The British Empire- did it produce things of enduring value, that still have significance in our world today? Or, was the empire just another example of imperialism and colonialism, that stunted the development of many in the third world in an attempt to aggrandize the mother country, and is best forgotten about?

Attitudes were quite different in those past centuries, and many sincerely thought they were doing something positive for the world in their colonizing efforts. The state of understanding of human psychology and physiology was not well developed compared to today, and so beliefs that are condemned today were often taken quite seriously back then.

Certainly we can say that English has become he common world language, and many have adopted the Westminster style of government, and other such institutions, to varying degrees.

On the other hand, many, like India for example, must wonder how things would have turned out if they had been able to follow their own course, and perhaps industrialize much sooner. Some places, like Egypt, certainly have no warm feelings of nostalgia.

Rate yourself on a scale of one to ten if you like:

1)The Brits were just self-interested opportunists, running roughshod over the rights of oppressed peoples all over the globe, and should be paying compensation and saying sorry at this point.

10) More than any other, Britain contributed to the planet’s development, introducing the rule of law, democracy, and modern technology where it otherwise would not have taken root, at least for a long time.

As tempted as I am to go for 1

I'd have to go around the middle somewhere. I think there was elements of both. I think 1 paved the way for 10 or at least coincided with it.

I would say that though.

If the Brits were less successful in the days of Tall Ships would we be slating the Portuguese instead?

We won back then, someone had to come out on top. So, put the tissues away and get over it. Laugh at our shrinking Empire, or come back to the Mother Land before you insult the Heavens further.

The Empire has it’s legacies, some notable, some notorious. The early Empire was more territorial gain than Empire building. The invasion of Ireland, the first overseas target, and then later the New Lands of the America. But it was in the second part of the Empires development we see the power of trade being the power behind expansionism.

The British would have been quite content just to trade in India, however with other European powers wanting to remove the British came the political intrigue and subsequent wars in India. This led to a major fact that took the British a rather long time to learn. You can’t trade peacefully; you must have a superior army and navy to keep it going. Keeping front of the arms race had it’s spinoffs for other industries and trade opportunities. The bad side of the Empire of this time also came about too. The power of capitalism leading to racist attitude in India to the Indians and of course the Opium wars in China.

The last stages of Empire also became a legacy too. Rather than just leave by popular demand a real attempt was to leave democratic politics up and working. It wasn’t always successful, with notable failures, but I don’t believe it had ever been attempted before in mankind’s history so a few broken eggs were bound to happen.

Animavore wrote:As tempted as I am to go for 1

I'd have to go around the middle somewhere. I think there was elements of both. I think 1 paved the way for 10 or at least coincided with it.

I would say that though.

I guess I could have included Ireland on the list of countries that do not have warm nostalgic memories of the days of empire.

Ironclad wrote:If the Brits were less successful in the days of Tall Ships would we be slating the Portuguese instead?

We won back then, someone had to come out on top. So, put the tissues away and get over it. Laugh at our shrinking Empire, or come back to the Mother Land before you insult the Heavens further.

If I am reading you correctly, you are registering yourself as a 10.

Peter Brown wrote:The Empire has it’s legacies, some notable, some notorious. The early Empire was more territorial gain than Empire building. The invasion of Ireland, the first overseas target, and then later the New Lands of the America. But it was in the second part of the Empires development we see the power of trade being the power behind expansionism.

The British would have been quite content just to trade in India, however with other European powers wanting to remove the British came the political intrigue and subsequent wars in India. This led to a major fact that took the British a rather long time to learn. You can’t trade peacefully; you must have a superior army and navy to keep it going. Keeping front of the arms race had it’s spinoffs for other industries and trade opportunities. The bad side of the Empire of this time also came about too. The power of capitalism leading to racist attitude in India to the Indians and of course the Opium wars in China.

The last stages of Empire also became a legacy too. Rather than just leave by popular demand a real attempt was to leave democratic politics up and working. It wasn’t always successful, with notable failures, but I don’t believe it had ever been attempted before in mankind’s history so a few broken eggs were bound to happen.

