Is the British Empire something to be proud of?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Rakas21
Of course i feel pride regarding the Empire.
In a dog eat dog world we rose to become the apex predator. We were able to crush our enemies and establish an Empire so vast that literally the sun never set.
It is a great source of national shame that we gave the Empire up in the manner we did.
In a dog eat dog world we rose to become the apex predator. We were able to crush our enemies and establish an Empire so vast that literally the sun never set.
It is a great source of national shame that we gave the Empire up in the manner we did.
You lost to a skinny bald elderly Indian man, called Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. How do you feel?
Original post by AryaStarkk
[video="youtube;daOH-pTd_nk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daOH-pTd_nk[/video]
We was great and was winning but now we are losing as hard as John McCain in 2008.
Original post by Spratty
You lost to a skinny bald elderly Indian man, called Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. How do you feel?
We never lost to him, we were simply stupid enough to agree to his terms. Uniting India was probably not a good long run thing either.
Original post by Rakas21
Of course i feel pride regarding the Empire.
In a dog eat dog world we rose to become the apex predator. We were able to crush our enemies and establish an Empire so vast that literally the sun never set.
It is a great source of national shame that we gave the Empire up in the manner we did.
In a dog eat dog world we rose to become the apex predator. We were able to crush our enemies and establish an Empire so vast that literally the sun never set.
It is a great source of national shame that we gave the Empire up in the manner we did.
Look how far we have fallen.
Original post by Rakas21
We never lost to him, we were simply stupid enough to agree to his terms. Uniting India was probably not a good long run thing either.
He united India, against your best interests. He literally got rid of you without carrying out any acts of violence, compared to the British empire seizing power WITH violence. How is that not losing? You embarrassed yourselves.
Also to state that you were stupid enough to agree to his terms is to also say that you literally threw away everything that you strived to gain during your reign in India. If that isn't losing, I don't know what is.
Also uniting India is the best thing that has happened to the country in the last 300 years. India is now an economic powerhouse and is on track to beat Great Britain in terms of GDP. Although we suffer from many challenges, we are better off from colonial India.
Original post by Spratty
Don't try to be sarcastic when you know you're wrong.
Why are you acting as if you know about Indian history when really you know mere snippets. You failed to compare the previous empires India was under such as the FAR more brutal Mughal Empire and do you know how we even got started in India under the Maratha Empire? We took India because of originally a civil war in the Maratha Empire in which we became involved. We started as a trading post we offered assistance to a prince got attacked and well... After a series of conflicts in particular the 3rd Anglo-Maratha War we took the Maratha Empire not India Maratha. You're acting as if we took India replaced it with the British Raj then made it India again, no that's wrong.
In my opinion our greatest achievement was laying down the foundations for the state of India to exist. Their parliamentary system is based of ours, we controlled their Raj and so ended their feudal kingdoms. Had there been no British Raj then can we say there would have been a united India today can we say they would have been a democracy? Also the education argument is indeed warranted, the first prime minister of India and a paramount leader of the Indian Independence Movement was a Cambridge Graduate.
I would also like to put this into the bowl had we not had the empire then we never would have won WW1 or WW2 and it is widely accepted that had 1 of the "Big Three" not been involved in the war with the power they had then the Nazi's would have won. So you can rightly bring up the more than 2,000,000 dead Indians and the Irish famine and all other events that were in our hands or not but had we not had the empire then the Jewish population of Europe would have been wiped out and we would have been living in a Nazi dominated world so it can be considered a cruel neccessity for what we have achieved.
I do believe the Empire is something to be proud of because of many reasons although you are India centred and look at the humanitarian cost. I look at the technological advancements that could have only happened through the empire's revenues as well as the social changes and the developments in science and art. When looking at the empire you must look at it in its entirety not just India because it was so vast. Finally i disagree with you when you said the Empire was for Britain solely. I think that's wrong. If that was the case then they would have built little and taken much more especially during decolonisation, look at the success stories of the empire, Canada, Australia, America (influenced greaty by British ideas and was established and run by British colonialists) and many more, also look at history in the early 20th century there were plans to make the empire into a federation and there was a long campaign that we should focus trade on the empire first then everyone else a trading union like the EU today. Then there was the historic concept of the "white man's burden" that was the conceived idea that their goal was to bring civilisation to the colonies hence the railways hence the schools hence the institutional buildings for administration. So yes, i hope i have opened your mind somewhat more to what the empire achieved.
