that America
>that Indonesia
"No"
>>1278608
Yea, say that to the Indians
t. a frog
>>1278111
They had good intentions but relied on the shitty British lower class to enforce it. You can still see the remnants of lower class British ilk infection the world through England football hooligan culture.
>>1278111
they embody literally the same things 4chan says about turks, except the difference is that turks actually have good food
>>1279171
And weather
>>1279178
That too.
>>1278608
All them were bastards in different ways.
>>1278111
The worst guys.
>>1279171
What Turkish traits do they have?
>>1279257
tax extortion. Forced labour. Conversions. cultural ruination being a dick for the sake of it I guess?
>>1279257
conquering a bunch of useless land and then being proud of it?
>>1278930
I dunno, not OP but there have been some pretty shitty people throughout history.
They did some good things and some bad things, in my opinion.
I'd say bad
The British Empire really wasn't that impressive, it owned a lot of land but in terms of population percentage it is beaten out by Rome, Mongol, and many others. Plus, the areas it did own were dirt poor and put up zero fight
>>1279467
To be fair, it did govern nearly a quarter of the people on earth
And all colonial empires took land from technologically inferior people who couldn't fight. At the very least they took colonies from other empires like Spain and France, which is slightly more impressive
>>1279556
It governed the least devoloped fifth of the world at the time. Rome won against hordes of European tribes, Mongolia conquered the Middle East and China, the British Empire won against desolate backwaters.
I will give them credit for having an empire that was very good at economic exploitation, in that regard it is unmatched, but in reality that was the Empire's undoing since the economic development gave its colonies the resources to fight back. But in terms of actually conquering anything worth a damn, it didn't do much
As someone from a former colony (new Zealand) I am immensely thankful that it was Britain who colonised the country. There is a reason why the majority European descended English colonies, e.g. NZ, Aus, East coast America are better than Spain's or Portugal's.
Also it's worth pointing out that Britain did more to fight slavery than any other empire so they can't be that bad.
>>1278111
That map is weird, it includes Java which was controlled by the empire from 1811-1814 but excludes all of the middle eastern possessions.
>>1278644
>-Infrastructure that still survives today centuries after the fact (See: India)
>british delusions
>>1279257
looking like this (the typical anglo specimen)
>>1279617
The difference is that Britain's empire was established significantly quicker than Rome's.
And it's not like Britain and her empire haven't had their share of military heroes and military victories. They also had one of the greatest navies ever seen.
>>1279667
I'm pretty sure the majority of India's rail network used today was built by the British, as were countless schools, hospitals, government buildings etc. Its hardly being delusional.
I always love these threads because people unironically list all the shitty tings the British empire did without realizing that literally every other empire was either doing the same things or worse.
Did Britain do some immensely shitty things to millions of people? Of course they fucking did but they weren't on their own, they just happened to be more successful at the time.
>>1280760
They let 3 million starve in Bengal because of negligance.
Barely anybody knows this and it needs to be discussed.
>>1279720
>I'm pretty sure the majority of India's rail network used today was built by the British, as were countless schools, hospitals, government buildings etc. Its hardly being delusional.
>literally have 5 FIVE FIVE FUCKING systems of tracks for railways
>india spends decades trying to modernize it and smoothening it out while providing subsidized travel to millions of people
>"lol, we wuz railway tycoons and shit"
>>1280808
they should have fished
oh wait...
>>1278644
The US and its companies have built far, far more infrastructure world wide than the Brits ever did, and we've allowed our "colonies" far more independence than any empire ever has, in addition to, in the vast majority of cases, given them the highest standard of living any of them have ever seen.
Yeah, we're dicks, but we're still Man's best hope for long term survival. (At least until we "MAGA".)
>>1279617
Rome was a colonial Empire after the Punic Wars, as Britain was after the war of Spanish Succession. Rome became supreme over Carthage; Britain became supreme over France.
>>1278644
>colonialism
>positive
Regardless of who does it, be it moors, Romans or Brits, it's fucking barbaric.
>>1280977
>barbaric to bring barbarians to the modern age
great logic
>>1278111
neither its fucking history not some bullshit novel.
It had good and bad aspects which cannot be weighted in a logical manner.
Colonial governments were tyrannical of course, though I'm not sure why liberals are obsessed with this since no one ever denied it.
The people were good. How many scientists, inventors and businessmen changed the world during this era? Again, liberals are obsessed with this for obvious reasons, however some of these people really were exceptional and learned some important things that can help people in life so they would make excellent role models for black boys struggling in dysfunctional inner city schools.
Britain's domestic government was not 100% fair and egalitarian but at least ahead of most other countries in terms of democratic institutions. I believe no one had been executed for criticizing the king or politicians since the 1689 bill of rights while today people are routinely murdered for criticizing Putin.
London was a diverse cosmopolitan melting pot, I agree with the liberals here that this was a good thing, people were poor but no one was in chains and it was bubbling with opportunities, a black boxer could make it here, if you were a businessman pioneering new technology you would have among the highest chances of success here or in some other thriving part of England like Manchester or Liverpool. Relatively speaking it led the way from around the time of Charles I until Paris and New York by around the 1880s.
