On the whole, the world is better because of the British Empire

>we stopped being perfidious
we did?
when?

They wouldn't even have their tea industry if it wasn't for us and our hot brown drink fetish.

Yeah I don't know if we did. Look at Brexit.

muh unification! (which was actually enacted in detail by Vallabhbhai Patel btw, if Anglos had done it they would have fucked it up like they fuck everything up)

That makes up for plunging the entire country into poverty and purposefully destroying its trade (including such delightful things as breaking looms and fingers) so that it could serve as the cheap manufacturing base for the growing empire. That makes up for the famines created by British mismanagement where millions died. That makes up for being dragged into retarded wars it had no purpose being in. That makes up for going from the second largest economy in the world (22% of world GDP) to being a shithole and missing most if not all of industrialization because Brits again, were not interested in making labor and goods more expensive (fun fact: India's economy grew at 0 percent for almost 100 years under the Queen's "enrichment") That makes up for their retarded exit policy of drawing dumbass lines, displacing and killing millions.

India was a giant welfare pot for Britain so much so that colonialists would gladly fuck over actual Britain so keep India in their hands (Anglo perfidy is this disgusting)

What's next? muh sati? muh railways? muh English language?

>That makes up for going from the second largest economy in the world (22% of world GDP)

You really think meme estimates pre industrialisation are something to base an argument around? The Brits are the reason they had industrialisation in the first place. If Brits hadn't been there the Indian subcontinent would be a slightly less dark skinned sub-saharan Africa.

>If Brits hadn't been there the Indian subcontinent would be a slightly less dark skinned sub-saharan Africa.

Lol no Africa and India are completely different as fuck.

You're right. Nobody can industrialize without the some Anglo dude making sure you do it right.

There's absolutely no way that Indians themselves would do any worse than what Brits "did" for them (which was close to nothing)

Name a single country which industrialised without European influence.

They also did really fucked up things the Indian laborers abroad.

Japan

That's impossible because there's not a single country on the planet that escaped European influence in some way or the other

Japan and Sk.
Singapore.

>The Brits are the reason they had industrialisation in the first place.

No... it's the reason they didn't. They literally, intentionally suppressed industry.

>If Brits hadn't been there the Indian subcontinent would be a slightly less dark skinned sub-saharan Africa.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say considering the British colonized there too.

Singapore was colonized but all the stuff post independence and real development was done by Singapore.

Like even then like said no nation really 100% fits it because they will trade and make deals with Euros sooner or later.

The parts of Africa which the Brits did colonise are the best parts of the continent.

Anyway, give me a SINGLE fucking source on your claim that they "suppressed" industry. I'm waiting.

Singapore would not be relevant if not for the colonial influence. See also: Hong Kong.

False. Britain, France, and the US all helped to industrialise Japan.

>The parts of Africa which the Brits did colonise are the best parts of the continent.

Rwanda and Zimbabwe.

Rwanda was a German colony.

Zimbabwe is a shithole, but British Rhodesia was god-tier.

>Rwanda was a German colony.

Which later wound up administrated by the British.

>Zimbabwe is a shithole, but British Rhodesia was god-tier.

That's a moved goalpost. You said ARE the best parts of the continent, not were.

Not because of Britain solely though.
All the good and bad shit in post colonial Africa was more cold war and resource boom riding. The policies in the all African Colonies were awful as fuck though from a policy point of view.

The Germans had already fucked it by then

Zimbabwe is still better than a lot of places in Africa.

I didn't. Someone else did.

But that proves the point even more - British rule stabilises and develops shittier civilisations.

But they didn't colonize it. The original argument was that the British colonizing India was what allowed India to industrialize, but Japan was perfectly capable of industrialization without being colonized.

>The Germans had already fucked it by then

Britain did nothing to unfuck it and in fact exacerbated the already existing problems.

>Zimbabwe is still better than a lot of places in Africa.

Another moved goalpost. Being better than some places is not the same as being the best parts of the continent.

> Japan was perfectly capable of industrialization without being colonized
That implies Japan 'self-industrialised'; it didn't.

British Rhodesia was still pretty shit for the majority Black population living and development wise (let's tie voting with wealth and education and extremely underfunded the black education and bar blacks from attending white schools and dump the financial burden on parents and missionaires)

>Being better than some places is not the same as being the best parts of the continent.

You're the cunt with the wheely goals, the only countries that it's not better than are the other anglo colonial ones.

The point is that being the crappier of British colonies is still better than the best of, say, Spanish or Portuguese.

In Eritrea the Brits gypsy robbed everything the Italians built that wasn't bolted to the ground and took it after there short 10 year temp rule of the place was over.

>You're the cunt with the wheely goals, the only countries that it's not better than are the other anglo colonial ones.

No, you're the one who set the fucking standard. Zimbabwe is a shithole with some serious problems, and there are non-Anglo colony countries that are better than it.

