The British Empire (or any Empire): Good or bad?

Originally Posted by King Henry V

I have just read Neil Ferguson's controversial book Empire, where he is rather pro-Empire and says that Britain made the modern world. Do you agree with him and say some empires do bring some good, or is all colonialism evil?

I know this is impopular, but I think that in a sense Britain and France 'made' the entire modern world by laying the intellectual, physical and institutional groundwork for the dominant establishments, values, knowledge, and economic principles that govern us today, from banking and postmodern philosophy through space exploration and genetics. You'll forgive me for waxing epic at this late hour, but Europe is indeed the cradle of civilisation. And eighteenth century Britain and France are the spatio-temporal navel of mankind. Everything that came before was a mere prelude, everything that came afterwards was a mere sequel. Now hang me.

Well Imperialism is great! (provided I'm the emperor of course )

Otherwise I vote for an imaginery GAH! large enough to devour the Earth.

Nobly diplomatic of you m'lord Adrian II but, IMHO, a tad too positive about the French side of things.

Oh, and I know that there were a few worse dictators than Napoleon. Stalin for one! But I picked Boney and Hitler because, unlike Stalin and some others, Napoleon and Hitler tried to take over the World - and I'm only talking in terms of true World-politics of the kind seen during the development and duration of the British Empire, and the fact that at times we stood alone against these two regimes.

As to French imperial asperations, I read somewhere that the main reason the British Empire succeeded and the French did not, was because the British inherited and ever afterwards built on the Dutch East India Company trader-system approach and most British colonies made a profit and attracted people to them. By contrast the French approach was primarily about territorial gain and hardly any were successful in business terms, nor attractive to emigrants.

That's not to say I think the British Empire was all good. If there's one distasteful "event of Empire" I would pick out of our past it would be when, after defeating the Boers in South Africa, we then gave them hegemony over the country and the blacks therein - blacks who had fought freely for us (and for the liberty they'd enjoyed with us at that time) - when we knew damn well that the Boers were a deeply racist group. We did the biggest ever dirty, when we could have ensured equality

Pax Romana...

Originally Posted by streety

(..) at times we stood alone against these two regimes.

You've never stood alone against a strategic opponent since 1066. And the funny thing is around 1800 you had more in common with Napoleon than with the Russian, Spanish, Italian and German allies with whom you fought him.

By contrast the French approach was primarily about territorial gain and hardly any were successful in business terms, nor attractive to emigrants.

European colonial or imperialist ventures in the nineteenth century were hardly profitable at all. They were considered a strategic necessity, not an economic one, and trade did not happily follow the flag anywhere. The Dutch for instance have mostly lost money on their West Indies possessions, though the profits of the slave trade through these possessions more than made up for the loss. The whole history of western imperialism has been rewritten ten times to incorporate the apparent political, strategic and economic inconsistencies that transpired during research. I don't pretend to have a last word on any historic development of such magnitude, but I always thought that between the Foreign Legion in Africa and the Michelin rubber plantations in Indo-China the French colonies attracted a decent number of emigrants.

Well, the picture certainly isn't a simple one, Adrian II, I'd readily agree. But I'd beg to differ that we ever had more in common with Napoleon than his other opponents.

And though we had several friends to defeat the likes of Napoleon and Hitler, we were also at times "effectively alone" against them. And my main point being that without the British Empire, either or both Napoleon's or Hitler's regimes could and probably would have taken over the World, or a big chunk thereof. BTW, I take it you're joking somewhat about the Spanish and Italian's help in either of those situations! Pretty useless allies -when they weren't actually on the other side - where they weren't much use there either....

And as to the Russians and Germans: even the Russians had an effective agreement with Hitler to carve up Eastern Europe, and only entered the war a couple of years later when Hitler invaded them. And as to the Germans, well, the Prussians helped crucially at Waterloo, but then they ganged up all the other german states into one country and gave us Hitler, which sort of cancels things out.....

Oh and BTW, I was talking about the Dutch East India Company, which we inherited through the House of Orange in 1688, not the Dutch West Indies, and we made plenty of money thank you, but ploughed a lot of it into building those countries up too.

As to other Empires - well Sapi, all the Romans ever did was give us pizzas, central heating and orgies. I mean, what use is that? We Brits gave the World tea, er, from India......
Rule Britannia

If there's one distasteful "event of Empire" I would pick out of our past it would be when, after defeating the Boers in South Africa, we then gave them hegemony over the country and the blacks therein - blacks who had fought freely for us (and for the liberty they'd enjoyed with us at that time) - when we knew damn well that the Boers were a deeply racist group. We did the biggest ever dirty, when we could have ensured equality

That probably is the one bad thing the British Empire did for Africa and the world. We could have ensured equality for the South African people, but consined (sp?) them to years of Apartheid and racism.

good for the Empire, bad for those conquered

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

That probably is the one bad thing the British Empire did for Africa and the world. We could have ensured equality for the South African people, but consined (sp?) them to years of Apartheid and racism.

Yes indeed Mikeus, when I review our Empire's chequered history, I think there is actually much more to be proud of than most modern revisionists would like us to accept (and I'm not just talking about Hitler, Napoleon or teabags). But that South Africa event is one I find totally awful. There were reasons, such as a belief that the Boers would be better redeveloping the country's economy, and a heavy World opinion, favouring the romantic (if racist) underdog, feeling that we'd been hard on the Boers and needing to repair, or something pathetic like that. So, despite the prior British promulgation of Ordinance 50 legally introducing "equality for all persons of colour" in 1828 (earlier than most other powers did!) we actually neglected to enshrine that equality for the blacks when the Union of South Africa formed in 1910. And apartheid soon came to exist in place (long before its formal 1948 introduction).

Oh, regarding my earlier comments on the Napoleonic Wars: in the period from the end of the 4th Coalition (July 1807) until the start of the Sixth (1812), the period when Britain stood alone was actually "only" half a year, until the outbreak of the Peninsular War in 1808. But it was also effectively fighting alone for long periods twice beforehand: firstly after the collapse of the 1st Coalition (1796) until the formation of the 2nd (1799), and secondly from the end of the Treaty of Amiens (May 1803) until the formation of the 3rd Coalition in 1805. And we mustn't get too land-obsessed, for much of the conflict was at sea of course, pretty much anywhere around the globe.

Originally Posted by streety

But I'd beg to differ that we ever had more in common with Napoleon than his other opponents.

I would recommend that you make a serious comparison. Or would you rather parrot the nineteenth century British version of the Napoleonic Era?

Of course not, how clumsy of me.

Sorry Adrian II, in my joking I was merely trying to make things light-hearted in the face of your own telling ignorance on the subject. Napoleonic France was a dictatorship, Britain one of the most democratic nations of its day. And Britain effectively alone faced Napoleon from 1807 until the Austrians joined us in the Fifth Coalition in April 1809. However, Austria, for its part, lost its campaigns, and Napoleonic France reached its greatest extent in 1810. And then it wasn't until the start of the Sixth Coalition in 1812 that the British once again had more significant help.

As to Hitler, if you read up on the general situation following the fall of France in June 1940, you'll likely soon read that at that time the British Empire was effectively alone against the Nazis.

I will make no further direct, open responses to your comments if they are of a seriously insulting nature.

My personal opinon is that the British empire was the biggest smash & grab raid in history. Just look in any English museum.

If I remember correctly one of the biggest jewels in the crown jewels was plundered from the Punjab.

I doubt anyone who wasn't British would say the British Empire was a good thing. Theres better ways to "help build up a country" than marching in and killing anyone who tries to stop you.