Mostly the bad guys... but they get off the hook a bit for banning slavery when it was a third of their economy and for spending all their money fighting Germans of various uniforms.
Also when you're in a world with the Belgium King, its difficult being the top bad guy.
>>1281069
>>1278111
>>1278644
>>1280929
WE WUZ ON MOONZ
>>1278644
Go grab the nearest knife and swallow it.
The bad.
Ok, With the fall of Spain, France and Britain had their own coexistence system for pretty much the XIX century.
When Germany reclaimed his place in the sun, they obviously tried to mantain his privileges, and you know the rest...
>>1278608
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH, Are you serious?
Look how many indigenous are in the ex-spanish, protuguese, or french colonies, and now, look how many indigenous are in north america.
While spaniards gave nearly full rights to their indigenous people, british basically did a genocide.
But...muh empire, we are whitz and god chozen...look an those spicks...etc...
>>1278111
thats a country nigga not a video game npc
>>1278644
And thngs like Free Trade, Common lay, etc..already existed before.
Seriously, Albion was literally a pirate island.
>>1278132
First post best post, you know it
>no land on the continent
L O L
>>1281078
Banned slavery but still had forced labour, arbitrary taxation and indentured servitude
>>1279720
India built it's own infrastructure for a long fucking time during and post colonial by local leaders or the Indian government.
They weren't Africa, they had the money and education+expertise to do so with little foreign assistance.
>>1281108
Can someone explain this without retarded alien allegories?
>>1279720
Britain destroyed so much of India's infrastructure it wasn't even funny.
>>1282976
Just the designated shitting streets
The British are the luckiest bastards in history. They got to reap the profits of a massive empire and then somewhat graciously exit from imperialism. Sure, the Americans sort of forced them out, but all the same, they never fell like so many imperial powers before them. They kept all their horded treasure and power.
>>1281144
>british basically did a genocide.
The fuck are you talking about? The British famously were continuously allied with the Indians for decades, and one of the reasons for the American Revolution was because the British were discouraging further American expansion west into native lands. The Brits didn't engage in wars of extermination the way the Spanish did in the New World.
>>1279165
Incompetence is not malice. The empires mentioned were far worse to their colonials. Have you even heard of Haiti? Or New Spain? Or half of Africa. Honestly Belgium should be added to the list too, what with Kongo.
>While spaniards gave nearly full rights to their indigenous people
You mean the indigenous peoples who were wiped out by plague and forced to work as serfs in the mines to produce silver for the treasure fleets?
>>1282974
Throughout history the only people who have ever benefited from national independence from colonial masters have been the local colonially-educated upper class. It was exactly the same in Rome. The Batavian Revolt, Battle of Teutoburg Forest and Boudicca's revolt all stem from local nobles who were Roman educated and prospered under the Roman system.
>>1282976
Yeah just like the Indian railway network, the largest and most impressive on Earth, which gives quite literally millions of Indians work and hundreds of millions more the ability to get to work.
>>1281108
Clever story, but only a Brit would airbrush over all the negatives of colonisation, especially the fact that no Indians would share in the wealth of their country unless they were born into literal royalty.
>>1285417
>especially the fact that no Indians would share in the wealth of their country unless they were born into literal royalty.
You know, apart from the educated literate and wealthy middle class like Nehru and that man Gandhi, the famous British trained lawyer who eventually got mad, went crazy and became an ultra-nationalist.
>>1285403
>Yeah just like the Indian railway network, the largest and most impressive on Earth, which gives quite literally millions of Indians work and hundreds of millions more the ability to get to work.
not built by the brits. The indians had to remake huge sections of it and the most difficult engineering challenges were left by the brits because they were not interested in actually facilitating the movement of people but that of easily mineable resources. Which is why backwards states had a lot of railways built into them while major population centers often did not.
>>1285454
Yeah, nehrus were rich as fuck aristocrats and Gandhi was literally the prime minister's son for a princely state.
At least give a better example like India's first president.
Without talking of the actual facts, their ideology is shit.
"Muh we're hiding in our island and sending our colonials to the fight" The filthy brits have no honor, no sense of morality and have a shitty cuisine. The saddest thing being they actually won the world, them and their typical capitalist ideology.
Perfidious Albion is a well-owned name.
>>1287132
Them giving aid to the Biafrans while funding Nigeria at the same time is ridiculous to observers back then and to several MP's.
>>1287195
I don't find anything on the fact that they were supporting the two sides. All I see is that they supported Nigeria. Can you give a link on this or anything ?
>>1278111
There are not "good" or "bad" guys in history
But one thing is for certain, none of the people that they were colonizing wanted them there. Even the countries populated with their own people had Canada and Australia applying for dominion and America and South Africa going into outright armed revolt. Don't even know how their technology made their societies better since after all is said in done most of them are third world shitholes (though I guess they are all doing better than French, Russian, and Spanish former colonies and especially the Congo).
