Is my History teacher right ?

Question

Whilst we were covering the British empire in history - she said conquering and making North America was the worst mistake that Britain made - We are all British - she said we are mainly to blame for making the USA what it is today - is she right ?

Answer 1

If that's what she really meant she has no business teaching history, being too biassed to draw logical conclusions from events.

I am Australian. We are surrounded by countries formerly colonies of other countries, the Dutch, Germans, French and of course the good ol' Poms, as we call them.(British).

The countries settled and colonised by the British have developed in pace with the rest of the world, have a similar pattern of human rights, and encourage migration. promotion and recognition by aptitude not race, so that their populations are multiracial but not stratified. Certain countries formerly colonies have gone backwards from this - one thinks of South Africa, Zimbabwe and India - since the British left.

But other colonisers were so repressive and brutal that their colonies threw them out.Indonesia is the best example I can think of this.

The Americans are the same sort of mix as we Australians - largely of European extraction but a sizable number of Asians and Africans as well.To say that the US is in its present mess(a theory not proven!) because of its British heritage is like saying that the French are all monarchists because they used to have a monarchy!

What RUBBISH!  

  

Answer 2

when america was under british rule people behaved better but once the usa got its freedom thats when the problems started,mass murder of the indians,stealing all indian lands that were protected by the crown,many injustices that weren't there before,the average person had very little say,usa eventually stealing texas california,hawaii,killing each other in the civil war that really didn't change much,attacking countries that could not protect themselves,crime running wild,3 million +homeless,, the problems arose when the usa let every lowlife into its country from all parts of the world ,,mind you britain is getting that way as well,god i could go on for a week,

Answer 3

Her reasoning for it being a mistake is wrong, It was a mistake but from a tactical point of view.  The Colonies were to large and to populated to be ruled by a country 3000 miles away.  When the Colonies decided to rebel and go for independence, The fact that England was 3000 miles away and that it had to move armies great distances to fight the rebellion was a mistake so from a tactical point of view it was a mistake, but it would of been the same if France had run the colonies we would of wanted our independence from them then they would have had the same problem, bottom line it is a mistake for any country to rule a territory or colony thousands of miles from home.

Answer 4

Why is it a mistake? Typically she is correct, the British Empire did take a big part in the making of the USA, but tell her that is racist. Very racist. Why are we (americans) a mistake, and what did she mean by what we are today? What is wrong with what are today? Tell her to live a little, move into the 21st century where Britain is not the only dominant power. I'm thoroughly displeased with her, I'm American and attend school in England and I've never seen such awful wording of a lesson.

Answer 5

A French America would have resulted in a massive influx of wealth and resources to France. Gradual expansion into the American continent would have seen a slow decline in the ability of england to hold her colonies and those losses, reflected in the British Isles by and ever increasing need for ships, resources and manpower would result in a conflict between France and England with France the easy victor probably sometime before 1900 (if you include Napoleon in this timeline then world conquest would probably occur around 1825). Britain would no doubt have suffered internal strife with the rebellions leaders being transported to the much expanded penal facilities in New France (Australia) would soon be eradicated and while intermittent internal strife may cause trouble it would never trouble such a behemoth as france with continental Northern America and Australia and lots of the pacific under it's control. The war between the states (US civil war) may not have happened and slavery may have been practiced until much later in the timeline. The first and second world war would never have happened but we must wonder given that much power, what atrocities would the French have committed while beginning to exert their power over their new territories and an expansionist regime (perhaps under that hothead De Gaulle) would have wreaked havoc on Europe.

Then again, the french tax system may have had the same effect the british one did.....

Answer 6

Americans are mix of holland, brits, france, portugal hihihiii!

Answer 7

Ask her how exactly the British Empire would have faired in WWI & WWII if there were no Canada and United States. Then mention Adam Smith and point out the wealth and resources that Britain got from it's New World territories both the one that rebelled and the one that didn't, you don't have to own it to dominate trade.  Point out how those countries provided a societal release valve for English society, including the "Irish problem". Lastly, ask "Would you really like it better if there were 250 million Australians instead of 20 million Australians?"

Answer 8

No

Answer 9

I agree/disagree with your teacher, since I think:

1)Native-Americans would have been better off if only the French came to North America. but

2)The British Empire is not to blame for what happened to the Native-Americans.

Details on each, in turn:

1)Europeans came to North America, and in the US (and Canada) they completely displaced the natives, took all their land, and pretty well destroyed their culture.  It didn't have to be that way.  We could have ended up like Brazil, where Europeans live in some areas, but in the rest, native peoples live as they always had.  We could have ended up like Mexico, where most people are descended from native peoples, but Spanish culture mixed in with the native culture.

If France had colonized the US area, they might not have taken all the natives' land, because their aims for settlement were different from that of the Brits:  Just settle enough people to manage slaves for fishing or the fur trade.  So, she only sent about 6,000 colonists.  If this pattern continued, the native peoples would not have lost their land.

2)Unfortunately, North Americans should feel guilt - they don't feel guilty enough - for what they have done to Native Americans; that isn't stressed enough...

But, i DON'T THINK BRITAIN is to blame.  The British tried to restrict settlement to the narrow area of the Thirteen Colonies - indeed, that was one of the reasons for the American Revolution - which would have left us in a situation something like Brazil (see above); with natives owning most of the current US area.  It was only AFTER the British Empire abandoned the area, that the US (and Canada) decided to take all the natives' land and destroy their culture.

'Mother countries' can't be blamed for what their 'colonies' do.  That would be like blaming Spain for what Fidel Castro did, or blaming France for what dictator 'Papa Doc' did in Haiti. In personal terms, it would be like jailing parents for what their children do.  So overall, Britain isn't guilty for what happened to Native-Americans.