Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    OK IM gonna look at this stuff later, but looking at your posts, I don't particularly trust your opinion, purely because of your massive bias - against any one pretty much non white, Muslim etc..
    OK, I see you want sources:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme -stealing children as compensation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - the actuall tax of non-muslim
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary - The jannisaries (see below picture)

    Use all that, the result is Skull tower.

    The western historigraphy actually, I dare to say are actually biased. If you use any book about the ottomans or Arabs you would mostly find words like: tolerance, developed civilisation etc. To people who live in the territory of the former Ottoman Empire it is a some kind offense and personally I will always be against that false perception.

    I dont believe in a so-called "white race", a white race is actually bull**** coined in America. Although the "white race" doesnt exist, Slavs, Germanic people and Romance people indeed exists.



    Some slaves didn't even want to be freed, because they were treated properly, and their lives would be at risk in the real world after freedom (Though I guess this also happened in Greece)

    I don't want to condone slavery,but the opinions that Arabs were the "worst" is quite wrong.
    In that case the Spanish Empire wasnt actually bad since being a slave there was not always bad.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Some would argue America was... their empire might not have been aquested through land but they made sure they got their way or else with an innumerable list of examples ranging from africa to europe to the middle east and of course south america... but thats just one view. You cant objectively answer this kind of question without a little more specifics can you?
    America doesn't count since it's never colonised anywhere itself, surely
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Britain!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wortandbeer)
    Many people say the British Empire was the most evil colonial empire, IMO though I'd say the Spanish Empire was worse.

    They almost decimated the native Americans, and were amongst the first slave traders. They also had the Inquistion, which is something the British Empire never had on that scale.

    Yes, the British Empire didn't treat India well and massacred Aboriginies in Australia, but it signed treaties with native Americans securing their protection, and didn't massacre them as the Spanish did.

    Also, all of the other empires committed atrocities. What about the Belgian Congo, or experimenting on natives in Namibia? Or even starting the slave trade, which the British never did?

    Well Empires are not my specific field of expertise (I'm a medievalist first and foremost, so I study the period just before the European empires really get going), but having done a year on this sort of thing, I'll give it a go.

    First off though there are a few things which don't seem correct with your post...

    1) Though debate rages about it I'm not so sure we can attribute the actions of the Spanish/Europeans to the decimation of the native americans - disease also played a big role. I'm not saying the Spanish were all peace & love, they were a nasty bunch (enslaving natives to work in silver mines etc), but from what I've read on the Spanish empire (at least the early spanish empire in south Ameirca) for my exam revision, there wasn't really wide-scale massacres & extermination from what I can tell.

    2) Second, the "Black Legend" of Spanish cruelty you mention in comparison to the British Empire - well it's a mix of myth & fact really - yes as I said the Spanish did do some nasty things, enslaving natives, enslaving black africans etc, but a lot of that stuff comes from the writings of a guy called Las Casas, who was at the time advocating the natives be better treated via nasty stories about Spanish actions... I personally don't think it's very clear cut to be honest. Furthermore, the Inquisition... it seems to have got itself a nasty reputation too, and while I'm not too sure on it's actions in America (or if it was even there), in Spain at least it seems to have been less...nefarious, I suppose, than it's reputation seems (in Witch trials for e.g the inquisition apparently stayed well out, seeing witchcraft as a fantasy...).

    3)Lastly, slavery, depends on how far back you want to send it before you say the Spanish were among the first slavers... Slavery had existed in Europe since at least Rome, and probably earlier, and was well established even by the time of the Reconquista in Spain when both sides (moor and spanish) took slaves from each other. If you're referring to the enslavement of Black Africans too, well even here you might want to look at the Portuguese first, who with their discovery of the atlantic islands off the cost of west Africa were soon setting up slave run sugar plantations (which quickly evolved into an all black african affair) - all of this before the time Columbus rediscovered America (the Vikings supposedly having got there first much earlier), and the Spanish Empire set up there.

    Oh, and one more thing (really is the last, I promise!), I think when comparing these empires (Britain & Spain) to see who's worse you have to take into account the differences in when they happened - Spain's empire at the start anyway (which is the bit I know most about) is going on in the late 15th, 15th and 17th Centuries, when the power of the Church is still very much prevalent over society. Consequently, the spread of Religion is seen as a good thing to do - hence the conversion efforts we see. Britain though has it's empire in stages, and by the time we see them going out to India & so on, trade, and the protection of trade, seems to be the driving force behind Imperialism as far as I know, and so Religion is ignored so long as it doesn't upset European ideas anyway (such as the practice of Burning Widows)...

    --------------

    Anyway... all that out of the way, in answer to your question... I'd be inclined to say the Belgian Empire in the Congo was the worst from what I know. While admittedly I know less about that than I do about the Dutch, British & Spanish Empires, it seems to me that what went on there was much more Brutal than anything cooked up by the other Imperial powers, even if it did follow the same sort of motivations of wanting the Congo's natural resources... I could be wrong though, but with these sorts of questions, I think there are no right answers either...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    OK IM gonna look at this stuff later, but looking at your posts, I don't particularly trust your opinion, purely because of your massive bias - against any one pretty much non white, Muslim etc...

