Which colonial empire was "most evil"?

Scroll to see replies

Hahahaha I think there's a language barrier between us

No they hadn't.
Years after the climax of the war as we paid off debt, yes. That was my point earlier...

Да вы говорите полный дерьма и, кажется, не в состоянии понять, базовый английский и факты....

sorry are you suggesting that America still had a smaller economy than Britain [not the empire] then? twoddle, same with germany... untill we bombed and fined the crap into them respectively.
Lets break this down, after WW1 britain was no longer the worlds leading power, we might have had an empire but so what? American and German industrialisation had outstripped ours big time... go look at a few history books and have a look.

Reply 121

SR255

Spain has got a pretty bad image in the Caribbean. Whenever you ask about any massacre or forced labour projects the stock answer from the locals is always "the Spaniards did it". However as someone said earlier the crown has to go to the Belgians. They treated the Congolese people with Nazi levels of brutality all in the name of profit. They were so bad that even the other "evil" empires of the time forced them to fix up in 1908.

Reply 122

cl_steele

Original post by SuperHanss

Whose 'we'? I thought you were an American...
After WW1 Britain was still the leading World power, many historians agree that it Britain was probably going to win the Great War themselves eventually; although it would've taken longer had the Americans not joined in, and the war finished not with Britain in a state of disrepair but just with a bloodied nose.

we?
Im not american? :s-smilie:

it was one of them, Germany and france were decimated and America was coming up to a par, although it depends what you base it on.

Yes the figure I've given you was for the whole 'Empire'; which was at its most powerful in 1922 (after WW1). Your implication that all of those hundreds of billions were not Britain's just because not all of that economic trade had taken place within geographical British borders would also mean you'd have to diminish the current US economy significantly - you don't think that gdp of 14.99 trillion was all generated on American soil do you?

And as ive said we are not talking about the empire in this regard... the empire was not a country...? Re-explain your last point?

So, in 1939 (start of WW2) places like India and Canada may have had independent cultural identities but politically and economically were represented by and dependant upon Britain and therefore all of that money was Britain's. At the end of WW2, Britain had over stretched itself and had began to struggle to sustain and probably the moment when a transfer of superpower duties took place was when Churchill used the phrase "special relationship" in '46 which sort of recognised the US as an equal whereas all others used to be inferior.

canada was already semi independant by this point similar to aussie.. over stretched? no it was broke completely and utterly broke, we couldnt afford an empire we owed huge amounts of money to countries like Canada and the US and our country had been bombed to hell... over stretched doesnt cover it, theres a good reason we dismantled the empire, it was costly and we couldnt hold it anymore.
no by this point the US was quite clearly superior in military and economic terms... note how we lost our crown jewel straight after wwii? to say we were on a par with america after the second war is silly they had over taken us, it may damage your national pride but its a simple fact they controlled europe theyd effectively bought it... who do you think financed our rebuilding?

American and German industrialisation? You say that as if they were the hubs of industry. The Germans and the Americans were and are still amazing outstanding with manufacturing goods. Don't forget that the entire concept of industry and globalisation was the brainchild of the British Empire.

somewhat irrelevent...? for a start the empire didnt have cognitive abilities
they were hubs of industry, german steel output was more than britain, they were ahead of every country in terms of chemical and engineering plus at the time they supplied half the worlds electrical goods.

Also, why do I need to go read a history book? I've given you figures already which backup my points. The burden of proof is on you

no youve given me random wiki links to random figures nothing more... that isnt evidence. But since you want wiki heres a link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29
1990USD equivilent from 1913
USA - 517,383
China - 241,431
Germany - 237,332
Russia - 232,351
UK - 224,618

http://www.mnstarfire.com/ww2/history/economic/GDP1938.html

1938 Economy - GDP - % of World Economy
Figures are given in billions of 1990 USA Dollars
france - 185.6 - 4.6%
germany - 351.4 - 8.7%
italy - 140.8 - 3.5%
japan - 169.4 - 4.2%
uk - 284.2 - 17.1%
usa - 800.3 - 19.9%
ussr - 359.0 - 8.9%

happy yet?

