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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Dennisray: Yes, because Afghanistan is THE destination to invest and mine in at the current time. How about next year we invest all our money into mines and industry in Syria? Or Guinea-Bissau?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Certainly not the British. For all its faults (and there were many - the snobbery, the racism, the massacres), one must praise the British desire to create a genuinely advanced world government, evident through the institutions that they built in their colonies and that still survive to this day. One must compare the British imposition of common law and open trade to the hand-lopping tactics of the Belgians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    America doesn't count since it's never colonised anywhere itself, surely
    well it had a few possessions and still does albeit not especially significant, my point was more on an empire via proxy... it doesnt need to plant its flag in a country to call it thres.... they simply send in a hit squad depose who they dislike whos running the place and put in someone who does as commanded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    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 agree that they have some positive sides (Yes, it was indeed in some cases relativly tolerant and even developed than Europe in same time). But they are just overated by the media; I mean just look at some random history books .

    Everybody knows for example about the "evil" crsaders, yet how do you explain that nobody knows that the Muslims started first with their religious wars (Northern Africa and Egypt)? This is just one example about what I am talking...

    (Original post by Clessus)
    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.
    Pavelić, Mihailović and other are just the result of thoose century long rule.

    The ottomans left this mentality... it is hard to explain.

    Cro had a chance to be saved from that mentality if it remained in Austro-Hungary (it was not part of the ottoman Empire since the 18th century if you dont count some territories that are not today part of Cro). The Habsburg brought some good inventions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Those that would propose the British Empire are ignorant, while it may have had some flaws, the British Empire banned slavery and imposed this ban across its colonies which was relatively forward thinking and progressive for its time. I would probably say either Belgium or Ottoman Empire. Although we should not forget Imperial Japan which committed mass rapes and killings in Nanking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by player19)
    I agree that they have some positive sides (Yes, it was indeed in some cases relativly tolerant and even developed than Europe in same time). But they are just overated by the media; I mean just look at some random history books .
    I would agree, although I don't really see them mentioned in the media much to say.

    Everybody knows for example about the "evil" crsaders, yet how do you explain that nobody knows that the Muslims started first with their religious wars (Northern Africa and Egypt)? This is just one example about what I am talking...
    This is, at best, highly misleading. I explain the background to the Crusades here. While the claim that they were an unprovoked attack by crazed Christian extremists on peaceful and tolerent Muslims is false, the Robert Spencer & co. apologist claim that they were simply a 'response' to a Muslim plan to take over Europe and impose the Caliphate is also false.



    Pavelić, Mihailović and other are just the result of thoose century long rule.

    The ottomans left this mentality... it is hard to explain.
    Pavelić and Mihailović both emerged long after the Ottomans were gone, and never lived under Ottoman rule. Pavelić justified his actions on the basis that the Serbs allegedly posed a threat to the NDH, and thus sought to destroy them as a national community. The fact that Pavelić's regime was an ideologically extreme but militorially weak regime with minimal popular support amongst any nationality led to a dynamic of which genocidal violence was the result. Pavelić also hoped to create 'facts on the ground' following the end of WW2. Mihailović (and Moljević) both justified their plans because the creation of 'Yugoslavia' instead of a Great Serbia after WW1 had allegedly been detremintal to Serb national interests (the fact that the Serbs had dominated Yugoslavia even though they were not the majority of the population was conveniently forgotten), and that Serbs allegedly had the 'right' to create a greater Serbia due to their suffering during the Ottomans and WW1 (the fact that many Serbs fought both in the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian armies is something which Great Serb nationalists usually like us to forget), and their genocidal activities were designed to create 'facts on the ground' to facilitate the creation of a Greater Serbia following the end of WW2. It is similar to what their sucessors did in the 1990s. I don't really see what the Ottomans have to do with it, genocidal violence of this kind is sadly very common across the world.

