Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The most "humane" colonial empire?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 13>
Poll Question: Which of the following empires had the most "humane" colonial policy?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
14 [23.33%]
6 [10.00%]
4 [6.67%]
13 [21.67%]
2 [3.33%]
17 [28.33%]
3 [5.00%]
1 [1.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
aslanlar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote aslanlar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The most "humane" colonial empire?
    Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 08:24
Originally posted by Patch

There has never been an English Empire so it is obviously the most humane.

The Brittish Empire? So the genocide of the Australian Aboriginals didn't occur did it?

*woops, i felt the urge to reply before i read the second page, my bad*


Edited by aslanlar - 25-Jul-2007 at 08:28
"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 08:28
Well as any coin has the opposite side, I think Britain will claim all the good things as well
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 08:32
 
Originally posted by calvo

Originally posted by pinguin

Absolutely. English were the most brutal colonial power of all. Theirs genocides account by tens of millions and they were the main source of inspiration for the hollocaust of the Nazis.
 
 
Hitler might have got some of his ideas from the British Empire, but equating the exploits of the British Empire to the holocaust is going overboard.
 
The British did invent the concept of the "White Race" that we talk about so much of today.
Curiously, prior to the 19th century the concept of a "White Race" didn't exist, and it was invented in the Victorian Imperial to separate the colonising nations to the colonised. It was a way to use biological explanation to justify a nation's dominance.
That's just fundamentally untrue. Apart from the fact that the ancient Greeks identified a white race (in Xenophon for example), which they considered inferior and to which they didn't belong, Immanuel Kant referred to a white race in 1775, and in 1758 Linnaeus identified the 'white race' as the subspecies homo sapiens europaeus.
 
Are you really going to claim that Victoria reigned in the eighteenth century, and that Linnaeus and Kant were British? (Not that anything would surprise me.)
 
"White" doesn't equate to "Caucasoid", because the latter, as an anthropological term, also includes Middle-Easterners, North Africans, Indians and South Asians, and even Sudanese and Ethiopians to some extent...
The concept that "White is superior" is a very recent concept and only came into being after the 1800s, thanks to British colonialism.
Pure nonsense and racist to boot.
 
Hitler took what was a common social practice in British colonies and built an even more radical theory based on the "Aryan Race".
 
In fact, I really wish that countries like the USA could stop using "White" and "non-White" as ethnic classification, because "Whiteness" was a victorian political race, rather than anything with any biological, anthropological, or even cultural significance.
 
Apart from your wildly misinformed use of the word 'Victorian' that's a consummation devoutly to be wished. So it would be for people like you to go by historical facts rather than political propaganda.
 
Back to Top
Lotus View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 116
  Quote Lotus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 08:34
Originally posted by pinguin

The genocide of Native Americans was the inspiration for ethnic cleaning in Europe.

 

I thought the royal proclamation of 1763 was supposed to prevent westward expansion of the colonies and give the native peoples of north America inherent rights to their lands.

Originally posted by pinguin

Perhaps a little bit more human, but the scale of the British empire was bigger. Britain should accept its past and not pretend it was a perfect nation, because it wasn't.

I dont think there is any danger of Britain not accepting its past atrocities, in the last month I have seen two programmes detailing some of the nastier parts of Britains involvement of the slave trade, and last night a programme highlighted the lack of any help to the Irish during the potato famine.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 08:48
 
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Constantine XI

...
 And also, who says the British were worse? Overall, they ran their empire more humanely than say, the Belgians.
 
Perhaps a little bit more human, but the scale of the British empire was bigger. Britain should accept its past and not pretend it was a perfect nation, because it wasn't.
No-one claims the British were perfect. However, that doesn't justify hurling wildly unjustified allegations around.
 
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI

...
Not only that, many british colonies today are among the most successful in the world. The ones which were most receptive to British ideas and culture are generally the ones who have developed best.
 
As I say before, economical success doen't erase the genocides of the past. Besides Britain is lagging with respect to Asia, today. Morality is not measured in dollars or pounds.
I don't know what you mean by 'lagging'. Can you tell me a country with a smaller population that has a bigger economy? That 60 million Britons make a smaller economy than a billion and a half Chinese says nothing about anything except the number of people.
 
