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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SuperHanss)
    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.
    I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make here. The French never had colonies on the Eastern Seaboard so they can't have been 'forced northwards' by the British. Colonisation was not a 'way of life' either, it was simply the Europeans trying to exploit other territories. They didn't do it because they enjoyed it, but because it made them rich.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Australia tried to white-wash the aborigines by breeding them out, it was effectively genocide.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry if someone posted this on page 3 or 4 but does the Nazi empire not take the crown of "most evil"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hannah60000)
    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.

    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?

    but, slavery was part of human culture in those days and had been since the dawn of human history. Europeans were the first people in history to attempt to abolish it.

    without Europeans, sub Saharan Africans would still be slaves of Arabs who begun to enslave Africans in the 7th century ( they also enslaved millions of Europeans )

    it was Europeans who used their empire to abolish the trade around the world.



    www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zM_MzkLKPY
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    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.
    interesting and conveniently specific figure you choose for the economic contribution of several centuries of slavery. Not sure of its validity. the facts are quite clear that successes of british empire were built heavily on the slave industry ( as well as seizing the trades of other colonised countries)- There is no doubt both largely bankrolled the industrial revolution in this country. Pretty much every nice Victorian and pre-Victorian building in Liverpool for example were build from the contributions of major slave traders, most of the famous streets there are actually named after the biggest slavers for example Penny Lane- James Penny, Earle st, Tarlington st etc. Jamaica st. Livpool was a world city, simply because it was part of the 'Slave Triangle' ie the primary shipping route between west Africa, Britain and the Americas. It was british naval superiority that made it become the most influential body in the slave industry (before the likes of Wilberforce) Britain also controlled the largest supplies of the cotton and sugar industry, as well as significant parts of the coffee, rubber and tobacco. these were all largely facilitated by use of millions of slaves, and profits were massive because these people were rarely paid for several centuries, and no doubt many died in the process. Im not 'comfortable' discussing these things at all. its actually rather depressing to think about them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jam198)
    belgian, you should research the belgian's attitude to the africans
    I concur. King Leopold's Ghost gave me nightmares.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    during the height of slavery it contributed less than 1% of GDP to the british economy. ( wiki says less than 5% it was actually less than 1% but i'll get back to you with the actual figure. )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...m#cite_note-10

    the empire was simply NOT built on slavery. the wealth of the empire was created by the technological advancements of the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and the scientific revolution and on the backs of the poor and working class in Britain itself -- maybe you should research into what life was like for these people in those days.

    the empire did not reach it peak until long after slavery was abolished. so how it was built on slavery is beyond me.

    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/i...novations.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    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 so absurd.

    slavery was a private trade. it just would not have been 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...he_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/m...q.aspx#cellars

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...avery_timeline
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    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...he_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/m...q.aspx#cellars

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboliti...avery_timeline
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)

    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/i...novations.html
    actually 40% of European SLAVE trade shipping went through Liverpool, and it accounted for 855 of british slave shipping, you may be getting confused with your copy paste statistics. inside 100 years, Liverpool was transformed from essentially a small fishing town to a world leader in shipping purely of the back of the African slave trade. Apart from various streets being named after Liverpools major slavers, All of the city's mayors between 1787 and 1807 were involved in the slave trade. there is a list online somewhere which lists the various grand buildings built with slave trade blood money, these include and I quote - "Thomas Harrison’s Grade II listed Lyceum Club, which housed the
    Liverpool Library , The Royal Institution, established for ‘the promotion of Literature, Science,
    and the Arts’, is considered the forerunner of Liverpool
    University. Many of the men who had helped
    the institution had links to slavery, either as former slave traders or owners of West Indian plantations that used slave labour. The Blue Coat Hospital for the Indigent Poor was founded in 1708by Bryan Blundell who was involved in carrying Virginian tobacco to England and also transported ‘refuse slaves’ from captivity on Caribbean sugar plantations." Etc

    there is an in depth descrition of various town halls, community buildings and banks funded by slaver money in liverpool in the below article- http://ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/108/slavery/one.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hyde)
    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
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Either Belgium or Japan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    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

    Everything you have said simply is not true. The fact that you think slaves were shipped to Liverpool tells me you have absolutely to understanding of this issue at all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jam198)
    belgian, you should research the belgian's attitude to the africans
    This.

    Japanese weren't exactly kind either.
 
 
 
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.