Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Sorry, British rule in Africa still stunk, even though their contemporaries stunk more. Asia "neutral to positive"? Laughable. The Americas probably has their best track record, and that is because they were booted out early and the colonists took over their jobs.

Don't get me wrong. I am reaping the rewards of British (and French) colonialism (the Spanish have given me nothing though, that's for the Texans). If I was to decry offensive war for the sake of conquest, it would follow that I would have to leave my home and give it to the indigenous owners. If not, I am a hypocrite. The same can be said of almost anyone, anywhere. Modern nation states are almost all touched with wars of conquest. That being said, I cannot stand it when people try to gloss over their conquests. You cannot hold them to be wrong without decrying your own nation's involvement. There are two options. Affirm that wars of conquest are legitimate or try and gloss over history. The second option is just really weak...
India and Pakistan did quite well out of it. There was a lot more bloodshed before and after the Raj. Neither country would actually exist without Britain either.

Rule in the USA was no better after independence. Things were a bit more efficient, but the country was still full of slaves and the unfranchised.

Tazmania undoubtably got the worst of it.

Having said that, compared to everyone else Britain did a good job. Lots of countries only have a proper judicial system at all because of the British. There weren't that many massacres, and mostly they were due to incompetant local leaders rather than an overall policy. The dangers of inbreeding and class leading to power. Sigh.

I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth exists to glare harmlessly at Mugabwe for being the most evil ***** currently ruling anywhere.