Did the colonies always get on with Britain? Why?

Question

Did the colonies always get on with Britain? Why?

Answer 1

Of course not or there would be no USA.There is a huge list of colonial wars such as the Indian mutiny the Ashanti Wars,the Boer War,etc.

Answer 2

To a degree they did.

It must be remembered that when the British arrived, most of the peoples they conquored were already subjugated by other powers or by their own people.

In practice, many colonies were better off under the British.

Answer 3

TIM W,you are spot on.AND ray n you know very little of your own history just the bs that you have been fed for 200 years.

Answer 4

No, not at all.   'Colonies' were places where people lived, which were then invaded and occupied by the English. This was always done using military force, and the goal was to benefit England as a country. The occupied people's rights were of little importance to the occupiers.

This is repeated throughout history.

The idea that peoples were 'better off' under English rule is nonsense.

  - The English made slavery a worldwide trade on which economies depended.

  - They introduced taxes on Indian textiles, destroying Indian trade to boost the English textile industry.

  - They exported shiploads of food daily from Ireland to England while the native Irish starved

Anyone still think people were 'better off' under English rule ??

Answer 5

Just read TIM W post The Brits were trying to keep the yanks from killing the Indians I mean they really believe this B/S  this what they see and hear everyday on their BBC It is unbelievable over there'

In both of our wars they armed and paid the American Indians to kill the yanks after they lost and  sued for peace they made no mention of their allies in there peace treaty as with most of their allies they betrayed them thus the ''trail of tears'' which was a direct result of their betrayal

The Brits were deeply involved in the slave trade

Don't you just love these people?

Dang how did I get on the U K site?

Answer 6

No they didn't.  In the French and Indian war, the colonies basically fought off the enemies themselves with little British help.  During the war, they also united for the first time.  When Britian made them pay for the war they died for, they got ticked.

Answer 7

Uh, NO! Because Britain wanted to be ruling from afar without really knowing what the colonies were experiencing first hand. The crown didn't always have their well-being at heart.

Answer 8

No for a numbe of reasons.

First we must split the British Empire into

A) countries that were conquered by Britain but still retained their original population and culture eg. India, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Singapore

B) countries whose populations were overwhelmed (often by disease as well as warfare) by the colonists eg. Australia, USA, Canada

I guess its 'B' you are referring to here.

One of the major problems was that the colonists mainly wanted to exterminate the native peoples of the lands they settled in. The British government tried to restrain them as they had oftern signed treaties with eg. Native American tribes and didn't want these treaties broken as it would be seen as dishonourable (quite rightly). This is part of the reason why some colonies rebelled, because they wanted to kill off any local opposition and expand their lands.

Also there was much conflict with the USA as Britain banned slave-trading in 1812 while the Americans still liked it.

More sympathetically, in the 20th century, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were, some said, pressurised into supporting Britain in the 1st and 2nd World Wars.

Answer 9

Think of Britain as your parents. You represent one of the colonies. Do you always get on with your parents? No. Why? Because you're trying to establish your independence as an individual free of your parents' rule. The colonies were trying to establish themselves as countries free and independent of British rule.