The most "humane" colonial empire?

You are correct in all points.  If Rome hadn't been included in the poll this would be an infinitely tougher decision.

Then don't go out of your way to provoke me. You do this in virtually every thread we encounter each other.

 

If you find this thread lame then why are you posting in it anyway?

 

British Empire was even more human.... hundred of million of people dead in slavery and colonization is not enough to change the image, english speaking teachers created in the mind of the young...

 

And also Romans. It doesn't matter they killed ten of thousand of people for fun on the circus in just one series of games. No, they had to be described as humans

 

I bet this thread is not really very objective at all.

 

Kutuzov himself was orhtodox christian, since his ancestor moved long ago to serve the Russian emperor. It's also known that one noblewomen from his family was a wife of Kazan khan in XV century.

 

I don't know about the origins of the name Kutuz. Is it Arabic? If yes, probably not, since "Qutuz" in Kutuzov's last name is of Turkic origin.

 

Here are the description of some Russian noble families who had or might had Turkic, more precise Tatar, roots:

 

 

Sorry for not responding earlier despite the fact that I was logged in for two days but couldn't post because problems in the connection of the Saudi broadband network which some times makes one yearns to the old days of dial-up.

 

Any way, about my earlier post which drew some criticism which was correct in many cases but first, I will make a statement.

 

When one talks about colonization, he talks about centuries of rule that could not have been all bad nor all good. What makes things even worse is that some administrations in colonizing powers really work to promote the poeples of colonized countries while others do the opposite and this is in the same country. Even in the same administration, some local governments are good and others are terrible. The worst effect of colonization however is discrimination. Certain religious, ethnic or national groups are favored (usually minorities) to the effect of turning the whole population against them. What even makes everything worse is the so called "infrastructure projects" and other "services" for the colonized countries which overwhelmingly made because it was convinient for the colonizers not from the kindness of their heart or responsibility towards the colonized peoples (by the way, the money financing these projects came exclusivly from the colonies and more specifically from the poor crushed colonized in favor of the colonists). To judge colonialism in such a manner is irresponsible without careful study and some of my comments above are irresponsible (specifically towards Russia and Spain).

 

For Russia, I was overtaken by my position towards the policies of that country (not its people) and I should have known better. The great mosque of St. Petersburg (built by imperial money in 1905 I think) is but one of the many proofs that the situation of muslims in Russia was quite good especially during the reign of the last Tsar, Nicholas II. Muslims were generals, captains, engineers and great business men, buddhists also were living in considerable freedom despite their religion. Russia was, along with the Ottoman empire, the only true multicultural empires in the world during the late 19th century. Countries were minorities, except the jews in Russia, enjoyed, on average,  better living standards than the indigenious population. Yes, there were exception and the colonization was brutal at many instance, especially in Central Asia, but the Russian state kept the peoples lives intact and generally did not put much hurdles if the population showed its full support of Russia.

 

For Spain on the other hand, my knowledge is basic at best but I still think that the initial phases were not good though like Russia, it showed toleration to indigenious groups only if they fully were loyal to them and that meant in many instances, adopting many of the customs and traditions and most importantly religion of the new colonizers. Other than that, different adminstrations and provincial governments followed different policies, some like Peru and Bolivia were very tolerant to local cultures if I am mistaken. I hope our friend Pinguin enlighten all of us in his opinion and if my conclusions were true.

 

Thank You

 

Al-Jassas ibn Murrah