Well, I'll repeat ahain what I said in the other thread...
People have this vision of a vast Biritsh army going around conquering the world for the glory of the Monarchy and imposing despotism everywhere they went.
THis is a massive distortion of the truth- which is not to say that the Empire was not a tool of oppression.
But the main error is in the envisaging of that army. Britain did not have a large army. In fact it had a tiny army, in any comparison to other powers in the world. It would have been actively impossible to run the Empire on military power. Britain's forceful strength was naval, which enabaled it to keep the Empire connected and to ward off the attentions of rivals, but you can't conquer the world with boats.
The British Empire was, in fact, a greed-ridden preferential trading block. It maintained control in collusion with local authorities, rather than trying to conquer all of them, which would have been silly. It was a very simple deal; we would bring some troops over, talk to the local bigwigs, discuss with them about how much richer they would be if they worked with us, left the troops there to protect our interests, and bingo, more pink on the map.
Just look at how big India is, and how many people are there, and compare it to the 10000 or so troops we had available for disbursment there, and you have to very quickly abandon the logic of an Empire held together by force.
It was all money- everyone was in it to get rich. And by bringing in money it also brought in a lot of development and advancment for the nations concerned, and of course plenty of suffering and oppression to those that stood in the way of the cash flow.
When the money failed, the Empire did. And that was that.
Originally posted by finti
it once was a large empire, a tyrannic empire, now the commonwealth are just a shadow of the past
Tyrannic was the method of expanding empire... The occupation of areas was , in fact, not tyrannic... In fact, the central beliefs and ideologies of the Empire were 'freedom, fraternity and federation' all three of which are commonly misinterpreted as oppressive factors. They are features which promote a sense of enterprise in a community and furthers its development.
By the way, we abolished slavery within the empire in 1810.
Freedom? Fraternity? Tell that to the indigenous peoples of every nation colonised during the expansion of the British Empire.
EDIT: Oh and btw the slave trade may have been criminalised but slavery was not abolished until the mid 1830s and continued in the guise of "indentured servitude" until the 1920s.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Freedom? Fraternity? Tell that to the indigenous peoples of every nation colonised during the expansion of the British Empire.EDIT: Oh and btw the slave trade may have been criminalised but slavery was not abolished until the mid 1830s and continued in the guise of "indentured servitude" until the 1920s.
Freedom and fraternity within the empire. They enjoyed so much freedom with the British than with the evil governments that they had before. The politics of the Empire allowed individuals to lead their own lives without hinderence (sp), also it gave them a sense of safety... the insane governments prior to empire ripped people of their privacy and freedom.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So you think that British rule replaced the "evil" and "insane" self-governance of the Australian Aborigines and gave them "freedom and fraternity"? Seriously what are you 😮💨? That's gotta be quality sh*t if it gives you such vivid delusions of grandeur.
Look at the African colonies... tyranny, terror and evil was replaced with the three 'f's I was talking about earlier. Of couirse there'll be exceptions.. Australlia for example. But Britain spread her mark throughout the world and without it- we'd all be in a deplorable state.
Canada, United States?, what about all the settelers from other countries like Spain, France the Dutch hey even sweden settled Norht America, If the colonies hadnt fallen under British control they would most likely been French. South Africa well other nations was keen on that area as well, settled by the Dutch first, and the dutch guild league
The world will not have moved forward or progressed at allare you serious or just ignorant???????????????? You think the world progressed just because of Britain?
Originally posted by BritanniaIn other words instead of white people being in control of the world's wealth and resources... shock! horror! people of other races might... and the world would be an awful place to live in because of it?
Think about it.... No United States, Canada, Australlia, New Zealand, South Africa as wealthy states... no world economy... increased poverty... The world will not have moved forward or progressed at all!
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
In other words instead of white people being in control of the world's wealth and resources... shock! horror! people of other races might... and the world would be an awful place to live in because of it?
Don't be ridiculous. You know that I didn't mean that. The technology and idea of enterprise etc would not have been spread around the world, thus making it less developed.
Originally posted by finti
Canada, United States?, what about all the settelers from other countries like Spain, France the Dutch hey even sweden settled Norht America, If the colonies hadnt fallen under British control they would most likely been French. South Africa well other nations was keen on that area as well, settled by the Dutch first, and the dutch guild league
are you serious or just ignorant???????????????? You think the world progressed just because of Britain?
No, but I think that Britain had a pivetal roll in world development. Fair comment, but these countries didn't have the same sort of ideologies as the British... who can say what the world would be like if there had been a French Empire the size of the British Empire? *shudders*