Was The British Empire all bad?

Question

Are the Colonies better off now they have Independance?
Is Britain better off without them round it's neck?

Answer 1

No, it was not. The former colonies which have succeeded are those which have kept the free judiciaries, free media, multi-party democracies which Britain left them. The screwed-up African countries are the ones which quickly ditched their Westminster-style constitutions for president-for-life kleptocacies. After forty years of running their own affairs they can't keep blaming the British.

One of the earlier posters seems to credit Britain's success soley on its colonies. The colonies had nothing to do with the fact that Britain was the world's first industrial nation. He has cause and effect mixed up.

And the hippy who says the Africans were all wise peace-lovers in harmony with mother earth before the white man came is falling for the classic trap of idealising the 'noble savage'. They were at each others' throats long before the colonisers came. And the word 'primitive' is not harsh when you realise that North American indians had not even invented the wheel!

As for your supplemental questions, it is obviously better now that they have independence, and Britain does not even want responsibility for the few dependencies it has left, let alone any of the old ones.

Answer 2

What happened, happened.

The colonies should be better off as independence states. However are the states free and are the people in the states free? From oppression from within or outside?

Your question today is the British Empire. I believe we can only judge this correctly if we look at the states/ countries that were never colonised by French or British and compare them to the ex colonial countries.

Which is better off in terms of human rights, freedom of speech and economic growth. Then we can make a decision on the British Empire which as far as am concerned still exist today.

Answer 3

It was a mixture - as these things so often are - the good, the superb, the corrupt, the cruel, the enterprising and the foolish.

Many countries - like Sri-Lanka for example flourished under Britain for a time after Britain took over in 1815 HOWEVER, it is largely thanks to the way the Sinhalese letting the Tamils do most of the "paper work" while they carried out trading that ended up causing huge conflict many years later when the Tamils ended up literate and bi-lingual - with more power then the Sinhala people. This legacy the British left is the cause of the unrest which lead to the Tamil Tiger situation. More info here http://www.neutral-zone.info/

Other countries like Hong Kong have flourished well under britain - and thankfully have managed to run their own affairs well when they had their independence.

As for the UK, arguably from a selfish point, it might have been an idea to hang on to SOME parts of the Empire - however that is now academic.

Answer 4

In terms of Britain itself and the fact we are the fourth (I think) richest economy in the world considering we are a tiny little island then yes it was a good thing.

In terms of countries now independent being better off. Canada and Australia seem to be doing okay. And that little place the USA seems to be alright as well.

African countries will always be messy whether the British Empire had existed or not due to the tribal nature of the populace and the harsh realities of living in that continent.

Not really a straight yes or no answer to those question as the British empire was all about subjigation of other countries and really that's not seen as a good thing. However, the countries that were subjigated were not that great to start with or weren't populated by anything other than prehistoric tribes to allow us to do that so maybe it was a good thing. I mean the wealth of the empire helped in terms of the invention of such things as steam power etc but we also invented concentration camps as part of it as well...

Is Britain better off now? well yes... cause we got damn rich off the back of it and would be a piss poor excuse for a country without that wealth.

So good and bad thing really.

Answer 5

RE: British Empire, Good Or Bad? or both! Seems that its unfashionable to say anything positive about the British Empire these days. However modern India (incl. Pakistan, Bangladesh & Nepal) were basically created by britain. Civil Service, Industry, Rail & Road systems, Legal framework, the nation state etc. Likewise Sub Saharan...

Answer 6

In History and Politics ther is no Good and Bad. Its hard to put everything in one or other side. There is no Darth Vader and Lucke Skywalker.

Its time to look to history as history; Start to learn with and stop to judge.

British Empire was an Empire like all others before. Somebody must be puppet master and replace the decadent one.

Answer 7

the british empire was certainly not all bad, Britain made a fortune from its colonies and many of its colonies were left with infrastucture transportation and at least some level of economic development. canada and australia have done particulasy well.

india and parkistan and begining to do well

Answer 8

Well, nothing or no-one except, perhaps the Devil is ALL BAD. Every cloud has a silver lining.
A welcome fall-out of British occupation in most colonies, especially India has been the consolidation of 100s of princely states into 1 NATION, with a common statute, judiciary, military and currency.
Thanks to the British, we have a strong beureaucratic set-up as the back-bone of the nations' administration.
The British, though they destroyed the conventional schools and education systems, also created the modern educational system, much improved by us natives since.
The land mapping done by the British is still something most governments go by.


Now, reagarding if the colonies are better off now after independence- well, to be independant and poor is much better than being rich slaves.

Anyways, the riches are now getting more evenly distributed among the masses:
a. feudal system mostly eradicated by the independent governments,
b. more people friendly schemes in place in countries with democratic set-ups
c. regional imbalances within countries are slowly closing up.
d. much better and developed education to the grass roots
e. increasingly better economic performance of the masses and the nations
f. nations are free to adopt their own models of development rather than 'mother country' centric exploitary schemes
g. No more mass exploitation and looting
h. People now breathe much more easy
i. human rights are a million times better
j. One can expect real justice from courts of law rather than 'mother country' centric kangaroo courts
k. law and order is mostly much better
l. no more genocides- direct or thru prevention of food reaching the needy [The Bengal famine alone killed about 5 million people during WWII- more than thrice the Jews killed by the Germans- due to stubborn prevention of food reaching the masses]
m. no more human cannon fodder- the British fed Indian and other colonial soldiers to cannons of opposing forces- without any solid back-up or evacuation schemes when needed as late as in WW I & WW II.
The list is endless.

Let's now answer your question "Is Britain better off without them round it's neck?"

well, Britain became Britain because of the colonies it had under it's domain. What-ever riches theBritish own are in a large part due to their expoitation of the colonies. The Immense miltary power that Britain once was - was due to the brave colonial, esp Indian and Nepali soldiers in it's ranks.

Remember pre-colonial United Kingdoms ( England, Scotalnd, Wales, Ireland)? Poverty, penury, lack of food and warmth were the order of the day. Two square meals to the peasants and masses were a luxury. Fruit on the dinner table- extreme luxury. The wealth and power was limited to a select few.

The colonial era, alongwith the contemporary Technical advancements created the need of and opportunities to the masses.

Food and riches were imported/ looted from the colonies, deploying colonial soldiers in European wars too.
No, Britain is definitely not better off without the colonies. It is no longer the economic or miltary superpower that it once was- without the riches and man-power of the colonies.
By the way, it was Britain aroud the 'colonies' neck; not the other way round.


PS: Regarding Martin G's comment that colonies were inhabited by pre-historic tribes. This comment is born either out of blatant ignorance or out and out contempt. India, Lanka, Burma (Myanmar) Thailand, Indonesia, Kampuchea, et al always had much superior civilzations, cultures, religious set-ups, human rights records and economies than the UK or most patrts of Europe ever did.

Answer 9

I think it was a wonderful institution, only it failed to instil cultural change to the colonies and allowed too many religious freedoms. This eventually led the Brits to be seen as weak, lily-livered liberals which natives took advantage of and eventually rose up against.

I think the same thing is now happening in our homeland.

Answer 10

~To which colonies do you refer? Hong Kong? Canada? Bermuda? India? Rhodesia? New Jersey? New South Wales? Better off in what respect? Come back when you can post a proper question and we'll see what we can do with your essay.