I tend to agree with you that the empire grew in fits and starts, and for various reasons. I think to an extent, we become what we believe, and after Britain had make some serious land grabs, and also got the jump on industrialization, the idea of the civilizing authority then began to take root, but not until well into the nineteenth century.

In North America, it took quite a while to get into the empire mood. At first, everyone thought it was China, or at least some outlying periphery. Trade was the only goal at that point. Eventually, it was recognized for what it was, but was still considered a comparatively empty wilderness in relation to Europe, with a scattering of rather inconsequential people. Good for trading for furs, codfish, and as a remote sanctuary for fringe religious groups, and who knows, maybe that tobacco stuff may make some sales. But it was well over a hundred years from Columbus before the idea of empire really took hold.

The British empire produced exactly what we have today. Any alternative is pure conjecture.

Father O Rielly wrote:
1)The Brits were just self-interested opportunists, running roughshod over the rights of oppressed peoples all over the globe, and should be paying compensation and saying sorry at this point.

10) More than any other, Britain contributed to the planet’s development, introducing the rule of law, democracy, and modern technology where it otherwise would not have taken root, at least for a long time.

Rather obviously, it varied from place to place, probably correlated with the date of colonisation and conquest. For example, the native population of NZ, although not treated particularly well and suffering from the usual introduced diseases, was infinitely better treated than other native populations, particularly those in Australia.

Interestingly some historians speak of two British Empires. The first up to 1776 or thereabouts was the North American Empire, the second was the one we now call the British Empire.

Like all Empires, Roman or any other you care to name had both good and bad aspects. The Roman Empire gave at one point Britain good,straight roads and baths which the moment they left the locals started to forget about. (OK not quite true but!)

The British Empire left India, a large part of Africa with an extensive railway systems funded by British money.The Royal Navy helped in the supression of slavery and piracy. However we had the Opium Wars with China which was about the Brits selling opium in China, which the Chinese Government did not want (not one of our greatest moments!). Not to mention other sundry wars with tribes which did see the benefit of "civilisation".

What I find interesting as a Brit is, as the Empire came to an end as it was going to at some point, we tried, not always successfully, not to cut and run but to leave in good order.

In many ways the British Government acquired an Empire by accident, it certainly didn't want an India Empire and that only came about when the British East India Company (founded for trade only) became so corrupt that even the laisse faire government of the day had to act. And as for Africa, whist the governments of the day may have publicly supported the likes of Cecil Rhodes (founder of the Rhodes Scholarships) privately quite a few politicians would not have been upset if they
had dropped dead. One late 19thC politician and Foreign Secretary ( and I cannot remember who) said "he could see the day when Britain would leave its empire and leave the terrortories to be ruled by the native inhabitants".

So I give the British Empire (both of them) 6/10, because like the curat's egg it was good in parts.

I tend to agree with you that the empire grew in fits and starts, and for various reasons. I think to an extent, we become what we believe, and after Britain had make some serious land grabs, and also got the jump on industrialization,

The industrialisation was another interesting aspect of this Empire, it was mostly home grown since Elizabeth 1st time rather than the importing of great minds like Americas post war expansion boom or the assimilation of minds like the Roman Empire.

the idea of the civilizing authority then began to take root, but not until well into the nineteenth century.

It was requested well before then by the EIC, and refused by the Governments. That was why the EIC had its own armies and governors. Then the Indian Mutiny occurred and the Government did take a real role in Indian politics in 1858.

One can argue that in some major events the MP’s really did learn lessons in world politics. So such tragedies paved the way for post WW2 independence negotiations, which like I mentioned wasn’t always successful. But no doubt it was the first time hearts and minds politic action was used rather than gunboat diplomacy?

Father O Rielly wrote:

Ironclad wrote:If the Brits were less successful in the days of Tall Ships would we be slating the Portuguese instead?

We won back then, someone had to come out on top. So, put the tissues away and get over it. Laugh at our shrinking Empire, or come back to the Mother Land before you insult the Heavens further.

