The most "humane" colonial empire?

Originally posted by Mughaal Anyway, im willing to agree with Pinguin that it was the Spanish and Ottomans who were most humane.   The British, in a testament to their racism, had to create and propogate the theory of White Supremacy to convince themselves they are doing good.   The Spanish and Ottomans never had such a belief.

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi When was this? British came to India in mid-18th century, and they had a parliament back home. When did they create a parliament with real power in India, or allowed Indians in their parliament, during their 200 year long stay there?   'Genuine interest in creating democracy', what a lie, they had a genuine interest in one thing only: profits.

The British back home had to go through a long process of evolution to give their parliament more and more executive power. Creation of civil liberties and participation in the democratic franchise were gradually increased (women were not given the vote until a significant portion of the 20th century has passed). Expecting a triumphant empire to automatically grant entry to conquered peoples in their parliament when that parliament is struggling to assert itself over the monarchy and implement reform to spread the democratic franchise is unrealistic.

As I recall they did create a democratic congress within India for Indian affairs.

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Why British textiles were cheaper in India, which was one of the world's leading producer of textiles in 1750?   The reason was Indian textile industries were destroyed under British rule, and the British administration prevented them from protecting their market with trade tariffs. As a result the 'consumer' got lost her job in textile industry and had to buy British textiles with what little money she had.   The whole economic system is designed to transfer Indian wealth to Britain, and it is called imperialism. When the locals resisted it was enforced by military force and related atrocities. In 1750 India created 25% of world's GDP. In 1900, their economy added up to 2% of the world's GDP.

However the British managed to achieve similar competitive advantage over China without resorting to occupation of the country (aside from certain cities for their representatives) and control over their administrative affairs. India's global share of GDP was going to decline rapidly from the mid 18th century with or without European occupation. Not so much because things got worse in India, but rather because GDP in Europe and the more successful New World colonised was so dramatic.

I certainly see no reason why one of the many extravegantly wealthy members of the Indian elite could not have put their wealth into entrepreneurial enterprise like industrialists in the West were inclined to do. The lack of tarrifs may hurt, but the immediate availability of a vast workforce and many natural resources was a boon. There were other factors leading to a decline in India's global share of GDP. Even Britain's global share of GDP declined because Americans, with their more entrepreneurial mindset, were more dynamic in developing industrial capabilities.

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi The British created a lot of squalor in India. Like Nehru said, there was a positive correlation between poverty and time under British rule in India at the time of independence.

That's nice that Nehru thought so. What was he basing that on? I suppose as the leader of a new nation he wasn't exactly going to praise the previous occupier though, as a politician I would expect him to be smarter than that.

Of course if some actual evidence aside from the already mentioned tarrif removal were provided to demonstrate that British rule directly caused squalor above and beyond what would have happened anyway under the previous rulers, that may be more convincing.

Originally posted by calvo Originally posted by Mughaal Anyway, im willing to agree with Pinguin that it was the Spanish and Ottomans who were most humane.   The British, in a testament to their racism, had to create and propogate the theory of White Supremacy to convince themselves they are doing good.   The Spanish and Ottomans never had such a belief.   I don't quite agree with this statement.   The Spaniards, or better to say a significant portion of Spaniards, have always considered Latin Americans as a inferior caste.

And also don't forget that the Spanish Empire didn't end in 1825. Spanish colonial rule in late 19th century Cuba was definately not better than what the other colonial powers did at the time. And the Riffian War was also something France and the UK wouldn't have done any differently.

Originally posted by pinguin   Latinos have also considered Spaniards an inferior type of Europeans . No kidding. In many countries of Latin America in the past, if you were German or British immigrant you were treated a lot better than a poor ignorant Spaniard of the time they were poor.

Expecting a triumphant empire to automatically grant entry to conquered peoples in their parliament when that parliament is struggling to assert itself over the monarchy and implement reform to spread the democratic franchise is unrealistic.