Wow compared to the national consensus i do not know why the pride vote is so low! Its probably the left wing fake news absorbing young minds and pushing them down the path of social justice.
Original post by Spratty
He united India, against your best interests. He literally got rid of you without carrying out any acts of violence, compared to the British empire seizing power WITH violence. How is that not losing? You embarrassed yourselves.
Also to state that you were stupid enough to agree to his terms is to also say that you literally threw away everything that you strived to gain during your reign in India. If that isn't losing, I don't know what is.
Also uniting India is the best thing that has happened to the country in the last 300 years. India is now an economic powerhouse and is on track to beat Great Britain in terms of GDP. Although we suffer from many challenges, we are better off from colonial India.
Also to state that you were stupid enough to agree to his terms is to also say that you literally threw away everything that you strived to gain during your reign in India. If that isn't losing, I don't know what is.
Also uniting India is the best thing that has happened to the country in the last 300 years. India is now an economic powerhouse and is on track to beat Great Britain in terms of GDP. Although we suffer from many challenges, we are better off from colonial India.
Gandhi was a product of the British Empire he went to UCL for goodness sake, he used a British education to unite India. No-one is saying you are not better off now, we are debating whether we should be proud of the empire. Jesus, you sound as if India and the UK are in a competition, you sound so petty.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by matwillis
Gandhi was a product of the British Empire he went to UCL for goodness sake, he used a British education to unite India. No-one is saying you are not better off now, we are debating whether we should be proud of the empire. Jesus, you sound as if India and the UK are in a competition, you sound so petty.
I know that Ghandi was educated at UCL. And I was referring to his point on how uniting India is not a good long run thing. I was trying to prove that India is on the rise against countries such as the UK that are well established in terms of GDP etc.
Original post by Spratty
He united India, against your best interests. He literally got rid of you without carrying out any acts of violence, compared to the British empire seizing power WITH violence. How is that not losing? You embarrassed yourselves.
Also to state that you were stupid enough to agree to his terms is to also say that you literally threw away everything that you strived to gain during your reign in India. If that isn't losing, I don't know what is.
Also uniting India is the best thing that has happened to the country in the last 300 years. India is now an economic powerhouse and is on track to beat Great Britain in terms of GDP. Although we suffer from many challenges, we are better off from colonial India.
Also to state that you were stupid enough to agree to his terms is to also say that you literally threw away everything that you strived to gain during your reign in India. If that isn't losing, I don't know what is.
Also uniting India is the best thing that has happened to the country in the last 300 years. India is now an economic powerhouse and is on track to beat Great Britain in terms of GDP. Although we suffer from many challenges, we are better off from colonial India.
Another point about Gandhi and the whole Indian Independence Movement is that they rushed for independence 2 years after WW2 and it is on their hands the blood of the people who died crossing the Indian-Pakistan border in the Partition of India and the subsequent deaths of those in the Jammu and Kashmir region up to this day. Had the people had more time the transition would have been more controlled as it had been in other countries. Independence had been guaranteed but the rsh for it caused those millions of deaths. Or are you ignoring that?
It is what it is. All countries have pretty violent pasts.
Original post by Spratty
He united India, against your best interests. He literally got rid of you without carrying out any acts of violence, compared to the British empire seizing power WITH violence. How is that not losing? You embarrassed yourselves.
Also to state that you were stupid enough to agree to his terms is to also say that you literally threw away everything that you strived to gain during your reign in India. If that isn't losing, I don't know what is.
Also uniting India is the best thing that has happened to the country in the last 300 years. India is now an economic powerhouse and is on track to beat Great Britain in terms of GDP. Although we suffer from many challenges, we are better off from colonial India.
Also to state that you were stupid enough to agree to his terms is to also say that you literally threw away everything that you strived to gain during your reign in India. If that isn't losing, I don't know what is.
Also uniting India is the best thing that has happened to the country in the last 300 years. India is now an economic powerhouse and is on track to beat Great Britain in terms of GDP. Although we suffer from many challenges, we are better off from colonial India.
I'd say that you have the Germans to thank more than Ghandi. Had we not needed loyal, motivated Indians to fight the Nazi's then we would have not ceded to his terms and had the Germans not hurt us so much, it is much more likely that any rebellion would have been crushed. You gained your independence out of circumstance (making the best of an opportunity) rather than force (though some people like to paint movements in a bit more positive light). We did lose, but it was self inflicted.
