Was British colonioalism a curse or a Blessing to the colonized nantion?

Answer 1

Through History UK was imperialistic country and British people colonialists. As Germany is considered as bad nation with dark history (because Nazi history), almost everybody forgot about England and their most dark history.

P.S: The nonsense is that English would like to believe they brought to native progress and most important "peace" in their land.

Answer 2

Hard to generalise a response. But.......

In the case of the 'new world colonies' you could only call it a curse as the colonised peoples were obliterated and replaced by settlers from other parts of the globe who then proceeded to wipe out any collective notion of the colonies prior to colonisation. These immigrants and their decendants probably believe colonisatio was wonderful, but not those few decendants of the original inhabitants!

In the case of African colonies you could only call it a curse as their is no African country that you could hold up as an example of a nation with people who are broadly wealthy, healthy and politically free. The history of African colonisation was exploitation of local resources (in particular land) and then post-colonial arbitrary creation of nations that seperated friends and consolidated traditional foes. I don't think there is one ex British colony in Africa that thinks...."thank god for the British!"

I suspect Asia may provide some examples where the fruits of colonisation are perhaps more prevalent than the curses. On the sub-continent, you could argue that the only negative legacy is the historical footnote that they were once under colonial masters who had their fair share of atrocities conducted on the locals. On the positive, countries like India are leveraging the strengths gained from the institutions the British left behind (mainly parliamentary, educational and military) to become world beaters on the golobal stage.

Answer 3

It is too big and complex an issue to say one OR the other; in each country there were aspects of both. Places certainly benefited from the infrastructure introduced, and many former colonies would be better off today had they retained the multiparty parliamentary systems and free press/free courts left behind by the British at the time of independence. Instead many have thrown off the British systems for corrupt dictatorships.

The British banned barbaric practices which no civilised person could mourn (like burning widows in India, and female genital mutilation in Muslim countries), but also did harm by sometimes attacking local customs which should have been left alone. India, the biggest colony, benefited from the railroads and national unity which Britain introduced, but suffered from the sloppily-drawn borders of 1947.

Before tastelessly comparing Britain to the Nazis, as one poster as done, look at other European colonial empires of the same period. Others like Belgium were more nakedly concerned with the simple enrichment of the imperial power. Of course Britain wanted something for itself, but also tried and in many cases succeeded in bringing improvements to the colonies. Not all empires combined self-interest and altruism. And while the brutality in incidents like Amritsar and the Mau Mau rebellion rightly shocks people today - and shocked people then - the history of some of these lands before European contact was also violent. The 'peaceful, noble savage' theme is largely a myth.

In short, the unabashed celebration of empire of former times as wrong, but it is also wrong for the British today to think they need continually apologise for the entire Imperial experience.

Answer 4

There are always both sides to consider just like there are two sides to a coin. In some aspects, it can be a curse and in others, a blessing. It's a debatable topic if you are taking about the overall impact.

Answer 5

Well to be blunt it was a curse for the new worlds ie america and australia, because they almost wiped out the native peoples there; the american indians and the australian aborigines. But for countries like India I wouldn't know, there must be positives and negatives.

Answer 6

some were blessed and some are not...but one thing I like in the british system is that, government control people not unlike the other one.

I mean, why do we need governments? why do we need leaders?
of course, to lead the people, to control the people, to have their own interests by your own as a leader, and to decepline the people for the better life of the country and no conflict, and if there is conflict, it the leaders will solve the conflict...

what do you think?

Answer 7

In general it was both even Marx praised the British for introducing railways into India which he saw as a locomotion for industrial change.

Answer 8

its a curse to the colonized nation and the ordinary british people!

Answer 9

No, the British modernized the nations and educated its citizenry but at the expense of their natural resources.

Answer 10

Don't be an idiot. repression of culture and language, raping of natural resourses (and people), mass murder, arbitary imprisonment, cause of famines.

How is it good that your chief is no longer in power and you have to pay very high taxes on land that was yours in the first place.