God fucking damn, I'll never understand Veeky Forums and their adamant refusal to ever admit any fault on the part of things they like. I think Britain was an important empire that set the tone of modern economics and ultimately established the modern world as we know it, I just don't think they're fucking perfect.

Damn you're salty, what the fuck did Brits do to you?

>> Japan was perfectly capable of industrialization without being colonized
>That implies Japan 'self-industrialised'; it didn't.
It doesn't imply jack shit. Japan industrialized without being colonized, which means that being colonized by an industrialized nation is factually not a prerequisite for industrialization, which means that India might have industrialized without the British colonizing it which is what this discussion was about in the first place.

A lot of African non brit former colonies are better then Zimmy

Nothing. I'm a resident of a British colony of English ancestry, I like the British Empire, and I like its history, I just don't think it was perfect.

I bet you voted remain

Too cannabilistically (kabalistically) cancerous of its own innards.

The big problems were gonna come up sooner or later and maybe it happening sooner is better then later as in right now.

The idiotic partitioning of the middle east

Hmm, I think he meant to say that the best parts of continent are those that were colonised by the british.
Let A be the set of places that were colonised by the british, let B be the set of the best parts of the continent. B is a subset of A.

On a random note is there a reason for the phenomenon of British people seemingly being everywhere in the world?

It's like you can't go anywhere on earth without bumping into somebody from Britain.

That's the fault of the French, the Brits wanted an Arab homeland.

Relatively wealthy, legal right to vacations, innate wanderlust.

It's the same for Aussies and Kiwis. Everywhere.

Nobody knows what the hell you people wanted and what you promised to which parties

I think the world would have been better off if free trade dominated. The British Empire was a drain on free trade, they acted deliberately to stifle it.

Agreed
Compare former english colonies to spanish ones
Can you imagine if Spain stayed the dominant power?
>Make Earth Mexico Again

I S R A E L

>God fucking damn, I'll never understand Veeky Forums and their adamant refusal to ever admit any fault on the part of things they like.

It's literally autism. Not even memeing.

Is that also why they can't seem to handle ambiguity, uncertainty, nuance, or any answer that can be described as "good enough but not perfect?"

...

Good thing they failed, then, because Pan-Arabism is fucking stupid.

Are you attempting to argue that all the social, political and economic advancements made by the British empire where not worth some ignorant boarder lines in Africa and the middle East? Something that was done by nearly every power involved in African colonisation.

Allow me to recite a few facts for you, but before you spout your typical 'go back /pol/tard' spiel whenever your sensibilities are challenged, I am merely explaining a set of inevitable truths. Imperialism in the modern sense is now a 'bad thing' and although I agree that letting these countries have their 'little national projects' was necessary, it's for other reasons than giving them silly notions of self sustainability. In reality it is now that we can look back pointing and laughing 'I told you so'. It's important to see their multiple attempts over the century fail to show that we were in the right. There was nothing bad about Imperialism, not only was it an aide to them, but they can't even make it with the handicaps we've left them.

Anyway, here are some facts and no they are not opinions, they have been proven both by actions/reactions and time.

It's not racist to state that if Africa was inhabited only by white Europeans that over the span of half a century most of the continent would be as efficient and developed as Europe itself. Fact.

Black people had a head start with infrastructure, technology and governance, were granted their independence and the situation explains itself. They are a ruinous people. Fact.

Look at South Africa under the Boer/Brits. It is possible to have developed, functioning civilisation in Africa. North Africa under the Arabs to a lesser extent but still leagues ahead of Central Africa. Fact.

So considering this, how can it be racist to claim that indigenous Africans aren't better under colonial rule, like a child needing a parent. That they are wasted on a rich continent. That the world would be no worse off without them.

It's harsh and unethical to believe this, but is it not fact? It is all factual and true.

Keep in mind I'm not saying this from a racist standpoint, it's a realistic one. There is a problem, you identify the cause. Blacks are the problem of themselves, and unfortunately everyone else too.

>Lol every difference between countries is due to race and race alone
>Culture? What the fuck is that shit I literally have never heard of it.
Literally kill yourself.

That's not how you use the word 'literally' and I'm failing to see you form any basis of an argument.

Regardless I will pick apart your two points.

>Race
Yes, there is a difference between indigenous Europeans and Africans.
>Culture
''''''''''''''''''african''''''''''''''' culture. Find the pointy end of a fine, piss soaked African spear, friend.

Every separate populous should be left to their own devices and be fully autonomous.

End of discussion.

dude that mudchurch or whatever it is IS pretty cool. it's no acropolis or st peter's but still neato, for them.

also that interior of st peter's was not made in 126AD. that shit was all rebuilt during the renaissance (but at least they had one amirite)

>Japan industrialized without being colonized.
>What was the Meiji period?

We didn't need to colonize them, it's like they did it themselves by absorbing the culture of Europe, destroying their self identity and tradition.

With every shipment that got unloaded on Japanese docks, they turned further away from themselves into a new identity.

When you think about it, they turned out more 'colonized' in a sense than any nation we actually physically colonized. How hilarious is that!