Reply 123

Hyde

Original post by cosimakarateman

the british did not 'star the slave trade' it had been running in Africa by the arabs for several centuries before. the british (and other Europeans) with their naval experise simply took it to much higher levels

Fair enough, they didn't invent it. But as you said they took it to a much higher extreme that they can be deemed "evil" (depending on your definition of it)

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 124

theeggs

Original post by cosimakarateman

are you having problems reading? sailors and upper class servants? you are totally deluded now. 90% of slaves carried on british ships ended up in the americas and west indies to work till their deaths on behalf of british industries. slaves weren't 'purchased' from Africa, they were collected by ships out of Liverpool, some were brought back to the uk to be coalated like commodities by the Liverpool slave trading organisations and others were shipped straight from Africa across the atlantic, but the whole process was organised out of the UK with Liverpool as the main staging post for the whole of Europe. And thats how Liverpool became a major british city- from the vast money shipping of slaves brought to Britain :rolleyes:

Are you white? Are you a fiction writer?

Just trying to work out where these complete made up scenarios about slavery come from -- is it self hate? Racism? Either way its bizarre.

Reply 125

Fezzick123

Original post by cl_steele

oh heaven forbid i make a typo, sue me.
wikipedia? why dont you go ask the big issue seller on the corner of regents probably get a better answer.
The european debt crisis was there way before the us subprime explosion, it simply exposed it and amplified it... lets take greece, germany, spain and italy [but to name the big culprits] fudging their numbers.... need i go on?
yes adorable?

*Oh *I hehe just joking.
Wikipedia is a lot more accurate than people make it out to be. But as you're questioning its reliability, quickly googling 'causes of the 2008 recession' will show that the recession was caused, as stated by Wikipedia, by the US housing bubble.
Quite.

Reply 126

cl_steele

Original post by Fezzick123

No body questioned that? although to say that is the only reason for the global down turn is far to simple... we all know that it was not simply that that caused this whole shabang.

Reply 127

cosimakarateman

Original post by theeggs

Are you white? Are you a fiction writer?

Just trying to work out where these complete made up scenarios about slavery come from -- is it self hate? Racism? Either way its bizarre.

'scenarios'? this is common knowledge to anyone that has read a book. As I advised, read some of the links I gave you, the bbc website on Liverpools expansion during the slave trade years is quite concise and will be easy for you to read.

Reply 128

cosimakarateman

Original post by Hyde

Fair enough, they didn't invent it. But as you said they took it to a much higher extreme that they can be deemed "evil" (depending on your definition of it)

yes slavery existed long before, and the arabs and turks probably profited most from African slavery for a long time till the Europeans turned up. but certainly the british unparalleled maritime expertise at this point in history facilitated the expansion of the slaving industry and more pertinently the relocation of millions of African slaves to the Americas - this was the turning point of simply taking slaves to take care of house works, basic farming etc to creating essentially continental colonies of plantations and sweatshops of Africans in the western hemisphere to turn the cogs of European industry. This is basically how the West Indies came about.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 129

felamaslen

I don't know who was the most evil (Germany and Japan did some pretty astonishingly cruel things in South-West Africa and China respectively), but the British were probably the least evil colonisers. Mohandas Gandhi was lucky to be fighting the British (imagine if it was Hitler - he wouldn't have lasted a second!).

Reply 130

cl_steele

qfa

you quoted me?

Reply 131

Fezzick123

Original post by cl_steele

No body questioned that? although to say that is the only reason for the global down turn is far to simple... we all know that it was not simply that that caused this whole shabang.

The way in which you contradict what you've said previously is extraordinary. You say no one questioned the reliability of Wikipedia, except you did just that. So if we all know that the recession was caused by multiple factors, then why did you fail to acknowledge any other factors, especially the most important one? The fact of the matter is the EU is not 'the power house' of the world. Cracks are showing in the EU, which doesn't have as much weight on the global stage as the US does as its members can't agree on anything.

Reply 132

cl_steele

Original post by Fezzick123

remind me again how the worlds largest trading bloc isnt the global power house?

Reply 133

Fezzick123

Original post by cl_steele

remind me again how the worlds largest trading bloc isnt the global power house?

Because it isn't one country. None of the EU's constituent members come close to the US in terms of GDP. Its only when put together that they surpass the USA (and that's dependent on what your source is), which means that the US economy is still dominant. Being the largest trading bloc doesn't make you 'the global power house' either. Other factors e.g. military strength, contribute to that status. As I've already mentioned (but which you chose to ignore), the EU is nowhere as tightly bound as the USA, meaning that the USA has a greater presence on the world stage.