    Cro had a chance to be saved from that mentality if it remained in Austro-Hungary (it was not part of the ottoman Empire since the 18th century if you dont count some territories that are not today part of Cro). The Habsburg brought some good inventions.
    Croatia was only part of the Ottoman Empire for a fairly short period of time, we were part of the Hapsbergs for much longer, until it collapsed following WW1 (and we helped the Hapsberg Monarchy survive the 1848 revolutions, leading Karl Marx and other Great German Nationalists 'revolutionary socialists' to describe us as a 'counter-revolutionary nation' fit only to be exterminated). Still, Croatia has, along with all the Balkan nations and indeed most nations of the world, also produced genocidal murderers (Pavelić). So I disagree that it has anything to do with the 'Ottoman mentality'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    I would agree, although I don't really see them mentioned in the media much to say.
    Exactly, and this is what I mostly oppose, the romanticing of some periods (I think islam is somehow free from criticism while the history of Christianity of somehow always demonised). By media I mean documentary films that is mostly lanuched on NatGeo. There was recently such documentary where it was claimed that the persecution of Christians during the Roman age was provoked by themself and the Romans were tolerant but had no choice than to persecute them.

    I know I might sound silly but still...



    (Original post by Clessus)
    This is, at best, highly misleading. I explain the background to the Crusades here. While the claim that they were an unprovoked attack by crazed Christian extremists on peaceful and tolerent Muslims is false, the Robert Spencer & co. apologist claim that they were simply a 'response' to a Muslim plan to take over Europe and impose the Caliphate is also false.
    Yes, I agree you are right. But people just forget that the Arabs started first with their "crusaders" in 7th century, that is somehow always taboo.



    (Original post by Clessus)
    Pavelić and Mihailović both emerged long after the Ottomans were gone, and never lived under Ottoman rule. Pavelić justified his actions on the basis that the Serbs allegedly posed a threat to the NDH, and thus sought to destroy them as a national community. The fact that Pavelić's regime was an ideologically extreme but militorially weak regime with minimal popular support amongst any nationality led to a dynamic of which genocidal violence was the result. Pavelić also hoped to create 'facts on the ground' following the end of WW2. Mihailović (and Moljević) both justified their plans because the creation of 'Yugoslavia' instead of a Great Serbia after WW1 had allegedly been detremintal to Serb national interests (the fact that the Serbs had dominated Yugoslavia even though they were not the majority of the population was conveniently forgotten), and that Serbs allegedly had the 'right' to create a greater Serbia due to their suffering during the Ottomans and WW1 (the fact that many Serbs fought both in the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian armies is something which Great Serb nationalists usually like us to forget), and their genocidal activities were designed to create 'facts on the ground' to facilitate the creation of a Greater Serbia following the end of WW2. It is similar to what their sucessors did in the 1990s. I don't really see what the Ottomans have to do with it, genocidal violence of this kind is sadly very common across the world.
    Well, the ottomans left many cultural traces (like for example in language; many words are of Turkish descedant) in the behaviour of people... But ok it is a stupid topic anyway

    Draža and Pavelić were born when the Ottoman Empire was still present there. Bosnia was de iure under the Ottomans until 1908 and Pavelić was born there (I dont know if you know but he attended an islamic school).


    (Original post by Clessus)
    Croatia was only part of the Ottoman Empire for a fairly short period of time, we were part of the Hapsbergs for much longer, until it collapsed following WW1 (and we helped the Hapsberg Monarchy survive the 1848 revolutions, leading Karl Marx and other Great German Nationalists 'revolutionary socialists' to describe us as a 'counter-revolutionary nation' fit only to be exterminated). Still, Croatia has, along with all the Balkan nations and indeed most nations of the world, also produced genocidal murderers (Pavelić). So I disagree that it has anything to do with the 'Ottoman mentality'.
    Yeah, that is why Tito destroyes Jelačićs monument in 1945.

    Modern-day Cro was about 150 years under the Ottomans but ok, it was liberated in the 17th century (if you dont count teritories that it never gain again like area around Banja Luka, Prijedor and Jajce which were never part of Bosnia until the Ottomans), the Habsburg had a good influence on Croatia and it is really sad that it was not longer. You know the most prominent industries here were made during the k.u.k. monarchy (if you heard for Kraš, Gavrilović etc.) and build Slavonia to a agricultural center.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd probably go for the Japanese, unlike the British, French and Spanish which seemed to want empires simply for wealth the Japanese honestly believed that everybody else was inferior and were absolutely brutal.

