¿Was the British empire really that bad?

>¿

Yes.

The only people the British empire actually improved things for were African niggers. Otherwise it was bad for Europe, bad for Asia and all around just not that great.

Now the USA, that's an Anglophone 19th century power we can all get behind.

Why was it bad for Europe?

they did bretty gud desu

They improved the lives of Indians to a degree. They loosened a lot of the rigid class structure in India, though they obviously could only do so much. They ended the disgusting practice of Sati, where a widow throws herself on a funeral pyre, e.g.

Obviously it wasn't a perfect system and the people of India rightfully took control of their nation (eventually) but overall it wasn't the worst colonial system. Spain was far worse, though that's definitely not saying much

They made it their main foreign policy objective to block any efforts at Europe coming under the hegemony of any one country. Which would be extremely good for Europe on the count if Europe had unified it would have easily ran the planet.

They werent nice, but they also werent obviously worse than anyone else

They could have been far more brutal and still been well within the scope of normal conqueror behaviour

tbqh British rule in India was a mixed bag. On one hand they introduced a lot of modern concepts to India. On the other hand they completely killed the native industry and took advantage of ethnic and religious antagonisms that would grow to dominate Indian politics.

But Europe is united right now and it is failing

Its the richest economy on earth

"Failing" is one hell of stretch

>Europe is united
Yeah, and the HRE was Holy, Roman and an Empire.

The main problem with the EU is that it's not united. Were it actually to be one unified state the undemocratic problems of it would not exist as it would be just as accountable as any regular country.

Europe needs to shit or get off the pot when it comes to unification.

>its falling

'no'

stop reading ITS HABBENING /pol/ threads

I think that starving to death and being raped and murdered by warlords is probably equally bad, whether you're under an empire or not.

Let's be honest at the time the Germans would love to have ammassed an empire of Britain's size.

desu yes.

>They loosened a lot of the rigid class structure in India,

They actually strengthened it though.
Sati was scrutinized way before Brits came from multiplie groups and the main efforts of the sati ban was done internally. Natives were the ones that got Sati banned not the Brits. Brits did nothing.

They did introduce modern concepts but it's not like they unable to before hand.

I think the best part about this propaganda about the british treating their subject like they're less than human, is the fact its Nazi propaganda saying it, its just magical

The sun never sets on the British empire. Because not even God trusts an Anglo in the dark.

t. sour frog

yes but what else to expect from traitorous anglos?

Anglophobe

>Obviously it wasn't a perfect system and the people of India rightfully took control of their nation (eventually) but overall it wasn't the worst colonial system. Spain was far worse, though that's definitely not saying much

>bad
Are you six?

>Gave roads
>Gave Hospitals
>Gave Schools
>Gave Science
>Gave Mercantilism
>Gave Actual currency
And yet people still bitch about it

They were meanies alright. Killing dark "people" and whatnot. Not that the french and the others were any better, anglos were just more skilled at it as always.

>Making excuses for genocide
By your logic, leftists are doing nothing wrong by flooding the West with tens of millions of Third Worlders. Who cares if Whites disappear, as long as an advanced, progressive society is built, White extinction is a 100% justified good thing.

But roads, hospitals and schools are objectively good, literally 99.9% agree they're positive. A "progressive", diverse society is something a good part of the population don't actually want. Therefore your analogy is shit and you should feel ashamed.

Genocided many people

French empire was arguably the worst thing ever. At least the British left behind some great and developed nations. You can't name me one former French colony that got its shit together.

Because of France, we're left with dozens of shitholes across Africa that do nothing but take billions of dollars in aid that France should be paying.

Quebec

name one

Quebec can't even pay it's own bills. It's a leech.

Native americans
Native Australians
Irish
Scottish Highlanders

Irish.

Fuck off Nigel

Si

Oh come on, that was clever.

>Scottish Highlanders
lol, fucking idiot. You're in Veeky Forums, learn history.

Natives also die vastly from diseases and because they're mostly fucking morons.

Irish weren't even genocided, idiot.

>tens of millions

Fuck no, much more is taken from Africa by the West than the aid it gets.

They were responsible for creating Israel. So yes, the British empire was bad.

>when you learn on Veeky Forums that Raja Ram Mohun Roy was actually white and british.

Deny your shame

kek

>2051146
>Schools are objectively good

Hahahahahaha

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system

...

no

Spic interrogation marks.
t.spic

>Spain was far worse, though
Kek. And you will believe this. Spain built the most cities in history and a tone of infrastructure while the Brits took a wealthy continent and turned it into a huge pile of shit.

Did some pretty horrible colonial stuff

BUT, it also saved us from the Nazis, gave birth to Shakespeare, gave rise to classical liberal thought and had some pretty awesome laws which liberated people.