If the spaniards keep mixing with locals it would probably made non white races at least %25 european, their take on the colonies economy was to make them rich, because they saw them as being part of spain and not some hellhole wich only purpose is to steal it's resources. Plus muslims would have been converted to catholicism.

Perfidious Albion only cares for himself, Spaniards under the Habsburgs were nice with non-whites.

By that description, every European country also "colonized itself."

On a scale from 1-to-10 how dense do you think you are being tonight? Stay tuned for the results after this commercial break.

>Japan industrialized without being colonized
>lol that doesn't count because they colonized themselves XD

Not necessarily, Western neighbors always had synergistic cultures.

Japan is a stark contrast as they are not only so far away, completely untainted and previously isolationist.

It's not like England and Italy self-colonized, they were already adapted to Westernised culture and whatever advancements feed through Europe on the whole.

Again with Japan it was instantaneous and although it wasn't colonized physically, it's growth during that period surpassed any other physical colonization in history.

I'm an Irish guy.

I hate Unionists, and I hate pretentious British people.

Ireland was always irrelevant. Britain, as an Empire, is a fascinating fucking subject and what they accomplished is incredible.

Ireland's history really isn't all that interesting-unless you're irish-aside from a few bits and pieces of interesting events, but none are really that relevant.

Hating Anglos is entirely okay and justified.
Denying them of their legacy is not, regardless of how soon the UK will fester and die.

By... moving resources from their own country into their own country?

Is anyone else going to step up to the plate and confront this? I'm assuming everyone naturally agrees with it at this rate.

What on earth are you talking about? Free trade was like a religion for Britain during the time of the empire, they were obsessed with it.

Show the progression in architecture in England between 2000 bc and 1 ad.

Embracing the benefits of western civilization doesn't mean you're destroying your identity outright.

Japan didn't identify as backwards savages who didn't understand technology, they saw the great things that the Western Europeans were doing and wanted in on it for their own benefit. To me I admire that they managed to do it on their own terms rather than being dragged kicking and screaming like a lot of other places.

...

Do the same for Central Africa.

if you had done literally any cursory reading on the subject and come to a well-informed and logical conclusion, your post would be wildly different to what it is now. fact

The western world way be better because of the British empire, but certainly not the world.

Erm... That's what they /said/, but they did deliberately collapse the textile industry in India to support British industry, so... they weren't in favour of free trade. Just trade that benefits Britain.

It would have progressed at about the same rate.

European development picked up as they increased in population density and traded with the rest of Eurasia.

wow whites had glass in 126 ad?

I'm sure you've done said reading yourself?

Please share your knowledge with us all, I eagerly anticipate your findings.

>destroying their self identity and tradition.

that isn't true at all. shinto became the state religion and was taught as history

of course you would want your opinions to be spoon-fed to you

>It would have progressed at about the same rate.

I didn't know Central African was a part of the Bronze age?
>ohwaititwasn't.jpg

Does being forced to open your borders literally at gunpoint not count as "kicking and screaming"?

so mister wise /pol/ man, what is it exactly about Africans that make them so inferior to Europeans? what factors cause these "factual" and defiantly not reductive points.

That's a case of de-industrialisation, not trade restriction. The two are related but wholly separate

Between 2000 bc and 1 ad?

That's when Africa entered the iron age. As you'll know, there was no significant bronze age in sub-Saharan Africa, just an iron age.

I don't need to be spoon fed nonsense, I'm telling you the time tested facts that indigenous Africans are inept, they had a head start with everything they needed to catch up to us and it devolved in their hands.

It isn't outside influences, it isn't the white mans fault. Everything that was left to them turned to ruins, it's the nature of these people.

I believe the only way to actually fix this migrant crisis is to reestablish Colonial rule and forcefully repair that continent.

Because as much as you may hate the fact that in your heart of hearts you know this to be true, I promise you there are millions of Africans who actually want that to happen.

They know they fucked up yet still they can't do anything for themselves that isn't inefficient, broken, corrupt or shit in the 21st century.

Both examples of attacking free trade for the profit of one set of economic actors.

Then you believe that Africa has not, in fact, been sending wealth, on net, to the developed world over the last fifty years?

You are wrong. Compound interest destroys Africa. That's leaving aside all the 'aid' that is just put on the tab, very little charity actually gets into that continent.

isn't that African building the university of Timbuktu? a building constructed during the golden days of the Timbuktu state prior to the 12th century?

>Namibia's population is 8% white
>Botswana's population is 3% white
>Total population of both countries is roughly the same
>Botswana still has a higher HDI, GDP and PPP than Namibia
Explain this

You'd also have to look at how well off whites were compared to blacks in these countries. Could be that Namibia's white population are wealthier than Botswana's white population.

not an argument

>africans have different culture
>expect them to mimic our way of life
>hurr they are inferior
>its all because they are black

You're fucking retarded, seriously.

Nope, it's a statement implying a question.

Nicely spotted, user.