Figures vary a bit from source to source, but the only Asian countries with comparable or greater GDP per capita are Qatar and Hong Kong (if you count it as a separate country). Both of course former British colonies (de facto).
 
  
Originally posted by Constantine XI

...
And also, where is your proof the Nazis copied the British? Seems to be that if the Nazis wanted to copy a contemporary in setting up concentration camps, they would need only look to the Soviet gulags. Apart from that, the Nazis were sufficiently hateful to come up with a range of original ideas all on their own. Sure, Hitler might admire the Brits for building an empire, but Hitler admired everything which was an example of strength and power, it doesn't mean he copied them in everything. I bet you Hitler thought the Romans were pretty great too, shall we also blame the Roman Empire for the holocaust?
 
 
Just the law of action and reaction. Europe spread hate around the world, Europe paid for it with its own homegrown monster: Hitler.
 
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI

... 
 
Well if you know what the Payati (I think I spelt it wrong) cactus does, you would have to conclude the Native Americans were using drugs to have psychadelic experiences just like other people in the world. The aim of opium wasn't to be a hippy or an addict either, it was recreation.
 
Yeap! Recreation against the will of the Emperor of China. What an humilliation for the Celestial Empire!!!
 
With respect to drugs in the Native Americans, some of them have them and used,mostly for ritual purposses. It were the hippies, though, with theirs revolution of the flowers, which created a new market for drugs worldwide.
It may I suppose have been a new market segment, but the idea that it provided the first such market is simply ridiculous.
 
Remember Eric Clampton singing "Cocaine"?
 
Well, the criminals of Colombia listened LOLLOL
 
It is no mystery that one of the first drugs lords loved John Lennon, do you guess why? Big%20smile
  
 
Who the criminal elements of the drug trade really love are the people who make it illegal. That's why they put so much money into ensuring anti-drug politicians stay in power.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 09:15
Gcle2003, the point you make about population defining the size of economy is not entirely correct, some nations,  such as Denmark and Sweden have very large economies with small populations, due in no large part to their access to natural resources. The focus of the economy and the resources available to the economy is probably more important than the population available for it, even though population is still of course important.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 10:03
That doesn't explain Ireland though - F all resources, F all population.
Back to Top
Dolphin View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Suspended

Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
  Quote Dolphin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 10:25
Ah but the focus of the economy is manufacturing of high value goods, tax breaks for big companies and high foreign investment..So Ireland actually furthers my point. I didn't want to mention it, as I have been described as quite eurocentric in my outlook, and didnt want to make myself look even worse
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 10:48
The british today have a good economy which they inherit from thier colonial past.The most of the so called ( developing or untill a few years ago the prefered 3d world)  countrys have had only the last 50 years to builld from zero an economy,and to create an educated population,left widely ignorant from being ruled by colonial masters.So to use the population of Britain to somehow justify an idea that the British are better then say the Chinese or the Indians because they can rival their economies with a much smaller population number is a shame,and to be said by an inteligent person i think is a provocation.The fact is that an Educated Chinese or Indian is as much capable to survive in the globalised world with fair trade and oportunities as is an educated British.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to the topic.As i said before the colonial empires should be ashamed of their past,and we should vote on who was the mos inhumane rather then who was the most humane.Voting on who was the most humane among the most inhumane is pointless,the colonial past is the most inhumane chapter in human history,and there is no room for CNN,or BBC style Polles on who was the most humane.Is true that the British where priding themselves on their human rights record,but that was because they were the best in hiding their crimes aswell.Just check their crimes against the Kenian people held in concentration camps that rival the ones of the NAZIS.
 
My vote on the most inhumane colonial empire Goes to Belgium and their barbaric behaviour in the Congo.
Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 15:37
Originally posted by HEROI

....Is true that the British where priding themselves on their human rights record,but that was because they were the best in hiding their crimes aswell.Just check their crimes against the Kenian people held in concentration camps that rival the ones of the NAZIS.
 
My vote on the most inhumane colonial empire Goes to Belgium and their barbaric behaviour in the Congo.
 
Absolutely.
 
