The most "humane" colonial empire?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Originally posted by pikeshot1600 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.   Don't common interests and concerns.    underestimate either the cohesion or the importance of the "Anglosphere."  It is like there is still a world wide empire with a lot of     Yeah, but that Politics between the Politicians, not what the common American feels. We celebrate the Fourth like it's a religious Holiday, and the idea that we faught off the biggest baddest Empire of the time. We always take pride in not being apart of the British Empire. Thats one of the few things American and Canadians argue about when is comes to a who is better match. It always ends up talking about the Red Coats, the Queen and so on. Mostly because thats the only difference between us!

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 S & D, I can't agree with your point about the common American.  There is really very little difference between the various Anglos.  Especially in North America, we are virtually the same. The Fourth of July is just a long weekend now.  The War for Independence may as well have happened in 1775 BC.  A non-issue now.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with you, atleast in my expierence. Americans seem to take great pride in the 4th, and what is reprsents. I always see poeple take pride in the idea of American Heritage, not British. The first people hear in our history aren't known as the first British settelers, they are the first Colonials or first Americans who paved the way for our future. The Forefathers almost seem like they are religious figures in that they were the ones who stood up to the mighty Empire and gave us our Independence. And because of them, we feel that Liberty and Freedom are words that represent us(though our history may say otherwise!). I see a Nation thats prides itself in being American, and no where near being Anglo, atleast where I am from. Maybe thats because not to many people in New England are British, or maybe New England has a slightly different culture. Honestly, I don't Know the answer to it, I'm just going on expierence. 

I dont think Americans really have broken away from the motherland so to speak, just the same as Canada, Australia an New Zealand.

It also depends what type of American you are talking about. The Black Americans have no ties to England or any European nation just the same as how Native/Meztizo South Americans have no solid link to Spain or Portugal.

Fighting an Independance war meant freedom for the British Americas, i guess its the same for the South Americans.

Pinguin. Do you get many North Americans passing through ?

The British Empire

 

Basically nothing very much happened until the mid to late 1700�s.

 

True there had been some settlements in the Americas started in Tudor times. True also there had been many voyages by traders in that time to various parts of the world.

 

True also there had been fighting between Britain and the then Imperial powers who were trying to impose their will on the Americas, namely Spain and France but not so much against Portugal nor against Holland.

 

As to India and the Far East that was mainly in Dutch and Spanish spheres of influence with some French influence in places. Britain�s traders were trying to get a foot in the door with The East India Country set up in 1600. South Africa was solidly Dutch who were sparring occasionally with the native Africans who were in turn being pressed by the Zulus who had been forced to leave their original homelands around what is now Zimbabwe.

 

All nations by then were involved with slavery. The Arabs both from Arabia into Africa and the Berbers raiding parts of Europe including Ireland and Iceland, The Europeans raiding West Africa with the enthusiastic support of the local Native rulers

 

The 1600�s in themselves, didn�t show very much other than some expansion of the American colonies some establishment of bases in India with permission of the rulers and some bickering with the other European rivals.

 

No signs of any genocide.

 

The 1700�s marked the big change thanks to the wars between the various European powers. Although the British lost their American colonies, they gained control over many other areas which had formerly been under the control of their enemies.

 

Again no signs of genocide. Slave Trade continued by all parties as before. Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific opened up and much was claimed by Britain and other areas claimed by other powers.

 

So at the start of 19^th century, Britain had control of Canada, a number of the West Indies� islands, British Guyana and what will become Belize. Odd islands scattered about in the Atlantic such as St Helena. In the Pacific, Australia and New Zealand were claimed as were a number of Islands such as Fiji. In the Far East Singapore was claimed and large parts of India were either under control or at least under Princely control with British supervision. The Cape Province was ceded to Britain. In Europe Gibraltar was ceded and Malta was also controlled. Again note no genocide has as yet taken place.

 

The 19^th Century was by its end and into the 20^th Century the apex of the British Empire. In that time, India had been brought under the sway of the British Crown as had Burma. Australia, Canada and New Zealand were self-governing Dominions. South Africa after the war against the Boers was in a similar position. There were a number of colonies and protectorates in Africa itself including Egypt and the Sudan. In the Far East Malaysia, Singapore and Sarawak answered to Britain. Hong Kong and the New territories were under lease from China. A number of Islands in the Pacific were under British control. In the Atlantic, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and the Falkland Islands had been settled and South Georgia was under British control.

