- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Legacy of the British Empire
Posted on 11/12/23 at 1:20 pm to Tigeralum2008
Posted on 11/12/23 at 1:20 pm to Tigeralum2008
The British Empire was both a generator of the Enlightenment as much as a purveyor of it. The world is a vastly better place as a result of the Pax Britania.
For one thing, slavery would likely still be widespread globally without it. The British Empire is the number one force for abolition in all of human history. By a huge measure
Commerce bred affluence and freedom. Economic growth, combined with certain universal developments- standardized time, weights/measures, gold standard, etc was a unique revolution in humanity.
Most British colonies released after the World Wars are in a far worse place now than they were under the Empire.
The post WW2 Pax Americana is a direct carryover from British hegemony. Western modernity was nurtured and protected by this phenomenon.
The 19th and 20th centuries were a Golden Age of humanity. Those unaware of this fact may be about to see how true it is. You don't know what ya got til it's gone.
For one thing, slavery would likely still be widespread globally without it. The British Empire is the number one force for abolition in all of human history. By a huge measure
Commerce bred affluence and freedom. Economic growth, combined with certain universal developments- standardized time, weights/measures, gold standard, etc was a unique revolution in humanity.
Most British colonies released after the World Wars are in a far worse place now than they were under the Empire.
The post WW2 Pax Americana is a direct carryover from British hegemony. Western modernity was nurtured and protected by this phenomenon.
The 19th and 20th centuries were a Golden Age of humanity. Those unaware of this fact may be about to see how true it is. You don't know what ya got til it's gone.
0
Posted on 11/12/23 at 1:55 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
I have worked in just about every country colonized by Brits. The sucky ones now- Jamaica, Zimbabwe, SA, Zambia, Tanzania, and on and on- all were MUCH, light years better off then than they are now.
Brits built good roads, schools, infrastructure. They actually tried to do something with it.
Now the French on the other hand- that was pillage and plunder.
Brits built good roads, schools, infrastructure. They actually tried to do something with it.
Now the French on the other hand- that was pillage and plunder.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 1:57 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
Tea TYFYS
Posted on 11/12/23 at 2:45 pm to Bama Bird
quote:
Soviet Union fell in about 4 years and the grip was way tighter than here. It's still mindblowing how quickly it ended there
Also, unlike the mantra from the democrats, there was no major war or conflicts in the breakup.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 2:53 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
In most of india, it looks like nothing has been built or maintained since the British left in the 50s. I suspect most of Africa is similar.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 4:35 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
The Age of conquests podcast by Kings and Generals does a great series of eps on the opium wars where the British empire murdered their way through China forcing the opium trade on the empire to enrich the brits. The opium epidemic was just awful to the people over the next century or so. See eps 3.13 to 3.23.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 5:29 pm to Cuz413
quote:
Also, unlike the mantra from the democrats, there was no major war or conflicts in the breakup.
Lol
Posted on 11/12/23 at 5:37 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Its amazing to consider the amount of treasure the Spanish & Portuguese got out of the New World and have very little to show for it.
As far as colonies go the British colonies seem to have evolved much more successfully than the French, Spanish and Belgium.
The Brits did a better job of integrating the economies of their colonies with their domestic economy.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 6:10 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Their worldwide dominance allowed them to stop slavery.
They didn't stop slavery, they stopped the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Slavery continued and, some argue, is still around today.
If the West African tribes couldn't sell slaves to the Europeans, they sold them to muslim countries and moved them by land.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 6:26 pm to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
The Age of conquests podcast by Kings and Generals does a great series of eps on the opium wars where the British empire murdered their way through China forcing the opium trade on the empire to enrich the brits. The opium epidemic was just awful to the people over the next century or so. See eps 3.13 to 3.23.
And now the Chinese are doing it to us.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 6:58 pm to SpotCheckBilly
quote:
And now the Chinese are doing it to us.
Bingo. History repeats itself often. But so many choose to ignore it.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 7:05 pm to fr33manator
quote:
They started to give in to progressivism. That's what killed their empire
Pretty much all Central and Southern European countries became super progressive after WW2. They didn’t want to be affiliated with the legacy of the Nazi Party since they were all within close distance to Nazi occupied countries during the war. This includes Italy, Spain, Sweden, etc.
This post was edited on 11/12/23 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 11/12/23 at 7:22 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Like it or not. The British colonizing and defending North American settlers until we could handle it ourselves would be my argument for their greatest legacy.
Not sure if we needed their defense in the time period in question.
French and Indian war might not have even happened if British involvement was gone. Even if not, it was 2 million vs 60k…..assuming the French vs British buggery happened elsewhere, even the nascent colonies would have eventually won, either my conflict or assimilation .
Posted on 11/12/23 at 7:25 pm to fr33manator
WWI started to kill their empire. The British overall were concerned with defeating the Germans in France . As such they devoted most of their GDP to it. Additionally, the British also used close to a million plus troops from the empire, particularly from India.
Those troops made their way back to their respective home countries during and after the war and they realized that the "home" country was vulnerable and also they were fighting over something that overall did not affect them. India in particular had a nascent independence movement...all these disaffected young men fed it. Plus, in Great Britain there were limits running a large empire was costly. Naval protection and garrisons troops in in places like Sudan, Kenya and Malaysia cost money.