If I am reading you correctly, you are registering yourself as a 10.

Maybe, if you like. Or, if you allow me to doctor the spurious scale of Empire-ness, a 1..?

1)The Brits, like any other advanced civilization you could name, were just self-interested opportunists..running roughshod over the rights of oppressed peoples all over the globe, and should be paying compensation and saying sorry at this point.

FIXED!

Father O Rielly wrote:In North America, it took quite a while to get into the empire mood. At first, everyone thought it was China, or at least some outlying periphery. Trade was the only goal at that point. Eventually, it was recognized for what it was, but was still considered a comparatively empty wilderness in relation to Europe, with a scattering of rather inconsequential people. Good for trading for furs, codfish, and as a remote sanctuary for fringe religious groups, and who knows, maybe that tobacco stuff may make some sales. But it was well over a hundred years from Columbus before the idea of empire really took hold.

It is useful to consider what trade entails in an imperial context, since it is a word that is liable to suggest a rather benign and consensual relationship. To look at only one aspect of the situation, the European presence in the 'New World' as a whole (including North America) cannot be separated from the development of plantation slavery. 'Trade' in this context included not only the buying and selling of human beings on a massive scale, but a lengthy period of experimentation with indentured labour and attempts to press native Americans into service on plantations. 'Trade' between the American colonies and their European masters also entailed enormous levels of 'social and economic engineering', so the colonies could provide markets for European manufactures and vital inputs for its industries. Mercantilism, after all, was not a free-trade doctrine, but one which was based on developing strategic resources and advantageous conditions for the 'metropolis'.

We ought to acknowledge too, that the conquest of the Americas also involved substantial and widespread plunder, which was carried out without even the pretense of any kind of voluntary exchange being involved.

Barry Cade wrote:

Father O Rielly wrote:In North America, it took quite a while to get into the empire mood. At first, everyone thought it was China, or at least some outlying periphery. Trade was the only goal at that point. Eventually, it was recognized for what it was, but was still considered a comparatively empty wilderness in relation to Europe, with a scattering of rather inconsequential people. Good for trading for furs, codfish, and as a remote sanctuary for fringe religious groups, and who knows, maybe that tobacco stuff may make some sales. But it was well over a hundred years from Columbus before the idea of empire really took hold.

It is useful to consider what trade entails in an imperial context, since it is a word that is liable to suggest a rather benign and consensual relationship. To look at only one aspect of the situation, the European presence in the 'New World' as a whole (including North America) cannot be separated from the development of plantation slavery. 'Trade' in this context included not only the buying and selling of human beings on a massive scale, but a lengthy period of experimentation with indentured labour and attempts to press native Americans into service on plantations. 'Trade' between the American colonies and their European masters also entailed enormous levels of 'social and economic engineering', so the colonies could provide markets for European manufactures and vital inputs for its industries. Mercantilism, after all, was not a free-trade doctrine, but one which was based on developing strategic resources and advantageous conditions for the 'metropolis'.

We ought to acknowledge too, that the conquest of the Americas also involved substantial and widespread plunder, which was carried out without even the pretense of any kind of voluntary exchange being involved.

True enough, the concept of trade often merged with the concept of organized crime at various points in history.

In North America I think it can be argued though that Britain often went easier on the natives than either Spain, or later, the US. The Hudson’ Bay Company, the fur trading empire that had virtual sovereignty over a large chunk of North America for three hundred years, had, for the most part, reasonable relations with aboriginal groups. Europe wanted furs, the natives wanted the industrial products of Europe. This was a stable situation for quite a while. Eventually of course, land was grabbed, but even here there was much less violence and conflict than there was in the rest of the new world.

Father O Rielly wrote:On the other hand, many, like India for example, must wonder how things would have turned out if they had been able to follow their own course, and perhaps industrialize much sooner.

I don't think there would have been an India without British colonization. Some would dispute that there is an India today, given that Pakistan and Bangladesh, thought historically part of the Indian cultural sphere, are independent states. From what I understand, India is more of a region of different cultures and languages, like Europe, rather than a relatively homogenous nation with a history of being a nation, like France.