    The Americans probably deserve a mention for almost entirely wiping out the natives.
    Offline

    21
    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.
    I could be wrong but i though we had the Philippines until WW2 when the Japanese annexed them and since then they've been declared independent.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21;42837-451)
    I could be wrong but i though we had the Philippines until WW2 when the Japanese annexed them and since then they've been declared independent.
    We only briefly held Manila 1761-'64, during the Seven Years' War, with it being returned to Spain after this. The Philippines then passed to the Americans after the Spanish-American War in 1898 (although the Germans had some interest in it); you are right that it was annexed by the Japanese in WWII, and was after that independent though.
    Offline

    1
    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?
    British Empire - The Inventor of The Concentration Camping
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Empire itself was evil, just a bully that subjugated and demonised different cultures. The effects of Empire are still felt today, either through dynastic rulers, military dictatorships, or remnants of colonial rule constitutional governments. The sad thing is it has not changed, even with good intentions, tribes in South America, The Andaman Islands, Papua new Guinea, and such places, are being hunted down for the land that sustains them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaniilKaya)
    British Empire - The Inventor of The Concentration Camping
    The British Empire build cities, infrastructure, tried to educate the people etc. in Africa. It has many good sides.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by player19)
    The British Empire build cities, infrastructure, tried to educate the people etc. in Africa. It has many good sides.
    The British Empire , thus kept people under control, extracting a lot of resources

    No country in the history done something without interest
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaniilKaya)
    The British Empire , thus kept people under control, extracting a lot of resources

    No country in the history done something without interest
    So, the British Empire was evil because nobody in Africa (unlike today) was hungry and tring to educate the people?

    Look, I think you should stop with this extreme political indoctrinisation. It is true the BE had some bad aspect but also some good thing.

    I bet if the people from Zimbabwe and other former states would have a choice to vote in a referendum wheter should they be again under the UK or continuing with the today situtation; they would choose to be again British citizens.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The Japanese had a reputation for being particularly violent (rape of nanking - enough said).

    EDIT: Wikipedia says the Japanese empire was actually pretty big :rolleyes: 'At the height of its power in 1942, the Japanese Empire ruled over a land area spanning 7,400,000 square kilometres (2,857,000 sq mi), making it one of the largest maritime empires in history.[5]'


    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, also the Mongolians were supposedly pretty bloodthirsty too (Genghis Khan).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The current 'American Empire' or at least the one America is trying to create
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by player19)
    The British Empire build cities, infrastructure, tried to educate the people etc. in Africa. It has many good sides.
    I can give you many examples of where the British failed to do exactly the above. Notably in my country of ancestry Somalia. The Italian side was educated, developed both economically and socially. The British side was a feeding ground for troops in Yemen. The Bull**** about building cities, infrastructure is a fairy tale.


    The former Italian unexpectedly went on to dominate public life, something the people in the north did not like. Hence why "Somaliland" right now is on a quest for independence.

    There is also the giving odd bits of territory to countries to which it doesn't belong despite a plebiscite in which 97% of people in the NFD or the now northern region of Kenya wanting to the join Somalia, This area has always and still is exclusively somali area.

    And giving the Ogaden, an area which constitutes about a third of Ethiopia today to Haile Selaisse, again this area was and still is exclusively habited by somalis, and is a rich grazing area.


    The latter territorial dispute led to Somalia going to war with Ethiopia. It's armies were stopped 40 km outside Addis Ababa by 20,000 Cuban troops and the same soviet commander that trained and taught the Somali generals.

    The above led to the public becoming demoralized, half of the army was destroyed. The vast majority of Somalis supported the war (some of my family fought in it), overall this war marked the end of a golden era in Somalia, the leader became paranoid. Revolutions were attempted left, right and centre until they succeeded in 1991.


    So yes the British empire has many goods sides, but it has Alot of bad sides.


    One could even go as far as to blame the whole Somali civil war on this.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the rabbit man)
    The current 'American Empire' or at least the one America is trying to create




    America holds no direct control - I disagree with intervention abroad ( generally however)
 
 
 
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.