The British Empire

I personally dislike the fact that the British Empire is no more, it would have been a global power house and a lot of the countries that left the empire aren't doing too well except for india which is a positive about the empire as it most definitely helped their economy.

I personally dislike the fact that the British Empire is no more, it would have been a global power house and a lot of the countries that left the empire aren't doing too well except for india which is a positive about the empire as it most definitely helped their economy.

um what. india's economy was doing way better before the brits came (as in relative to the world back then), and culturally were less 'messed up' as today too. So its a definite no.

I'm not sure you can really compare their economy back then to a modern economy. theyre fundamentally different on every level. Never mind the fact India was less a unified country than a lose confederation of warring princely states back then.
As for 'doing better before the Brits' what metric are you actually using might one ask?

I personally dislike the fact that the British Empire is no more, it would have been a global power house and a lot of the countries that left the empire aren't doing too well except for india which is a positive about the empire as it most definitely helped their economy.

Overall were the impacts of the British empire more positive or negative?

The consequences are still to see in presence: while Europe taken an economical advantage and became a rich continent, Africa is still a poor and so called third-world continent and has to suffer racism in everyday life.

You can hardly blame Europe for these problems being endemic in Africa. They're plenty racist to each other without anyone elses help. (...)

Good point. Nonetheless that does not turn the colonialism by the British and the other European in a better light.

it was a global force for good in the grand scheme of human history...

But that doesn't take away from the fact that it was a huge force for evil/suffering for many of the people and countries that made up the empire.

Its a bit like nuclear weapons.. (so far) they have been a historic development for good, as they have played a large part in ending dirrect wars between major international powers... but obviously they were terrible for the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki..

Something can be an overall good historically, whilst causing a hell of a lot of pain/suffering/death in the moment. The two aren't exclusive of each other.

as it most definitely helped their economy.

, British and another colonialists from Europe have taken their goods and treated like subhuman beings. The consequences are still to see in presence: while Europe taken an economical advantage and became a rich continent, Africa is still a poor and so called third-world continent and has to suffer racism in everyday life.

It's a Western bias, that boosting economy is always good.
Indian culture wasn't even interested in such things.



The colonial past has nothing to do with their present poverty.
First of all: you can sit on oild and bankrupt. See: Venezuela. You can also have virtually unlimited resources of every possible natural resource and be poor. See: The Soviet Union.
There are also countries that don't have anything except some dirt and wood, and do pretty well.

Africans have not developed an advanced technical civilization, because technical development was not necessary in the vast and rich in food environment of Africa. The reason why do you consider them poor, is that because their adaptation was completely different, then you came and now you expect that everything should look just like in the West.
It's a crazy idea that is most unsuited for the preservation of the natural environment and completely pointless. Bhutan is dirt poor by comparison to the West, and its population is much happier than any other on the world, maybe except for Finland.

The conclusion being that it's better to be poor and happy than rich and depressed?

No, it is a scandal that large parts of the world are so undeveloped. It is a scandal that there are dirt poor people, living sometimes literally next door to people of extreme wealth.

African nations have not developed an 'advanced technical civilisation' because all African countries are already fully part of the global economic system at their current undeveloped state. This is what is usually referred to as neo-colonialism.

Companies get what they need from Africa, they develop mining, forestry, plantation etc. and when the resources run dry they pack up and leave. Companies and politicians give resources and legitimacy to African rulers who can keep this state of affairs going. Therefore the quality of political leaders and policy is poor, and basically tends toward which faction can bend over low enough to receive the blessings of foreign companies. This is a trap of course, since the dependency on foreign companies means that domestic industry never develops. Africa has the least developed domestic industry in the world.

This is a scandal, and it is in incredibly poor taste to try to justify this state of affairs by saying that people are happier in poverty, or "why you wanna make everything look like the West?"

it should have a dignified modern standard of living.

(...)
Africans have not developed an advanced technical civilization, because technical development was not necessary in the vast and rich in food environment of Africa. The reason why do you consider them poor, is that because their adaptation was completely different, then you came and now you expect that everything should look just like in the West.
(...)

I just wonder what if many African countries like Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) were not exploited by the colonialists in the past: would they have been able to become development countries as in Asia with China and India to name but a few?

maybe global players as in the Arabian countries?

The African had their struggles with cultural differences just before the colonialists came and made it even worse, I know. But is this not the same with the Arabian countries? and despite their differences and struggles, they (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Emirate, etc.) are one of the most important oil producers world wide.

The European colonialists have taken a lot of precious mineral resources for their own. Who knows what some African countries would have done with them today. Maybe this is the difference.

I just wonder what if many African countries like Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) were not exploited by the colonialists in the past: would they have been able to become development countries as in Asia with China and India to name but a few? maybe global players as in the Arabian countries? The African had their struggles with cultural differences just before the colonialists came and made it even worse, I know. But is this not the same with the Arabian countries? and despite their differences and struggles, they (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Emirate, etc.) are one of the most important oil producers world wide. And who said they would have been underdeveloped forever? China has made such great steps in economy from Mao Zedong period to presence.

The European colonialists have taken a lot of precious mineral resources for their own. Who knows what some African countries would have done with them today. Maybe this is the difference.