Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian
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.
Not you too Pannonian...

There are people here who like to say that we gave the Indians (Native Americans) a great deal. After all, the have their own private reservations, get to hunt protected animals that others can't, and the casinos...

The similitude is just amazing...

The fact is, the British exploited it's colonies, and the colonized suffered a lot. Now, with that said you all can go back to feeling good that your country didn't invent the technique that would only take 1 bullet to kill 6 or so natives (I think Belgium has this honor) and use it to prop yourselves up over France or whatever.

I'll just amuse myself with the utter ridiculousnesses of the discussion:

The British Empire was so wicked and evil that a former colony of a 'rival' empire asks to be admitted to the Commonwealth.
Give it up fellas. French stopped being the Lingua Franca hundreds of years ago.
Of course, unlike the Francophony, the Commonwealth is not at all about bringing and keeping third world countries into any sphere of influence.
Nor would any English speaking country ever even consider supporting any side or dictator in the thirld world to increase their own influence.
Although I seriously doubt that they would support a genocide just to keep alive the English language.
Yes, genocide of two continents, human displacements, stimulated mass migration and oppression from Cork to Calcutta played no part in making English the world's lingua franca.
There is however one thing that bugs me about French linguistic policy though. And that is that they have got it all backwards for three centuries now. First you should impose your economic power, and then they'll take over your language and culture. Language follows power. It's not the other way round like we think. Those grandmasters of imperialism the Anglo-saxons have understood this mechanism better. Or maybe they're simply more practical, less concerned with prestige, pomp and other frenchities.
Africa: British rule was FAR better than the rule of the Belgians and the Germans, and the French.

Asia: neutral to positive. Helped many aspects of Indian society (suttee and the Thugs for example). Germans again were renowned for their actions (the Huns)

America: as in the USA: Mainly post independence. Canada seems to have coped without the slaughter. South / Central America is the work of Spanish and Portuguese. Of course if God says to slaughter, that's fine


Let me just add in, our country is the most beneficial to the conquered. We gave the Indians casinos!