It's the best thing for India (assuming the country can stay together) but not such a good thing for us.
Original post by Spratty
And why is that you feel extremely proud of an empire, which is literally built upon exploiting those who have a different skin colour/religion?
If you're personally proud of the British empire, I hope you are proud of the estimated 2,100,000 Indians who died from no food, as a result of British exploitation of crops.
You must love how the British built railways around India! No, not for the Indian people. It was so that transport links could be established so that grain and spices could be exported more easily.
You must surely be proud of the Amritsar Massacre, in which 300+ peaceful protesters were murdered for absolutely no reason.
You must love how the British Empire acted as a parasite upon India, in which India's share of the world's income went from 24% to just 4%.
The British did more harm than good. 300+ years of the British empire has done an incredible deal of damage.
If you're personally proud of the British empire, I hope you are proud of the estimated 2,100,000 Indians who died from no food, as a result of British exploitation of crops.
You must love how the British built railways around India! No, not for the Indian people. It was so that transport links could be established so that grain and spices could be exported more easily.
You must surely be proud of the Amritsar Massacre, in which 300+ peaceful protesters were murdered for absolutely no reason.
You must love how the British Empire acted as a parasite upon India, in which India's share of the world's income went from 24% to just 4%.
The British did more harm than good. 300+ years of the British empire has done an incredible deal of damage.
You asked for a general opinion, I provided a general opinion.
You did not have to take the time out of your day to source all of the statistics from Wikipedia. Imperialism was a huge part of British history, a part of British history that I appreciate. You are attempting to weigh up the negatives against what was a simple census.
1) Many of the countries of the British Empire have turned into brilliant cricket teams.
2)Democracy - the long term results of the empire resulted in democracy being spread across the globe (Canada,NZ,Singapore etc)
3) Magna Carta: America used this as a foundation for independence.
4) Pax Britannica -
5)British Empire was used to help defeat Nazism
6) Indias smallpox (correct me if I am wrong) dropped from 76% due to medical interventionism from Britain
7) The aftermath of the slave trade ban: Fleets of ships send by the British Empire helped defend the west coast of Africa. It doubled also as a method of preventing piracy.
8) Hospitals in India went from 0-65 with help from the British Empire.
9)Mass irrigation of Indian territory (400,00acres-3.2 million acres)
10) 1913- 14 million Britons fled to British colonies to seek employment.
11)Raw materials extracted from colonies used to produce products that were later sold back to the colonies of origin.
12)1900-4.5 million people within 50 colonies belonged to the British Empire. This was extremely useful for later conflicts.
So you listed some negatives, I have listed some positives. What point are you trying to make? Imperialism had both a negative and positive argument. It's simply irrational to ask a question and base your argument completely around brutality and death. The political and economic climates are different now than during colonialism.
Why is your argument completely orientated around India? Was India not the only country under the British Empire?
*Clicks on profile*....ah, okay.
Original post by AperfectBalance
100% We the British did what was natural, to expand and to rule but we just did it the best, if given the chance pretty much all countries would have done the same. Sure we can recognize the atrocities but we need to recognize the advancements and sheer power of the Empire, think of all of the technological advancements that happened thanks to the British Empire and everything it caused.
Brilliant. It is great to see that not every Briton has denounced historic events that shaped the British nation.
Original post by Spratty
I know that Ghandi was educated at UCL. And I was referring to his point on how uniting India is not a good long run thing. I was trying to prove that India is on the rise against countries such as the UK that are well established in terms of GDP etc.
Again why do you have to say "rise against countries such as the UK" why is it a competition? Why can't you say India is on the rise, which it is, it just comes across as petty. Besides now that India has finally shed their socialist policies it is now soon becoming a very wealthy country with unfortunetly a terrible poverty problem that in my opinion is more important than the Indian Space Programme, just saying. Then there's the caste system in India which is incredibly socially backwards despite the moves against it so hits and misses in regards to the rise of India.
Original post by matwillis
Again why do you have to say "rise against countries such as the UK" why is it a competition? Why can't you say India is on the rise, which it is, it just comes across as petty. Besides now that India has finally shed their socialist policies it is now soon becoming a very wealthy country with unfortunetly a terrible poverty problem that in my opinion is more important than the Indian Space Programme, just saying. Then there's the caste system in India which is incredibly socially backwards despite the moves against it so hits and misses in regards to the rise of India.