Britain has a shameful past. It is just theirs control of the media what prevent the world to know the magnitude of theirs historical crimes.
Hitler admired them very much... no kidding LOL
 
Pinguin
 
 
Back to Top
Serge L View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 485
  Quote Serge L Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 17:08
I voted Romans because they eventually had colonized people to become Roman citizens, which was pretty much unusual, if not impossible, with later colonizers.

... that , and i could not really allow the Brits to lead this ranking Wink
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 18:05
They don't, the English do ;)
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 18:52
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by pinguin

The concept that "White is superior" is a very recent concept and only came into being after the 1800s, thanks to British colonialism.
Pure nonsense and racist to boot.


Well he's not 100% wrong actually. Prior to Darwin and a few earlier sentiments such as Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, biology was not seen as the reason behind relative levels of advancement - religion and cultural aspects, particularly appeals to a notion of being cultural inheiritors of Rome, were the favoured explanations. Nations which were not Christian and held no particular connection to Rome were therefore seen as inferior.

But he's totally wrong in attributing the biological explanation solely to the English - who always sourced the strength of their culture in two things, the fact of being an island and an islander mentality, and in being the product of a series of invasion by diverse peoples. The English took up the banner of race after Darwin (witness Cecil Rhodes for instance), but no more than anyone else.

Edited by edgewaters - 25-Jul-2007 at 18:54
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 19:03
Hmm so true, the 'descendants of warriors' myth, which dissapeared off the Radar real fast. Seems that as far as the Vikings is concerned, it was bollucks too, theose mighty warrious of empire have to make do with just a Danish farmer for a grand dad.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 19:13
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by pinguin

The concept that "White is superior" is a very recent concept and only came into being after the 1800s, thanks to British colonialism.
Pure nonsense and racist to boot.


Well he's not 100% wrong actually. Prior to Darwin and a few earlier sentiments such as Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, biology was not seen as the reason behind relative levels of advancement - religion and cultural aspects, particularly appeals to a notion of being cultural inheiritors of Rome, were the favoured explanations. Nations which were not Christian and held no particular connection to Rome were therefore seen as inferior.

But he's totally wrong in attributing the biological explanation solely to the English - who always sourced the strength of their culture in two things, the fact of being an island and an islander mentality, and in being the product of a series of invasion by diverse peoples. The English took up the banner of race after Darwin (witness Cecil Rhodes for instance), but no more than anyone else.
 
Edgewaters,
 the British might not have invented this idea of white supremacism, but if you've look around the world, all the countries that are (or had been) most obsessed with "whiteness" are the former British colonies: USA, Australia, Canada.....; while in other countries the concept of "whiteness" as an ethnicity is considerably weaker.
In Hispanic and Arab countries, for example, "white" is usually a means to describe how one looks, rather than an ethnic classification; although I wouldn't say that Hispanics and Arabs are necessarily less racist on a personal level than the British.
 
Meanwhile I have to admit that in Britain itself society is not so and much more tolerant.
 
You might argue that concept of the "one-drop" rule to define whiteness was an American, south-africa, or an Australain invention..., but all these countries happened to be British colonies, and that says something about the colonial legacy.
 
While in Spanish, Portuguese, and French, different terms are used to define people of distinct proportions of racial mix, while in English such terms didn't even exist, which says a lot about the colonial attitude towards the subject peoples. 
 
Of course, British society today has nothing to do with the colonial mentality of the British Empire, and one admirable element is the ability to criticise one's own past.
 
gcle2003,
I could have carried on the debate with you, but I refuse to discuss history with anyone who directs personal insults to other members of the forum. No matter how deep one's knowledge might be in a certain topic, arrogance and condescending attitude is not an excuse.
I wouldn't place myself on the same level. Wink
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 19:26
while in English such terms didn't even exist


Not strictly true, the British invented the term 'Eurasian' to refer to people of mixed Indian/European ancestry (its original meaning, before the Americans hijacked it), and adopted mulatto for the Afro/euro mix. What they didn't have was the complex caste system that the French and to a much lesser extent, the Spanish and Portuges had. The British approach was very much black and white with little grey, on which side you fell was more a matter of socio-economics than anything else.
But this came later on in the imperial misadventure, in the 1600s and 1700s for example, intermarriage with British soldiers and Indian women in India was very high, but by the 1800s, much rarer and somewhat taboo.
This change in attitude is found throughout the European colonial empires, just that with Britian being culturaly dominant in the 1800s, had the biggest mark on the period.

