Cycling UK Forum

Coming up to the EU referendum, I thought I would pose the question; as many here (but not all) are in favour of staying in the EU, what were the benefits the British Empire brought to the world and the countries it colonised and can any of these benefits supersede the benefit those countries acquired by becoming independent, sovereign states able to govern themselves without outside interference?

Empires are not there to bring good to the world, sorry- fortunately the age of empires is over? The British Empire is an empire in name only due to Queen Vic being made Empress of India due to felt inferiority in relation to her continental relations? What we had was a business "empire", says it all? what "we" did to the Chinese in the opium wars in the name of commerce not something to be proud of? I only wish the families of the great and powerful who benefited could be made to pay reparations & held to account?

On the other hand when slavery was abolished Gt Britain did station a royal navy fleet off west africa to intercept the slave trade and free the slaves - Sierra Leone was created from such freed slaves I believe.

Yeah - well, of course, the BE was of tremendous benefit to the cotton, sugar and tobacco plantation owners back then :

I think maybe the royal family benefited This reminds me of people talking about "the good old days" seemingly being oblivious as to what that actually means.

Seeing as nobody can come up with anything. Here's a starter for ten, with respect to India:

The British brought the following to India:

The English language
Roads
Railways
Mining
Modern bridges
Irrigation systems, which increased the available farm land eight fold
The telegraph system
Establishment of a legal system and the rule of law, which was fair to all creeds and castes, something completely new inside India's highly illiberal caste system
Established an Indian civil service

To name but a few. Now you may say, this was all for their own gain and that Indians benefited only as an aside, but they still benefited and benefit today from all the infrastructure, both physical and otherwise, that the British Empire left behind. If it were not for the English language, the railways, roads, a far fairer legal system than previous, where would India be?

We must remember that India was previously ruled by Mughal rulers and any atrocities commited or allowed to happen by the British are not nearly as brutal, when compared to those of the Mughals.

Furthermore, the British did a number of things socially in India, that were not in their interest with respects to Business, but they did it out of a sense of moral duty. Things such as the following:

Stopping and outlawing sati (the immolation of widows on their husbands funeral pyres): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice
Outlawing female infanticide - a common problem in India at the time and still a problem in India today, even with regard to sex selective abortion amongst British Indian women, see here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123753.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -girl.html

An increase in the general health and well being of the population through the introduction of modern medicine; improved water supplies and quinine treatment for malaria, for example.

There are a few articles here by Indian authors describing the good that the Empire did for India:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... pire-.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409374 ... e-in-India

Whilst nobody will dispute the bad, I think if India was left to the Mughals, then modern day India wouldn't be anywhere near as developed and prosperous as it is. Modern day Indians, in particular, have benefited greatly from the effects of British rule in India. If the British had not arrived in India, it would not be nearly as highly developed, both with respects to infrastructure and a fair and tolerant society, as it is today.

The British have the Empire to be ashamed of. The Spaniards have theirs, the French, Belgians and Portuguese have theirs as well. And the Germans have the Nazis.

I think we can be proud of some aspects of the Empire but I feel no shame because it was nothing to do with me, my family or my generation just like todays Germans should feel no shame regarding the Nazis. We are what we are, here and now.

Al

Freddie wrote:Seeing as nobody can come up with anything. Here's a starter for ten, with respect to India:

The British brought the following to India:

The English language
Roads
Railways
Mining
Modern bridges
Irrigation systems, which increased the available farm land eight fold
The telegraph system
Establishment of a legal system and the rule of law, which was fair to all creeds and castes, something completely new inside India's highly illiberal caste system
Established an Indian civil service

To name but a few. Now you may say, this was all for their own gain and that Indians benefited only as an aside, but they still benefited and benefit today from all the infrastructure, both physical and otherwise, that the British Empire left behind. If it were not for the English language, the railways, roads, a far fairer legal system than previous, where would India be?

We must remember that India was previously ruled by Mughal rulers and any atrocities commited or allowed to happen by the British are not nearly as brutal, when compared to those of the Mughals.

Furthermore, the British did a number of things socially in India, that were not in their interest with respects to Business, but they did it out of a sense of moral duty. Things such as the following:

Stopping and outlawing sati (the immolation of widows on their husbands funeral pyres): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice
Outlawing female infanticide - a common problem in India at the time and still a problem in India today, even with regard to sex selective abortion amongst British Indian women, see here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123753.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -girl.html

An increase in the general health and well being of the population through the introduction of modern medicine; improved water supplies and quinine treatment for malaria, for example.