    Just looking at that now, that does sound pretty horrible and before I go, I'd like to say whilst the Arabs were slave traders, they certainly weren't the "worst" ie: slaves did actually get some rights from Arabs. One historian put it that often slaves were no worse off than the peasants in the streets.

    Some slaves didn't even want to be freed, because they were treated properly, and their lives would be at risk in the real world after freedom (Though I guess this also happened in Greece)

    I don't want to condone slavery,but the opinions that Arabs were the "worst" is quite wrong.
    What rights did the Arab slaves had. I thought that many of them were taken simply for the purpose of being sex slaves? Also, from first hand accounts that I have read from men who were taken as arab slaves it seems as though they were simply worked until they died from starvation/exhaustion
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by player19)
    Sure, but if you carefully laws of the Spanish Empire you would notice that slaves had some rights. First, although there was slavery the master had no right to abuse the slave like in the French colonies or in America, a child born in a relationship between the a slave and a free man, the child would be born as free person. Also, the Spanish Empire importet not so much slaves like the others did, and at the end they were among the first to abolish it.
    Some of the indigenous peoples of South America gained rights after years of the most awful treatment. African slaves weren't so lucky. And the Spanish Empire abolished slavery around the same time as the British, only a little earlier purely to logistics. Here's a good video to watch to see what I mean about the awful treatment of slaves under the Spanish Empire. They were no more tolerant than anyone else, and far worse at points.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjhIz...F80C9&index=25
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    America doesn't count since it's never colonised anywhere itself, surely
    The Philippines, Guam, Samoa, Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, not to mention Puerto Rico...

    In fact, its overseas possessions are probably greater in size than ours now.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Habsburg)
    The Philippines, Guam, Samoa, Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, not to mention Puerto Rico...

    In fact, its overseas possessions are probably greater in size than ours now.
    Huh! Never knew, I always assumed everyone immigrated there, killed the natives, then there was a massive fistfight to kick us British out, then there was all the Wild West movies, and then the present day :lol:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by player19)
    OK, I see you want sources:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme -stealing children as compensation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - the actuall tax of non-muslim
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary - The jannisaries (see below picture)

    Use all that, the result is Skull tower.

    The western historigraphy actually, I dare to say are actually biased. If you use any book about the ottomans or Arabs you would mostly find words like: tolerance, developed civilisation etc. To people who live in the territory of the former Ottoman Empire it is a some kind offense and personally I will always be against that false perception.
    I agree with you that the Ottoman and Arab Empires should not be romanticised, and that non-Muslims were treated essentially as second class citizens. Also, towards the end of its life, the Ottoman Empire committed various rounds of genocide. However, I will say that the Janissary system was ended by the early 19th century and infamous Devşirme system had largely ended by the 16th century (and was formally ended by the 18th century, one thing that Great Serb nationalists, who always whine about their persecution by the Ottomans, usually fail to mention is that Albanians were one of the main sources of Devşirme).

    Anyway, on your second paragraph, I don't think highlighting the advanced state and (strictly relative for the time) tolerence of the arab empires and of the Ottoman's early stages is necessarily a case of bias. It is simply historically accurate. It is also historically accurate to note the Ottoman Empire's aggressive expansionism and its treatment of Christian peoples as second class citizens, and the Arab slave trade. And to note that the Ottoman Empire, from the 18th century onwards, gradually became left behind as it failed to modernise and have an 'enlightenment' similar to the west, and it seemed to be more of a clapped up achronism. As it lost control of its various regions, the Ottoman Empire became increasingly repressive and outright genocidal in character.

    I also don't think its fair to say that the Ottomans turned the Balkans into a ****hole. I daresay the far more recent hegemony plans of the Garašanin group, the Pašić and Karađorđevian plan of 1915, the Pavelić plans, Mihailovićian territorial gluttony and the Ćosić plans of the 1980s did far more to turn the Balkans into a ****hole than the Ottomans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Ottoman empire. So glad the Viennans defeated them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think in a 100 years from now the American Empire could be right up there?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    I think in a 100 years from now the American Empire could be right up there?

    They have to have an empire firstly
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    British because they are still invading countries for their resources to this day
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Japanese empire
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    They have to have an empire firstly
    662 overseas bases in 130 countries, 39% of worlds military expenditure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bill_Gates)
    662 overseas bases in 130 countries, 39% of worlds military expenditure.

    Point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dennisraymondsmith)
    British because they are still invading countries for their resources to this day

    Such as?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dennisraymondsmith)
    British because they are still invading countries for their resources to this day
    Yawn...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Such as?
    iraq,Afghanistan etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dennisraymondsmith)
    iraq,Afghanistan etc

    Iraq and Afghanistan have been incredibly unprofitable.

    You would have to be a lunatic to invade Afghanistan in order to gain resources, there was no chance of turning a profit on such a military operation.

    Thus we conclude one of the two :

    The aim was to gain extra resources but the whole of the British goverment had gone completely mad and decided that the middle east of all places would be the most profitable place to invade.

    Or

    The reasons stated and widely accepted are the actual reasons.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 18, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.