As for the Dutch, ironicly, the founders of the Indische Partij were AFAIK largely of mixed Euro/Inddonesian (IndoEuropean as the Dutch called them AFAIK) ancestry, who turned against Dutch rule towards the end of the 1800s when the Dutch, like everyone else caught the purity bug.

You are right about anglophone countries and the use of colour codes as official ethnic classification. Everywhere else that i know of uses either proper ethicity, or assumed nation of origin (Dutch system).
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 20:03

Gobineau is usually mentioned as an important theorist of racism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Gobineau

In fact, racism of europeans is nothing but the theory of the practice of imperialism. Racism and orientalism were created in order to justify their imperialist practice and to exploit the subject peoples better.
 
As to the question at hand, British Empire dwarfs all others in total number of deaths it caused.
 
Stalin is called a monster today because he held back grain from starving Ukrainians and sold it in the world market, causing death of a few millions.
 
The British did the same thing in the 19th and 20th century India, and caused 30-40 million starvation deaths in famines. No famine ever happened in India after independence, even though the population doubled... 
 
One such famine happened in 1943: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
 
But we are told that Churchill is a champion of democracy and humanity while Stalin who did the same thing is a monster worse than Hitler. 
 
British also ran concentration and torture camps in Africa, even in the 1950s.
 
But we don't hear about these things because for the white imperialists only the death of white people killed by non-liberal countries count. Wogs, niggers, chinks, reds, towelheads etc. are not considered human by the them. And not only our death doesn't count, but also when we are alive we don't have any rights.
 
So Britain during world war 2 is called a 'democracy' when 400+ million people in its colonies were subjects.
 
Whatever they do, we are not allowed to think that they were 'evil' like the Germans or the Russians, but benevolent white masters who helped lesser peoples of the world.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 20:10
Originally posted by calvo

the British might not have invented this idea of white supremacism, but if you've look around the world, all the countries that are (or had been) most obsessed with "whiteness" are the former British colonies: USA, Australia, Canada.....; while in other countriesthe concept of "whiteness" as an ethnicity is considerably weaker.


Yeah, the Oranje Vry Staat was so much more racially tolerant than places like British North America ... not!

White supremacism has its roots in so-called scientific racism, which didn't emerge until the 1800s, and attained widespread currency among all colonial powers without exception and with very little difference in degree.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 20:19
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

 
As to the question at hand, British Empire dwarfs all others in total number of deaths it caused.
 
..... 
 
The British did the same thing in the 19th and 20th century India, and caused 30-40 million starvation deaths in famines. No famine ever happened in India after independence, even though the population doubled... 
 
One such famine happened in 1943: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
 
But we are told that Churchill is a champion of democracy and humanity while Stalin who did the same thing is a monster worse than Hitler. 
 
British also ran concentration and torture camps in Africa, even in the 1950s.
 
But we don't hear about these things because for the white imperialists only the death of white people killed by non-liberal countries count. Wogs, niggers, chinks, reds, towelheads etc. are not considered human by the them. And not only our death doesn't count, but also when we are alive we don't have any rights.
 
So Britain during world war 2 is called a 'democracy' when 400+ million people in its colonies were subjects.
 
Whatever they do, we are not allowed to think that they were 'evil' like the Germans or the Russians, but benevolent white masters who helped lesser peoples of the world.
 
 
ABSOLUTELY ClapClapClap
 
Britain has been the most hypocrital evil Empire in history. At least the others are ashamed of theirs crimes while Britain still pretends it had done no harm at all to the rest of the world.
 
Britain was the role model of the racist imperialism, and of the extermination of the "inferior races". Any similarity with Nazi Germany is not casual: it was copied.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 25-Jul-2007 at 20:21
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 20:39
Humane? Why would they bother to come in the first place then?
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.096 seconds.