Reply 134

Smushy

'We' win. What happened in the Belgian Congo is unforgivable. Most people here don't even acknowledge it. Makes me very, very angry. Even worse is that people that lived in the Congo dare have rants about how, when they were forced to leave 'the blacks' just ruined all their lovely efforts to make it into a 'civilised' society, and all went to pot. Well known politicians have the guts to go over there on patronising missions to 'educate' politicians on how to have a successful democracy.

Reply 135

Judge Jasel

Chinese Qing Dynasty (ruled by the Manchu minority) were extremely brutal. Sometimes, we focus too much on modern history, and ignore our barbaric past.

They solved China's 3,000 years old Northern Nomad raider problem:

The Qing dynasty gained control over eastern Xinjiang as a result of a long struggle with the Zunghars (Dzungars) that began in the seventeenth century. In 1755, the Qing attacked Ghulja, and captured the Zunghar khan. Over the next two years, Qing armies destroyed the remnants of the Zunghar khanate and colonised parts of Xinjiang with Han and Hui Chinese.

The Dzungars were deliberately exterminated in a brutal campaign of ethnic genocide. One writer, Wei Yuan, described the resulting desolation in what is now northern Xinjiang as: "an empty plain for a thousand li, with no trace of man." It has been estimated that more than a million people were slaughtered, and it took generations for it to recover.

From a book I read, some people say the Qing Army killed almost 1/3 of all Dzungars...man, woman, child, and animal they could find, it was biblical...

Yangzhou massacre:

Several dozen people were herded like sheep or goats. Any who lagged were flogged or killed outright. The women were bound together at the necks with a heavy rope--strung one to another like pearls. Stumbling with each step, they were covered with mud. Babies lay everywhere on the ground. The organs of those trampled like turf under horses' hooves or people's feet were smeared in the dirt, and the crying of those still alive filled the whole outdoors. Every gutter or pond we passed was stacked with corpses, pillowing each others arms and legs. Their blood had flowed into the water, and the combination of green and red was producing a spectrum of colors. The canals, too, had been filled to level with dead bodies. ”
“ Then fires started everywhere, and the thatched houses...caught fire and were soon engulfed in flames...Those who had hidden themselves beneath the houses were forced to rush out from the heat of the fire, and as soon as they came out, in nine cases out of ten, they were put to death on the spot. On the other hand, those who had stayed in the houses--were burned to death within the closely shuttered doors and no one could tell how many had died from the pile of charred bones that remained afterwards.

Reply 136

cl_steele

Original post by Fezzick123

and youre missing the fact the us is entirely reliant on the EU, without us as a trading partner they dissapear, same for us but not the point im making either way this is a fruitless arguement as both points work from each angle, enough then?

Reply 137

theeggs

Original post by cosimakarateman

Yes, of course Liverpool expanded during slave trade years. But slaves never actually went to Liverpool and its real wealth was created after slavery was abolished because of the industrial revolution.

Slavery was a private enterprise. It lined the pockets of tiny elite only. That's why it's contributions to British GDP were so miniscule even at is height.

this idea that slaves went to Liverpool seems to be a common misconception which is why the Liverpool museum refutes it directly. See here:

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

Reply 138

Fezzick123

Original post by cl_steele

And you're missing the fact that the EU is simply an organisation, not a country in itself. Besides, the US is a net importer of goods from the EU, so the EU would suffer more if the trade agreement was cancelled.

Reply 139

cosimakarateman

Original post by theeggs

it was "tiny elites" that bankrolled britain at this time, this has always been the case, and was so in Industrialised Britain too, huge conglomerates like the East India company etc were the ones pulling vasts sums of money and or resources into the uk from , largely abroad. Liverpool saw the direct benfits of major slavers being based there, because of its docks, and it was their money that built the city we see today from humble low scale fishing beginnings.Banks were first introduced in Liverpool simply as a way of providing credit to the numerous slavery enterprises operating form the city. As I provided to you the article listing 20-30 grandiouse period buildings funded by contributions from Slavers, an the city showing its gratitude by naming many of its streets after them. The industrial revolution that followed without question was assited by the vast wealths and fortunes the slave trade had previously brought to Britain and specifically the shipping industry in Liverpool. Its almost cringworthy the level to you which you are trying to deny the massive influence slavery had on the british economy and in particular Liverpool at this time, unless you are a habitual slavery denier. and your attempts to suggest that because African slaves were not all unloaded at Liverpool , but instead sent to certain death abroad for profit by the British, this is somehow less morally repugnant? - frankly that's disturbing