Commonwealth 1 France 0

[BDC]

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.

[Reenk Roink]

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.

My point exactly...

How many exactly died after that partition set up by Britain in the subcontinent? How many wars did those two countries (created because of the benevolent bounty of Britain) fight after partition because of some odd land dispute that came up when the country was being partitioned? Let's ask those Indians and Pakistanis how they think of their old British rule?

Also, notable omission on China.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Before they go rushing into the arms of China, maybe they should confer with Tibet.....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My point exactly...

How many exactly died after that partition set up by Britain in the subcontinent? How many wars did those two countries (created because of the benevolent bounty of Britain) fight after partition because of some odd land dispute that came up when the country was being partitioned? Let's ask those Indians and Pakistanis how they think of their old British rule?

Also, notable omission on China.

That would be the partition the British tried to avoid but which the Muslims in particular insisted on because they wanted to be ruled by Muslims?

Some other things to consider: Official policy was that money made in a province stayed in a province. Official policy was also generally not to muck around with local religion. There were some notable exceptions to the second in India, such as stamping out Thugee and stopping women from being thrown on their husbands' funeral pires.

[Reenk Roink]

That would be the partition the British tried to avoid but which the Muslims in particular insisted on because they wanted to be ruled by Muslims?

Some other things to consider: Official policy was that money made in a province stayed in a province. Official policy was also generally not to muck around with local religion. There were some notable exceptions to the second in India, such as stamping out Thugee and stopping women from being thrown on their husbands' funeral pires.

My point again... This is almost too good to be true.

This is exactly why so many Indians and Pakistanis remember their rule under the British as the glory days right?

Oh, and though the sectarian groups may have wanted to be separate from each othe, I do know that the British were also quite keen in causing division between the two groups for awhile. I also know that Britain (rightfully so) gets some blame for rushing through the partition and causing that land dispute that has had a couple of wars fought over it...

I'm also sure that the British were nice enough to not exploit their colonies for the wealth and resources they had. After all the purpose of colonies is to spread the English language and help the natives setup nice judicial systems...

Still omitting China...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you know what Thugee was?

[Reenk Roink]

Do you know what Thugee was?

No (well I just looked it up). Does it actually matter though, given the context of the discussion and my point?

[Pannonian]

My point again... This is almost too good to be true.

This is exactly why so many Indians and Pakistanis remember their rule under the British as the glory days right?

Oh, and though the sectarian groups may have wanted to be separate from each othe, I do know that the British were also quite keen in causing division between the two groups for awhile. I also know that Britain (rightfully so) gets some blame for rushing through the partition and causing that land dispute that has had a couple of wars fought over it...

I'm also sure that the British were nice enough to not exploit their colonies for the wealth and resources they had. After all the purpose of colonies is to spread the English language and help the natives setup nice judicial systems...

Still omitting China...

The people in the subcontinent wanted self rule - that's nationalism for you. It can hardly be denied that Hong Kong fared better under British rule than at any other time in its history, but did you know many of its people also wanted self-rule, and disparaged the Opium Wars that made it British?

FWIW, the Indians appreciated the British infrastructure enough to follow the Westminster version of parliamentary democracry, retain English as its language of government and retain British military and naval traditions. Ie. the skeleton of the Indian state was, and in many areas still is, British.