Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 9, 2021 at 4:03 comment added Rohit this is a big load of nonsense. It is true that British were least cruel colonial power, compared to say the Dutch or the Belgian, British Empire was a tremendous force of good is a lie. They systematically plundered India directly(by shipping of taxes and treasures to Britain) and by destroying it's native industry and taking the raw materials to Britain to finish and sell back to Indians. Their policies caused repeated famines. I have strong feelings about this, but in short this is an untruthful answer, and it is dishonest to assert this without testing it on facts.
Oct 30, 2020 at 20:43 comment added ed.hank While I tend to agree with the sentiment of all colonial powers, Britain was the least bad but it really depended on which colony you refer. Britain treated places like Canada, New Zealand, even South Africa after the whole Boer thing, pretty well. Other places like all of India, Burma, China were treated rather shabbily, there are plenty of books are about the atrocities the British did in India.
Oct 29, 2020 at 22:56 comment added capet @Luiz As a non-expert I think that's right. However, it's fun to note that this was also true of the USA according to some reconstructed estimates (sans the commies). OTOH I'm not sure how much I believe in these old-timey time series exercises. OTOH I think there's contemporary qualitative evidence out there?
Oct 10, 2019 at 20:15 comment added Luiz not a few countries in africa would be better if they were still colonies instead of having been handed over to commie dictators. Some GDPs fell steeply just after decolonization due to commie destruction and ineptitude, and productive people fleeing their misrule.
Oct 9, 2019 at 22:32 comment added Pieter Geerkens @user69715: In 1833 the British government issued a bond to finance the purchase of freedom for every black slave in the empire - which was only paid off in 2015. (India was under E.I.C. and was dealt with separately a decade later.)
Oct 19, 2017 at 22:58 comment added user69715 anti-slave power, the British Empire? the empire which benefited the most from the cheap cotton from the plantation? which later became the raw input to the textile industry in the industrial revolution?
Oct 19, 2017 at 21:22 comment added Statsanalyst It's a cliché that history is the polemic of the victor. It isn't - it's the polemic of the biased left-wing academic.
Oct 19, 2017 at 21:21 comment added Statsanalyst @ShimonbM the British Empire was the primary reason why the slave trade ended. We were an anti-slave power.
Oct 19, 2017 at 21:17 comment added Felix Goldberg I did not downvote but I am afraid that your skepticism is a bit too selective...
Oct 19, 2017 at 21:11 comment added Shimon bM -1. The treatment of indigenous populations by colonising powers is not at all a matter of personal opinion, but part of the documented historical record. We have an abundance of sources that testify to the suppression of local nationalisms, the use of slavery and even genocide. While there is always scope for divergent opinions, the extent to which you have actually reversed the scholarly consensus finds no support in the sources themselves, and looks apologetic.
Oct 19, 2017 at 19:38 comment added user69715 Similarly, the benefits "education", "healthcare" etc. from colonization might also be an exaggeration. Is being exploited by a foreign colonial power really the best way to get those? Can't they develop on their own without being colonized? For example, in Asia, why does Japan and China have more advanced economies than India and Indonesia, even though the latter two are the ones more thoroughly endowed by colonial powers?
Oct 19, 2017 at 19:27 history answered Statsanalyst CC BY-SA 3.0