Was the British Empire a good thing or a bad thing?

Question

The British Empire spanned about 1/3 of the globe, it caused much pain and misery to many but brought much to many too. There are many paradoxes, British slavery and the Opium Wars were certainly black spots, the concentration camps in SA were bad too on the other hand Britian abolished slavery and actively stamped it out wherevere possible, brought law and order, invention, medicine and justice systems to many parts of the world that had none such beforehand. So, bearing in mind that nothing can be perfect, as Empires go, how do we rate the British Empire? More good than bad or more bad than good?

Reasonable answers please.

Answer 1

It caused both good and bad like most things do. I don't think that one was worse than the other because even though I don't agree with some things that where done we have to deal with what the world is like today not what is WAS like. The sad thing is how much misery, pain and suffering it caused which still effects the wider world today!

However,  we can't keep referring to the past as always being such a negative thing other wise we'll be going around in circles! So looking at the positives it brought industry, new and exciting things to countries that may never have had these things otherwise. It also put countries on the "map" so to speak.

Answer 2

Absoulutey not a good thing. Nature owns this planet and Britain should never of ruled 1/3 of it all they did was impose their ways and destroyed many cultures while exporting what they want by building infrustructure to do so. When a country is being ruled by an outside ruler then suddenly the outside ruler gives them independace like that the country is still dependant many African nations were like this from being ruled for a long time then suddenly they cut and ran allowing the brutal to take over. If they never ruled but just traded African nations would be in their industrial stages now like Asian countries simply better off but today many are simply dependent on the western world which they became use to be ing ruled by. believe me or not you wont know because you aint from a country that was a British colony my parents were and told me how its solely due to them that their country is in a mess that they moved here to the UK and the funny thing is that some people in the UK have the cheek to say immigrants go home when this country got to its wealth because of these countries they came from

Answer 3

It was a very good thing, because it divided Africa up. Without that, we, the Shona peoples, would have continued to be at the mercy of the Matabele, who wanted to enslave us and take our women from us. But because now Zimbabwe has more Shona than Matabele, and the Matabele are split up between three countries, we can persecute them safely. That is a good thing.

Then the British set everything up so that I could be the President of Zimbabwe. If that is not a good thing!

Emjay, I think this is a reasonable answer. I am sure you will agree.

Answer 4

If I have to be purely objective, I'd have trouble saying. In Africa, a lot of the problems we see today actually pre-dated the colonies, but divvying the continent up with no regard for tribal homelands and sensitivities certainly did not help. Over the hundred or so years of active British rule in Africa, I think that (the Boer War apart), a great deal of good was done; When we left, there were the bases of a functioning infrastructure, with schools, hospitals, roads, railways and so on, which have kept most of the countries afloat since. Whatever they say, blacks did have access to education, and if they failed to embrace the ideals of democracy that they were taught (in an undemocratic environment!), it is hardly our fault.

Perhaps the best thing is to compare it with the French colonies. The French have a theory which is in its essence terribly racist; they maintain that in order to be a citizen of the French Empire/Republic, you have to espouse French values. (Many of these, by the way, are profoundly anti-Christian.) One such value is that "The Republic is united and indivisible." The result is that no differences are tolerated. All are French, and will be educated the same way, in Dakar as in Paris. You might find that admirable at first view, but in fact, it led to generations of little black children being forced away from their own culture and heritage. "Nos Ancetres les Gaulois" - "Our Ancestors, the Gauls" - was studied in history lessons by little black children from Senegal and Cameroon and Niger and Chad... At least the British Empire recognised the existence of other cultures. This can most clearly be seen in our relationship with India.

India was the jewel in the crown, and demonstrates a further aspect of this approach by the British; unlike the French, we did not remove the existing local power structure. The local Kings or rulers were generally left in place, and simply swore allegiance to the Empire. There was no wish to overturn society and force another (French Republican, for example) style of government upon them. Tribal affairs were left to tribal chiefs, as long as they were in respect of the law.

It could have gone on much longer; black people were slowly reaching the degree of education considered necessary to allow them to become voters, as was the case in SA before the Malan government; individuals who could satisfy certain quite reasonable educational requirements could obtain the right to vote. This process could have gone on until the entire population, black and white, had the same political standing - with none of the bitterness and hatred caused by the wars we did in fact have.

The reasons why the process did not continue are a familiar topic here, and do not need further discussion. But it would have been interesting to see what might have happened in an ideal world.

Anyway, to conclude, I feel that while far from perfect, the British Empire was overall a Good Thing, and brought a degree of stability and prosperity to all its peoples. Ask any objective Zimbabwean!

Answer 5

The British laid down the framework for success in the countries it colonized, it started off as a bad thing but left these countries better off when they left. For example look at Zim, the British handed over a prosperous country to Mugabe, it was known as the bread basket of Africa and look at it now. Look at how successful America, Australia and New Zealand are as opposed to the other countries that were colonized.

Answer 6

Good if you wanted all your family shipped off to some slave farm in America - yes, lovely!

Answer 7

We British worked hard gaining the empire, it took the lives of many good men to achieve it. Okay, the people they were fighting didn't stand much of a chance against us, we just took what we wanted and killed off the opposition, not unlike what the USA did to the indigenous population of America or to Iraq today. The difference being, that we were regarded as white fathers, not invaders, we looked after them as we were asset stripping. We taught them everything we know, just ask Bob Mugabe.