re: Did the British Empire have a net positive effect on the world?

The difference in the British and Spanish approach to colonization would be an interesting topic as well. I wonder if the British did something right that the Spanish didn’t and that’s why they burned out. Spain had such a huge start and very well could have been what the British Empire was. What happened, the loss of their armada?

The taught Japan how to do Empire

Well of course.

Any true original strong nation conquered lands and imposed civilization on the heathens that existed

The British Empire led to English becoming the international business and aviation language.

The importance of the Brits adding the train system in a lot of these countries, especially India, can’t be overstated enough. It played a key role in their development economically as well as socially. The partition of Indian into Pakistan for example.

Is this meant to be propaganda for white supremacy? Rhodesia was also adamantly supported by Dylan Roof

quote:

---

In an ironic twist the Middle East is a war torn shitshow in large part due to the British and European powers making up countries with people who hate each other (sykes -picot agreement etc)

---

To be fair, the British weren't trying to make up nation states when they drew those lines. They were creating the administrative units of an empire.

Rhodesians never die

Also the British Empire ended many barbaric practices in the territories they came to rule over. Specifically the practice of burning a widow with her husbands body in India. The British Empire is the greatest empire the world has ever known and it is a god damned shame how they are made to feel guilty for bringing civilization with them today.

quote:

---

Spain had such a huge start and very well could have been what the British Empire was. What happened, the loss of their armada?

---

There were a few key differences:
1. Spain lost their armada. That dealt a huge blow to their abilities to protect their claims, allowing the French, British, and Dutch to poach significant swaths of land in the New World.

2. As one gets closer to the equator, the diseases the Europeans brought became far less deadly to the natives, and the native diseases became far MORE deadly to the Europeans. Spain's colonies, were generally far closer to the equator than Britain's, thus the natives did not die off as completely, and the colonists Spain sent there died much more often. This made those areas remarkably harder to settle.

3. England had a massive population boom and needed a place to unload bodies. When Spain started the Age of Exploration, it was fresh out of a centuries long conflict between Christians and Muslims where the Christian kingdoms of Castille and Leon had finally been victorious and pushed out the last of the Muslims. The country was actually war-weary and wasn't about to populate their new colonies with Muslims.

England, on the other hand, was exploding in population by the early 1600's, and was quickly becoming over-crowded despite decades of civil war. The colonies created a convenient place to dump excess citizens. Since Britain was becoming overcrowded, they simply shipped their excess population overseas. Spain did not have this overcrowding problem, so they had far fewer citizens ready for export.