It was like any other empire. Even if they were covered in blood, you could still see the gold shining through it

>improved it for Indians

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

To a certain extent

On paper yes in practice it was total mess, limited, not effective or most of all served British needs over local ones.

>loosened a lot of the rigid class structure in India
Where does this meme come from? They took full advantage of it and strengthened it further. They didnt see anything wrong with it, since it was a similar to the class structure they had over there in england itself.

>gave birth to Shakespeare
Meme author. It is just important for the english language but his literary work is pretty mediocre and made for plebs. You can find tons of better writerso

I'm all ears, user

>as long as an advanced, progressive society is built
the difference is the british did build railroads etcetera while that won't happen

Oh, bullshit. There are some "literary giants" whose work doesn't hold up, decades or centuries after the fact. Shakespeare's not one of them. Not at all.

I'd accept "flawed but brilliant." But "mediocre"? You're an idiot.

Also you fuckups need to learn that you can't just discredit something by calling it a "meme." That's not a devastating put-down, it just makes you sound like ... a 15-year-old on Veeky Forums. Which I guess is probably what you are.

As I said Shakespeare was an important author for the English language as he developed lots of vocabulary and was really important in the creation of modern english. But if you look at his work alone he didn't revlotionized much and he just copied alredy established european European plays and just brought them to England. If the lingua Franca was French or Spanish Sheakespeare would just be known and studied by english speakers

>They loosened a lot of the rigid class structure in India
They did the exact opposite

OK, yeah, you're not qualified to talk about Shakespeare. Are you an ESL speaker? If you are, I'll stop bothering you -- I wouldn't necessarily expect you to "get it," for the same reason that I'll probably never appreciate Pushkin as much as a native speaker. But I have the good sense to be aware of that and to refrain from shitting on him.

Yeah, Shakespeare stole a lot of material (although he always changed it significantly). Also his plots are messy and can sometimes be pretty fucking over-the-top. Doesn't matter. He's not praised for his plotting. He's usually praised for his use of language, his prose and dialogue, and his characterization. There's a reason almost everybody knows a few of his quotes and why his characters DEFINE their archetypes, hundreds of years later. It's telling that you're only criticizing him as a playwright and ignoring his poetry, too -- it shows you really shouldn't be trying to talk about this.

Your claim that
>If the lingua Franca was French or Spanish Sheakespeare would just be known and studied by english speakers
is demonstrably false. More than a hundred years before English became the lingua franca (in fact, back when French WAS the lingua franca) Shakespeare was just as beloved in e.g. Russia and Germany as he was in England, if not more.

Also, this
>As I said Shakespeare was an important author for the English language as he developed lots of vocabulary and was really important in the creation of modern english
ironically literally IS a meme. People love repeating "ONE BAMILLION PERCENT of the English lexicon comes from Shakespeare" but the truth is, we really have no idea how much of that he pulled out of his ass, and how much he just happened to be the first person to write down. Not even that, actually -- just the first person to write them down whose texts have survived.

Next time you're going to pick at the bones of a giant, make sure you know what you're talking about first.

>Ended slavery.
>Brought the savage marches into the fold of civilization.

God bless them.

kek

One can hope, though

>Shakespeare was just as beloved in e.g. Russia and Germany as he was in England, if not more.
Shakespeare was less popular in Germany than most Spanish play writers. Really Sheakespeare is irrelevant outside of English literature. He revolutionized very little and his prose and dialogues are really nothing special. It was special for English literature because English literature was one of the poorest in Europe at the time

Look an anglo reflex. Let's point at someone else.

>was the british Empire bad?
>MUH KRAUTS ,HOLOCAUST

Just a typical Nigel senpai.

To answer OPs question:

They did some good things but not more than the other colonial nations. And under the thin mask off the white mans burden it was always motivated by necessity and greed.

>inb4 muh the anglo colonies are much better off now

Mostly because they wiped out the natives or the colonies were much more civilized to begin with. Their african colonies aren't better off then the average african colony.

You always have negative extremes like the belgian congo or the iberians in south america but just look into some of the darker shit albion did. Famines in India and Ireland come to mind.

It was an empire. It had all the "negatives" empire brings, but as far as empires go it was a good one. This is only in small part due to Britain's omnipresent liberalism; mostly it was due to their detached obsession with money, not ideology or even strict control (strict control eats up money, after all). Being simplistic, this is why the Spaniards and Romans were so much worse.

>Just a typical Nigel
You mean a typical Niall.

>save us from a French tyrant
>this is bad
NAH, fuck off Pierre.

This.

The mistake obviously was saving the continent from german domination and long term prosperity.

civilised most of the world

Napoopan was based and democracy is overrated.

They unironically freed the slaves without having to have a war over it.

I think that's pretty dope, my black brothers from other mothers gotta get some love, naw mean?