Why is his argument for brutality primarily being sourced from India?
Don't worry, I did not look these statistics up. I knew them. The negatives (in my opinion) greatly outweight the positives of the British empire, not only in India, but in other countries aswell.
1) This point is not relevant at all. It does not prove anything if a country is good at cricket, other than the country is good at sports.
2) Democracy is a good thing and it was only achieved when Britain left India. If britain introduced democracy to india then why did it occur within the last few years of the reign in India and not the previous 300 years?
3) How the hell is this applicable to this debate?
4) ???
5) Indian volunteers helped to defeat the Nazi's.
6) It is a little contradictory and rich to oppress people and cause a direct famine, however this is a valid point and the British have reduced smallpox in India.
8)0-65? What does this mean?
9) Yes. Irrigation for Indian crops, which were exported by the British.
10) Yes, but who benefits from the employment? Those at the colonies or the British? Are all of those colonies better off?
11) Some products may have been sold back. However the colonies are worse off.
12) Yes. Those people could be exploited and used to fight for Britain!
Most of your points only benefit the British empire. The point that I am trying to make is that the British empire has made these colonies worse off. I asked whether the British empire was a good or bad thing, and I am stating why I think it is a bad thing. From this debate I have also acknowledged some good aspects of the British Empire on colonies, such as creating the worlds largest democracy.
Sorry if I offended you by only speaking about India. I will surely research about the different colonies and get back to you.
1) This point is not relevant at all. It does not prove anything if a country is good at cricket, other than the country is good at sports.
2) Democracy is a good thing and it was only achieved when Britain left India. If britain introduced democracy to india then why did it occur within the last few years of the reign in India and not the previous 300 years?
3) How the hell is this applicable to this debate?
4) ???
5) Indian volunteers helped to defeat the Nazi's.
6) It is a little contradictory and rich to oppress people and cause a direct famine, however this is a valid point and the British have reduced smallpox in India.
8)0-65? What does this mean?
9) Yes. Irrigation for Indian crops, which were exported by the British.
10) Yes, but who benefits from the employment? Those at the colonies or the British? Are all of those colonies better off?
11) Some products may have been sold back. However the colonies are worse off.
12) Yes. Those people could be exploited and used to fight for Britain!
Most of your points only benefit the British empire. The point that I am trying to make is that the British empire has made these colonies worse off. I asked whether the British empire was a good or bad thing, and I am stating why I think it is a bad thing. From this debate I have also acknowledged some good aspects of the British Empire on colonies, such as creating the worlds largest democracy.
Sorry if I offended you by only speaking about India. I will surely research about the different colonies and get back to you.
Original post by matwillis
Again why do you have to say "rise against countries such as the UK" why is it a competition? Why can't you say India is on the rise, which it is, it just comes across as petty. Besides now that India has finally shed their socialist policies it is now soon becoming a very wealthy country with unfortunetly a terrible poverty problem that in my opinion is more important than the Indian Space Programme, just saying. Then there's the caste system in India which is incredibly socially backwards despite the moves against it so hits and misses in regards to the rise of India.
Maybe I could have worded that differently. India does have a lot of problems, however you do have to bear in mind that the government is lifting millions of Indians out of poverty, year after year, in an economically sustainable way.
The spacecraft launches carried out by the Indian space programme have been carried out on a shoestring budget. If India is to become a leading country in the future, this must be attended to as well.
You make a valid point about the caste system. It is a thing of great shame however it is hard to change the mindsets of people who have been following that system for hundreds of years.
As a achievement I would say its something to proud of as we had the largest empire in history and heavily influenced positive parts of society today like a common world language but a lot of the actions performed during it are something that would bring that pride down. Personally I don't feel ashamed by it as I didn't perform those actions but neither proud as I don't think much about achievement in power especially since it didn't involve me, I feel pride in what I do.
Original post by Piña colada
Why is his argument for brutality primarily being sourced from India?
He said he was from India so i can only guess he is using knowledge he knows since India was a big part of the empire or that he was taught about it in school whether he was taught in India or not only he can say, i'm just guessing here. I'm sure he'll tell you soon. Besides the atrocities are also well recorded and numerous we were there for roughly 300 years tbh and they are somewhat well known so there's that as well but there's nothing wrong with using them. Brutality in one place is just as bad even if it had happened somewhere else.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
