Which colonial empire was "most evil"?

North West Africa okay, despite most it being Sahara and thus uninhabitable.
The French in Canada were there because they were essentially forced northwards by the British and even then the vast majority of Canada was British with the French simply being segregated to and occupying one area, which to this day is culturally indifferent from the rest of the nation.
My original point was that colonising places around the World was just a way of life for the Europeans who were, of course, adventurous and open minded to the World outside their own relatively small provenances. So to that point; if it was just the mentality of the era, I don't feel as though all of the mentioned (including the French) could be considered to have 'empires'. If the aspiration every did turn to quantitative masses for egotistical purposes, I think that can be put down to envy of the British (which absolutely was the case with Napoleon).
Only the British Empire truly formulated an efficient system of deliberate and candid imperialism and no other country ever fully attempted to challenge the enormity and dominance of that. The British were the only ones who would've unhesitatingly and heinously scolded indigenous uprisings with malevolence. It was because of this unsympathetic and egregious style that the British enjoyed freedom of the seas and, in modern history, can be considered the only real colonial empire.

the british empire was the most civilizing force in all of human history.

the british empire brought the world the parliamentary democracy, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the scientific revolution and the abolition of slavery -- these achievements were the greatest achievements in human history and resulted in a level of civilization and living standards unmatched anywhere at any time.

was the british empire perfect? no.

is lionel messi perfect? no, so lets all say lionel messi is crap because he hit the bar once.

the british empire was the most civilizing force in all of human history.

the british empire brought the world the parliamentary democracy, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the scientific revolution and the abolition of slavery -- these achievements were the greatest achievements in human history and resulted in a level of civilization and living standards unmatched anywhere at any time.

was the british empire perfect? no.

is lionel messi perfect? no, so lets all say lionel messi is crap because he hit the bar once.

You speak as a white British person as an West African I say the worst thing that ever happen was when the Europeans got involved with Africa 1500s to present day. They have done more bad than good in the long term and short term some extent.

I do not care what your history books tell you. As every story has toro sides that us just your perspective.
And all this "civilising" notion is inherently racist as if "white people are the most civilised compared to the rest of the world". This is what you imply.

The "worse" is very subjective. I do not think there is an objective "worse empire in history" but in recent history the so-called worse are definitely those of western Europe.

I dont think lionel messi tried to commit mass genocide in various parts of the world or profiteer from the African slave trade (even if subsequently abolished after many centuries of profiteereing id add) leave the guy out of it, the worst hes done is dodge a few taxes

Mass genocide?

during height of slavery it contributed less than 1% of GDP to economy of Britain.

But, show me an empire before british empire in human history which did not have slaves? Show me an empire which abolished slavery?

how comfortable you are to say such things and that comfort comes from the unique civilising era of the british empire.

Sure, elite and mega wealthy Europeans should never have purchased slaves from west African tribal leaders in the 1500's. but, those west African tribal leaders should never have sold them, so who's to blame?

belgian, you should research the belgian's attitude to the africans

you may be a little confused, African tribal leaders didn't 'sell' their tribes to wealthy English (maybe rival tribes) The general formual was Boatloads of English turning up with guns and rope, helped themselves to as many African males as possible (plus a few females for breeding) and shipping them back to liverpool. There maybe been some 'purchasing' but would have been from the arabs who had their own African slaving going on from a long time before.

i didn't say they sold their own tribes. they sold their war captives.

its not as if africans were selling their 'own' like some people say. they were selling enemies who were different ethnicity and culture from themselves.

as for englishmen jumping out of boats with rope and shipping slaves back to liverpool i've never heard anything to absurd.

slavery was private trade. i just would not have bene possible without collusion of the african tribal leaders and kings who became very rich themselves - but yes, slaves were also purchased from Arabs who had been enslaving and selling Africans from the 7th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#African_participation_in_the_slave_trade

as for slaves being shipped back to liverpool. just no. it was the boats built in liverpool which used to carry slaves to the americas. they were not sold in liverpool.

http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/archive/faq.aspx#cellars

as of 1701, any slave who stepped foot on english soil immediately became free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

as for liverpool, 40% of world trade was going through its ports long after slavery was abolished. sure, slavery contributed a small part to its economy but its real wealth was not created until the industrial revolution got going.

http://thehouseofscouse.weebly.com/inventions-and-innovations.html

Most European colonial empires were as bad as the other. People might live under the illusion that their ancestors brought development to "inferior" lands but the British Empire was one of the colonialist empired to start the slave trade (although it was eventually abolished). Look at what happened to the Aboriginal Australians when the British settled there...

Posted from TSR Mobile

again your understanding of historical statue regarding slavery is weak at best. Slavery was not actually banned in the british empire till the 19th century after the 1834 Emancipation, even if courts heard numerous cases of 'freedmen' etc, slave industry prospered by british concerns right up till the 19th century. Most slaves shipped to Liverpool never actually set foot in England, they were largely valued, categorised and then shipped to the Americas and west indies to work plantations. British at this time treated Africans as commodities, not people. The Transatlantic shipping of slaves via Liverpool is known by any historian who has ever read the subject so your ignorance about Liverpool is truly startling, so much so you probably shouldn't even be attempting to bluff your way through this thread. African tribes had little say in the mater when confronted with vastly superior rifles armed European soldiers and/or privateers . Of course this was a private trade, it was private trade that brought the british isles all its money and most wealthy business in shipping (be it slaves or sugar) commanded hefty private armies and navies. where it was more convenient slaves were also traded for tobacco, sugar, rum etc. The british became world leaders in this trade, don't forget they manage to displace a population of people fro west Africa and create a whole new slave colony on the otherside of the atlantic (west indies) --- You don't think 300 years of the sugar, tobacco, rum, cotton, coffee etc industries facilitated by the vast free manpower of slaves and all the money derived from this didn't then contribute to the later peaking of the british empire? how short sighted

belgian, you should research the belgian's attitude to the africans