Edited by Beylerbeyi - 02-Aug-2007 at 13:04

Do you mean, I have a certain biass like the anglosaxon people for theirs beloved Brit Empire

The only country I can think of like that is Canada, and they seem to be split on thatby my observations. Not to mention, they also seem like the least Nationilistic or racist.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Do you mean, I have a certain biass like the anglosaxon people for theirs beloved Brit Empire The only country I can think of like that is Canada, and they seem to be split on thatby my observations. Not to mention, they also seem like the least Nationilistic or racist.

Originally posted by calvo   Pinguin,   I shall argue with you no more. Not because that you have convinced me, but because your opinions are SO BIASSED that you're basically ignoring all the historical facts that contradict with your "romanticised" views and your radical prejuidices

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi So I guess, all these excuses mean that you drop your ridiculous claim of the British having a genuine interest in forwarding democracy in their colonies.

I claimed British influence helped shape the post-colonial institutions of many of their former colonies for the better. And it did. Or do you claim that representative parliamentary democracies just happened to spring up on their own accord after independence?

And I furthermore claimed that ability to implement democracy is at times constrained by circumstances which make such a measure impractical. I'm not abandoning my previous claim. Afterall, I voted last election - wonder where my nation's democratic institutions came from.....

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi So please share with us, as I asked about 10 times now, when and where did they do this. When was the first Indian parliament (with real powers) opened? When were the first elections in India?   What about the first parliament in British Africa?

Well since you asked so nicely, and since I have read about British Indian parliamentary institutions in scholarly sources before, I will for once bow to wikipedia and give you an excerpt from them:

Originally posted by wiki The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late 19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the Indian Councils Act of 1892. Municipal Corporations and District Boards were created for local administration; they included elected Indian members. The Government of India Act of 1909 � also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms (John Morley was the secretary of state for India, and Gilbert Elliot, fourth earl of Minto, was viceroy) � gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial legislatures, known as legislative councils. Indians had previously been appointed to legislative councils, but after the reforms some were elected to them. At the centre, the majority of council members continued to be government-appointed officials, and the viceroy was in no way responsible to the legislature. At the provincial level, the elected members, together with unofficial appointees, outnumbered the appointed officials, but responsibility of the governor to the legislature was not contemplated. Morley made it clear in introducing the legislation to the British Parliament that parliamentary self-government was not the goal of the British government. The Morley-Minto Reforms were a milestone. Step by step, the elective principle was introduced for membership in Indian legislative councils. The "electorate" was limited, however, to a small group of upper-class Indians. These elected members increasingly became an "opposition" to the "official government". Communal electorates were later extended to other communities and made a political factor of the Indian tendency toward group identification through religion. For Muslims it was important both to gain a place in all-India politics and to retain their Muslim identity, objectives that required varying responses according to circumstances, as the example of Muhammed Ali Jinnah illustrates. Jinnah, who was born in 1876, studied law in England and began his career as an enthusiastic liberal in Congress on returning to India. In 1913 he joined the Muslim League, which had been shocked by the 1911 annulment of the partition of Bengal into cooperating with Congress to make demands on the British. Jinnah continued his membership in Congress until 1919. During this dual membership period, he was described by a leading Congress spokesperson, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, as the "ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity".

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_India#Beginnings_of_self-government

So there you have it. And I'm sure you are going to rant about how awful the British were because it wasn't a full blown 21st century modern liberal democracy where every man and his dog could vote. So in advance I am saying that is how the British system was. It was pragmatic, it didn't seek to throw into effect some radical idea. It sought profitable aims always, and sometimes when it could be altruistic it was. Parliament in Britain had taken hundreds upon hundreds of patient years to build. They introduced it with incremental improvements, and in India the same procedure was followed (no doubt cautiously because it was not the mother country).

So you have a British sponsored congress in India gradually increasing the democratic franchise and power in a manner mirroring what it did back home. Combine this with many elite Indians going to Britain for education in law and the humanities and you have the beginning of representative parliamentary democracy in India. Wonder if we would have the same thing today if those Moghuls were just left on their own?

As for Africa, as I said the British were pragmatic. Democracy works when you have educated urban classes and substantial infrastructure and communication available. India had that, Africa typically did not. Trying to convene a parliament for illiterate bushmen whose tribal hatreds of one another can barely be contained was utterly impractical.