As for late Indian industrialization, I don't think that can be blamed on the Brits. The Indians went on for decades with Gandhian economics. It was quite recently that India ditched that idea and started to liberalize their economy, making it more integrated in the global economy, thus leading to the recent economic boom.

Father O Rielly wrote:Some places, like Egypt, certainly have no warm feelings of nostalgia.

That's quite understandable I guess. Though Egypt had not been an independent state for centuries, so to blame it solely on the Brits seems rather myopic. Egypt has been an independent state for quite some time, and its economic development is meager.

Father O Rielly wrote:Rate yourself on a scale of one to ten if you like:

1)The Brits were just self-interested opportunists, running roughshod over the rights of oppressed peoples all over the globe, and should be paying compensation and saying sorry at this point.

10) More than any other, Britain contributed to the planet’s development, introducing the rule of law, democracy, and modern technology where it otherwise would not have taken root, at least for a long time.

I think that depends on era, the group of people involved and the place in question. If we count decendents of Brits particularly and European-descended people in general, the result is very good indeed. It is also very good for places like Hong Kong and Singapore. The Brits hit upon one of the best ways of running a country so far devised, and those who have adopted them, like the last two places, have prospered as a result. However, it is undeniable that the British presence has been bad for Native Americans (both US and Canada), as well as for the Aboriginals in Australia, even though the history of interaction between European settlers and Native Americans is a bit more complex than the usual image of Europeans exterminating the Natives.

I also suspect that the Brits were rather nasty to the Irish, and I think that the Scottish claim of them being oppressed just like the Irish is preposterous. The Scots were Protestants like the English (and unlike the Irish), and often gladly took part in committed atrocities.

Can somebody explain the logistics of all this, to me? I've never understood how such a small nation could conquer and control such a vast empire, for so long. How was that even possible?

Divide and Rule ... Plus a large dose of pure Victorian arrogance..

Watchman wrote:Divide and Rule ... Plus a large dose of pure Victorian arrogance..

That's got nothing to do with logistics.

jamest wrote:Can somebody explain the logistics of all this, to me? I've never understood how such a small nation could conquer and control such a vast empire, for so long. How was that even possible?

The answer: The Royal Navy.

Upto 1900 the largest and most powerful navy in the world, and till about 1940 the largest merchant fleet. Have those and you could control the world before the advent of the aeroplane.

The other thing that Great Britain had compared to its rivals was, and this is what helped to defeat France in the Napoleonic Wars, a sophisticated financial system. What is often forgotten is that during the Napoleonic Wars is that whilst the British Government was paying for the British Military it was also paying other countries to fight France as well, and still managing to kick start the industrial revolution to boot.

Plus in the case of quite a few lands 'bribing' some of the locals that its was in their best interests to have British Rule. Interestingly the Romans used the same technique.

jamest wrote:Can somebody explain the logistics of all this, to me? I've never understood how such a small nation could conquer and control such a vast empire, for so long. How was that even possible?

At first, it was pretty much defensiveness. England didn't want to get steamrolled by Spain or France, a distinct possibility, as these were larger and more powerful countries in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The idea of strategic bases in places like Virginia and Newfoundland came up, needed as much to deny them to Spain or France, as for anything else. Money was to be made in the new world, and in Asia, and control of the seas was crucial, it was soon realized. Britain had some very good luck on the maritime front, and became dominant. It was also one of the first countries to industrialize, giving a huge leg up on the rest of the world. When you have a machine gun, and the natives have spears, the contest is quite skewed. India, with its huge population, was a problem, and Britain never did really directly rule the entire subcontinent. They made deals with sub-states, and ruled some key areas. Even at that, they depended enormously on local support. But it was a little tenuous, certainly by the mid twentieth century. The Far East went down like a house of cards under the Japanese in 1941, and India only stuck around because of the promise of independence after WW2. By the time the US ordered Britain out of Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956, it was obvious the imperial game was over.