Was it good for Britain to have colonies?

Question

side effects

Answer 1

Three fold ...
First, colonies were a place where Britain could obtain a tremendous amount of raw materials. These could include everything from minerals to wool, from food items to lumber.
Second, colonies allowed Britain to have a market for their manufactured goods. Since colonies, almost by definition had little or no factories, this allowed the factories in Britain to prosper. This is why the "home spun" movement in India was so effective, it allowed the Indians to be independent of Britain economically.
Finally, colonies were a place where Britain could dump their undesirables. Most famously, of course, were the prisoners that were sent to Australia.

Answer 2

It was very beneficial. And it was not only England that benefited from it. Allot of colonies including Britain are just recovering from the loss of the colonial power. Many former colonies in fact regressed rather than benefited from independent rule.

Answer 3

to a point, until policing the colonies became more trouble than it was worth, which is why they signed the treaty of paris 1785. Having a colony gave Britain a monopoly over trade and direct access to material goods needed to fuel the industrial revolution.

Answer 4

Colonialism,I believe,to be the greatest curse on this planet..it was never about spreading culture but acquiring wealth and the Church's sanction and participation....Britain..to India,Afghanistan,South Africa,Australia,the Americas,the South Seas of the Pacific, the West Indies,China,the Falklands,Canada,New Zealand etc..Do you see?Slavery,Drugs,Gold,Diamonds,Expansion,Tobacco..etc etc..But let's NOT forget... the Spanish,the Dutch,the Portuguese,the French (Vietnam.Algeria,Eygpt...),the Germans,the Greeks, the Ottomans,the Belgiums,the Africans themselves(down the river)..etc and now.. the USA.. the land of the free...What a lie we live.See ya.

Answer 5

No but it was good for the Colonies to have Britain

Answer 6

No. Colonies were expensive to obtain and even more expensive to maintain. As long as the British crown could afford getting enough soldiers killed in colonies, it didn't matter. Eventually, however, the cost of human losses became too high...

Answer 7

It was a great place for the great and the good to put their unemployable sons. Now the unemployable children of the middle classes are sent off abroad with NGOs such as Oxfam and Christan Aid. It is a lot cheaper to provide outdoor relief in this way since the Empire was an expensive appendage.

Answer 8

sure, it was benefical for both parties.

1. it supplied Britain with a lot of resources it did not have or could not produce by itself.

2. It led to the industrialization of a lot of countries, especially India


Negative effects:

Protecting Englands investments in these colonies was expensive.

Colonies eventually wanted to be free from English rule and had to fight for it for the most part.

Answer 9

Yes it was. Though that answer might be seen as ethnocentric, Britain did help a lot of countries around the world better modernize. I also believe Britain had a better track record than other European countries.

Answer 10

it was good for Britain to have colonies, but it was not so good for those lands which were colonised as well for the world as a whole, most of the world problems are outcome of the colonisations, specially divide & rule policies.