 

Slavery itself thanks to the lead of Britain and ultimately with the co-operation of other leading powers had eventually been banned although in some remote areas Arab raiders were still known to be active in this area.

 

Let us consider the Empire during the 19^th Century. Canada after the takeover from the French, continued to prosper. True there were some occasional difficulties with the Americans and the native Indians. However with no genocide nor slavery and Canada developed into a major self-governing Dominion with a constitutional monarchy in control. The Caribbean Islands had a harder time but slavery was abolished, no genocide took place. They remained colonies under the British Crown. The various Islands in the Atlantic were settled and remained as British Colonies as did the islands in the Mediterranean. No genocide nor slavery. Australia had a more chequered history given the nature of its origins. There were problems with the native Aborigines and certainly in Tasmania the native population either died or were killed. However over the century, Australian developed into a democracy and became a self-governing dominion. For many years there were still problems with the Aborigines. New Zealand had its share of wars against the Maoris. However, no genocide was involved. Again New Zealand settled into a self-governing dominion under the British Monarchy. There was some friction from time to time between the settlers and the Maoris but this settled.

 

The Pacific Islands including Fiji were all held as Colonies. No signs of genocide nor of slavery. Sarawak became a Protectorate under their Rajah. Singapore remained a colony as did Malaysia. Again no genocide or other nasties.

 

Then how about India and Burma ?  Well over the century, more parts of India came under the sway of the British Crown. By the end effectively the whole subcontinent was under British control. However, it must be remembered that by and large for the majority of the inhabitants life went on as normal. The British only directly ruled a part of India the rest being under the Princes� control. On the whole the southern half remained very peaceful. In the North around the big cities, stayed peaceful but on the frontier there was fairly continual unrest. Slowly, slowly peace prevailed for the most part and life went on much the same for the most part of the inhabitants. Sure there was trading activity but again the majority by Indian hands. The British were a small minority. Again as the century progressed, more and more control was taken over by the UK government. One of the crowning achievements was ultimately to have a peaceful country administered by an honest and upright civil service set up by the UK and  which remained a jewel in India�s crown to the present day. The Dacoitry, and Thugee which made difficulties for travellers had been suppressed as had the custom of suttee.

 

There were of course troubles. There were some famines which have been well documented in previous entries. There was of course the Mutiny which gave rise to atrocities on both sides but which was relatively short-lived. It was mainly confined to the central swathe between Calcutta Delhi and Mumbai(Bombay). It was mainly fermented by some ambitious Princes but fortunately the majority of the Indian Army remained loyal. It led to the final take-over by the UK from the Company. After that there was peace again with a gradual increase in the demand for independence. Congress was set up and provided a platform and the starting point for Indian democracy.

 

During both World Wars the Indian troops all fought bravely and well in a number fronts.

 

After WWI the movement for independence grew dramatically. There was some unrest in some of the bigger cities and there were some fatalities. However, the move towards independence was inexorable and eventually took place in 1947; regrettably amid much bloodshed as Pakistan and India divided. However, India has indisputably remained a democracy and is becoming a major industrial power.

 

Similarly in Africa where countries slowly gained their independence. Most became democracies unfortunately many of them came under the sway of Dictators garbed in the veneer of democracy and the people were suffering far worse than any alleged suffering under British rule.  Tribal differences came to the fore again.

 

In the Middle East, Britain along with France had been mandated under the League of Nations to look after territories which were formed after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. These after WWII became independent and gave rise to wars and uprisings which occurred after the mandating countries withdrew.

 

From the British Empire grew the British Commonwealth to which nearly all the old dominions and colonies have adhered.

Compare the British Empire and her "liberal" policies with the Soviet Empire and her Communist policies.

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 06-Aug-2007 at 11:57

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi   4. China, Turkey, and Persia were all classical empires which were semi-colonies, who had no control over access to their markets. They were by no means independent.

The Brits did not formulate government policy to purposefully starve to death 9,000,000 kulaks because it was a convenient approach to eliminating opposition.

Bey,

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 07-Aug-2007 at 16:11

beylerbeyi.I agree with you.And i agree also in  regard to the Ottoman,Persian and Chinese empires.The only reason why they actually survived was because they were tools for the big powers,first of only England and France and latter Russia and Germany had their say to.