There are a few articles here by Indian authors describing the good that the Empire did for India:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... pire-.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409374 ... e-in-India

Whilst nobody will dispute the bad, I think if India was left to the Mughals, then modern day India wouldn't be anywhere near as developed and prosperous as it is. Modern day Indians, in particular, have benefited greatly from the effects of British rule in India. If the British had not arrived in India, it would not be nearly as highly developed, both with respects to infrastructure and a fair and tolerant society, as it is today.

I'm glad that the Empire is a thing of the past. It was a machine for exploitation, and it is impossible to feel good about it from our modern perspective. But yes, like the Roman Empire, it left some good legacies. India is a very good example, and is still (I think) the world's largest democracy. Of course the real world is complicated, and India is also an example of some of the Empire's negative legacy. The handover was followed by sectarian strife, massacres and wars between Pakistan and India, and Pakistan and Bangladesh. There is still a dispute over Kashmir. Would any of this have been better without British involvement. Impossible to say.

I'm sure someone will be along to tell us how the Empire made boundaries in the wrong places, dividing people of shared culture and uniting cultures that didn't want to be united. Iraq is an example.

The Empire is history now. We should celebrate the good legacies and regret the bad things, without fear or favour.

al_yrpal wrote:The British have the Empire to be ashamed of. The Spaniards have theirs, the French, Belgians and Portuguese have theirs as well. And the Germans have the Nazis.

I think we can be proud of some aspects of the Empire but I feel no shame because it was nothing to do with me, my family or my generation just like todays Germans should feel no shame regarding the Nazis. We are what we are, here and now.

Al

If you don't think we should feel shame about the empire because it has nothing to do with us, our families etc then, by the same logic, we should feel no pride because it has nothing to do with us, our families etc.

.

One way I think we can measure progress in India (plus Pakistan and Bangladesh) under Empire as opposed to progress after independence and partition is literacy rates. Under Empire literacy rates quadrupled but this still only meant 12.5% of the population being literate in 1947.

According to UNESCO India now has a literacy rate of 72%, (Pakistan and Bangladesh are substantially lower so overall the figure is less) but if averaging about 72% that means a six-fold increase since independence. That seems pretty good but comparable Asian countries (Malaysia, Korea,Thailand, Singapore etc) also had very poor literacy rates at the end of WW2 and are now in the high 90%s. So, as a whole, their progress has not been good compared with their neighbours.

This is not something that can in any way be blamed on Empire - the progress of other countries demonstrates this - so though I'm sure Empire caused problems in the Indian sub-continent the Indians themselves may not have made a better fist of development and modernisation.

reohn2 wrote:Yes it would have done some good things along,but they'd be byproducts of the aim of it's agenda which was to make the ruler rich in whatever form,it didn't matter what.

How do you explain outlawing widow immolation and female infanticide? These things were of no benefit to the Empire's exploitation agenda, yet they were done anyway, at cost to the Empire; if you posit it was only all about extracting resources, how can this be explained?

General Sir Charles James Napier, the Commander-in-Chief in India from 1849 to 1851 is often noted for a story involving Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of sati by British authorities.

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

I don't think it can be said that the British Empire didn't do a lot for women's rights in India. What possible benefit would this bring if exploitation was the only incentive behind empire?

reohn2 wrote:Check out how long of a concerted effort it took by good people,against strong opposition,to abolish slavery,because slavery made the UK ruler rich.

So IMO no not a force for good.

OK, but we must note that it was the British that ended the international slave trade. Once again, going against their own commercial interests to push a moral imperative.

Slavery continued amongst Arabs long after and there is still some slavery in the Middle East, Africa and the Indian subcontinent to this day.

Ben@Forest wrote:This is not something that can in any way be blamed on Empire - the progress of other countries demonstrates this - so though I'm sure Empire caused problems in the Indian sub-continent the Indians themselves may not have made a better fist of development and modernisation.

Well, it is rather difficult to believe they would have made a better fist of it without the English language, roads, trains, a telegraph system, a fair system of law, a civil service and so on. I don't think such a thing could be believed by anyone with a reasoned approach to the matter. Whatever hardships the British Empire brought, most of these things are necessities in modern, industrial countries; without them, it would be unthinkable that India would be as developed as it is today.

.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you think waging wars of conquest on other nations, slaughtering their people and then setting yourself up to rule is a good thing to do.

pete75 wrote:I suppose it depends on whether or not you think waging wars of conquest on other nations, slaughtering their people and then setting yourself up to rule is a good thing to do.

I think we all agree that it is not. But then certain legacies of the British Empire have helped nations that were once part of the Empire. Nobody here, I think, would defend all the things done in the name of Empire, but we can see that India has continued some British traditions that have helped to maintain stability (after initial conflict over boundaries) and enable recent improvement in fortunes. By accident or design the Empire did leave some good things behind. I will leave it to the individual to decide whether cricket is one of them.