In the aftermath of WWI Britain actually turns out well. The British ended up in control of Palestine, Jordan and Mesopotamia also had protectorate on the Arabian Peninsula and had absorbed German colonies in Africa like Tanzania and West Africa. They controlled much of the oil coming out of the middle east.
Then comes WWII and the double whammy of the Germans threatening the French and the English guaranteeing their overseas empire in North Africa and the Japanese occupying much of Burma, all of Malaysia and Singapore and French Indo-China and threatening India. The British were on the winning side but they were broke financially and psychically and probably spiritually. India had been pressing for independence for 30+ years at this point. Thirty years and two big wars leaves the British Armed Forces at its breaking point.
By the late 50's Britain simply could not afford empire any longer. It wasn't progressivism or getting soft as progressivism would imply. They could not afford it anymore. The independence movements were proving to be costly financially and in terms of violence. They were done.
Those troops made their way back to their respective home countries during and after the war and they realized that the "home" country was vulnerable and also they were fighting over something that overall did not affect them. India in particular had a nascent independence movement...all these disaffected young men fed it. Plus, in Great Britain there were limits running a large empire was costly. Naval protection and garrisons troops in in places like Sudan, Kenya and Malaysia cost money.
In the aftermath of WWI Britain actually turns out well. The British ended up in control of Palestine, Jordan and Mesopotamia also had protectorate on the Arabian Peninsula and had absorbed German colonies in Africa like Tanzania and West Africa. They controlled much of the oil coming out of the middle east.
Then comes WWII and the double whammy of the Germans threatening the French and the English guaranteeing their overseas empire in North Africa and the Japanese occupying much of Burma, all of Malaysia and Singapore and French Indo-China and threatening India. The British were on the winning side but they were broke financially and psychically and probably spiritually. India had been pressing for independence for 30+ years at this point. Thirty years and two big wars leaves the British Armed Forces at its breaking point.
By the late 50's Britain simply could not afford empire any longer. It wasn't progressivism or getting soft as progressivism would imply. They could not afford it anymore. The independence movements were proving to be costly financially and in terms of violence. They were done.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 7:49 pm to JasonDBlaha
quote:
Pretty much all Central and Southern European countries became super progressive after WW2. They didn’t want to be affiliated with the legacy of the Nazi Party since they were all within close distance to Nazi occupied countries during the war. This includes Italy, Spain, Sweden, etc.
Wrong. Nazi is a contraction NSDAP - Translation is National SOCIALIST German Worker's Party. The origin of Italian and German Fascism was a leftist philosopher who thought Marx was only off in one respect - in Marxism, means of production are owned and controlled by the state. In Fascism, means of production are privately held by a few individuals and controlled by the state.
This same system effectively prevails in Europe to this day. Look into how closely held the EU stock exchanges are by their super rich. There are no masses of stock-owning 401k's owned by Freidrich Lunchbox or Pierre Bluecollar. Some of the world's largest companies are either state-owned in whole, in part, or are completely privately held by people very close to the governments - VW, Schaeffler Group, Bosch, Fiat until very recently, BMW, ZF, the list goes on.
Fascism considered itself to be the happy medium between Communism and the "Decadent Democracy" of the West, primarily the British Empire and the US at the time. What you have there now is fascism (little "f") without the industrialized murder camps and armies trying to build empires. Rebuilding after WWII was just an excuse to set all of the socialism in stone that had begun prior to the war. As France was falling to the German Blitzkrieg in 1940, one of France's leading generals stated "Look at what socialism has done to my country!" regarding the socialist government "reforms" that had neutered the French military in the interwar period.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 8:19 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
The British overall were concerned with defeating the Germans in France
I think at that time they were concerned with wiping out Germany altogether. Britain, France, and Russia all focused their strength on kicking Germany in the balls. Then some a-hole in the German army rebounded the troops 25 years later.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 8:23 pm to Bullfrog
quote:
Without Cecil Rhodes, there would be no Rhodes scholars. Dude lived it big time
He definitely lived it up in a short time. Sure seems like he wanted to start a NWO. Also probably was a gay man.
Posted on 11/12/23 at 8:37 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
The former British colonies in general are much better off than former colonies of other European countries. They left a lot of infrastructure behind, as well as a framework for civil governance.
Posted on 11/13/23 at 12:44 am to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
I believe a lot of the global issues we currently face today trace back to British imperialism.
I stopped reading there.
You may wanna check out The Crusades followed by the Muslim invasion of Europe. Then let's get into the whole Hitler thingy followed-by the the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel in 1948.
.... and, OP, don't be such a cuck.
Posted on 11/13/23 at 4:52 am to scrooster
quote:
stopped reading there.
Then you dont really know what we are discussing. So why are you commenting?
quote:
You may wanna check out The Crusades followed by the Muslim invasion of Europe
That was almost 1000 years ago.
quote:
Then let's get into the whole Hitler thingy followed-by the the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel in 1948.
Both of those events are directly related to the British Empire.
quote:
.... and, OP, don't be such a cuck.
frick you. Go lick some windows.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News