The British Empire did absolutely nothing wrong, everything they did was justified and everything they made was better...

The British Empire did absolutely nothing wrong, everything they did was justified and everything they made was better. Prove me wrong.

Pro tip: you can't

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770#British_East_India_Company_responsibilities
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

They collapsed.

That was wrong.

The Spanish Empire collapsed. Britain gave up most of its colonies voluntarily. That's a good enough way to go out.
It's better than losing them all in revolutions.

>Britain gave up most of its colonies voluntarily.

Kind of like a person held at gunpoint gives their wallet over voluntarily rather than fighting the gunman.

Well all the non westernised countries of empire are in shit state, civil war, corruption, poverty, there's a pattern here

>Britain gave up most of its colonies voluntarily.
Wrong, they were forced to brake their empire by the US because 'muh freedoms". And now look at the current state of former British colonies. It was better back then both for Britain and the colonies.

I just did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul

Better than trying to fight the robber and getting BTFO

No the colonies are better now then back then by far. Britain is also better off because they don't have to waste so much money maintaining them and leaving them underdeveloped and handicapped.

vintage Veeky Forums meme coming through

it [COLLAPSED]

>supporting the House of Saud over the Hashemites
>supporting Muslims in countries like Nigeria and India over Christians or Hindus
>abandoning white Rhodesians to their own fate
>abandoning Hong Kong to the Chinese
>turning a blind eye to the Zanzibar genocide

You post is total bullshit.

>supporting the House of Saud over the Hashemites
That's wrong though. Actually, they funded both as long as they agreed to respect British interests.

T. American

The GDP per capita in the Raj when the Brits packed up and left was about twice that of China's. Though this is a dubious comparison, it is the most appropriate one we can make, an Asian behemoth, crippled by the lethargy induced by it's enormity - with an abundance of human capital, agricultural land etc.

While I will concede that the Raj "could" have been handled better, this is an irrelevant argument, history is not riddled with perfect or flawless benevolent administrations.

I can not help but realize if this parity was preserved and the Raj still boasted twice China's GDP per capita - that they would have a larger economy than the EU...

Gandhi's naively nationalistic promotion of unlearning all the British had taught them did more to guarantee the destitution of his people than any colonial atrocity.

I find most problems in the world today can be traced in some form to britbongs

Rewatched the London 2012 Opening Ceremony the other day. God knows why.

Anyway thought it was amazing that in a 4-hour spectacular showcasing British history and values to the entire world, the Empire wasn't mentioned one fucking time. The anti-imperialists have won the cultural war by a landslide.

The Olympics are an international event, and many of the nations participating are former British colonies. Mentioning their enslavement was probably not in London's best interests.

>m-morality is subjective and n-nothing can be certain
>yeah the british were evil bastards for invading all those countries
you're not a hypocrite, are you, Veeky Forums?

I wasn't necessarily envisioning a parade of redcoats performing a dance number on Indian graves. There is so much more to the Empire than just a legacy of violence and war.

I get what you're saying, but in that specific scenario they probably chose to play it safe rather than risk stepping on anyone's toes.

Now I'm the king of the swingers, the jungle V.I.P
I reached the top and had to stop
And that's what bothering me
I want to be a man, man-cub, and stroll right into town
And be just like those other men
I'm tired of monkeying around
Now don't try to kid me, man-cub, I'll make a deal with you
What I desire is man's red fire/flower to make my dreams come true
So give me the secret, man-cub, clue me what to do
Give me the power of man's red flower so I can be like you

Ooh-bitchdoo, I wan'na be like you
I want to walk like you, talk like you, too
You see it's true, an ape like me
Can learn to be like you, too

Now don't try to kid me, man-cub, I made a deal with you
What I desire is man's red fire to make my dreams come true
So give me the secret, man-cub, clue me what to do
Give me the power of man's red fire/flower so I can be like you

Ooh-bitchdoo, I wan'na be like you
I want to walk like you, talk like you, too
You see it's true, an ape like me
Can learn to be like you, too

Break it down boys, break it down boys, break it down
Break it down boys, break it down boys, break it down

Now I'm the king of the swingers, the jungle V.I.P.
I reached the top and had to stop
And that's what bothering me
I want to be a man, man-cub, and stroll right into town
And be just like those other men
I'm tired of monkeying around

Ooh-bitchdoo, I wan'na be like you
I want to walk like you, talk like you, too
You see it's true, an ape like me
Can learn to be like you, too

Can learn to be someone like me

the only good part of the new movie desu

Comparing it to China is more just showing how ridiculously poor China was. Especially after essentially non-stop war for 15 years that had just ended.

A much better indicator is pic related. It's plain that Britain fucked India over hard. They've just begun to recover.

what movie?

>Gandhi's naively nationalistic promotion of unlearning all the British had taught them did more to guarantee the destitution of his people than any colonial atrocity.
This. People focus on Gandhi's non-violent approach, but when you look at what he was actually trying to achieve he was appalling. He envisaged a sort of anarcho-communism where there would be no heavy industry and everything would be produced in village communes. Essentially he wanted to drag India back into the medieval period.

In some ways Gandhi's economic policies resembled Mao's. Mao thought that forcing villagers to build iron smelters in their back yards would be a good idea too (needless to say, it wasn't). And while Ghandi's economic incompetence might not have produced such extreme consequences as Mao's, as you say India had a far higher per capita GDP than China at independence, and it's now far lower. So although Gandhi might not have caused genocidal famines like Mao, the destructive impact of his economic ideas has arguably been even more pervasive and longer lasting.

Gandhi and Mao are what happens when capitalistic, imperialistic empires fuck over a place for so long that they end up becoming suspicious of all industry and trade.

There were mirrors to this all over the World, especially Africa.

Much of what is wrong today in the World is a result of the British Empire. Even England today is total shit. Enjoy your future Bangladeshi PM, Sadiq.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

really makes u think

>where there would be no heavy industry and everything would be produced in village communes.
Well, that's what Thomas Jefferson wanted and everyone loves him.

t. Lindybeige

yeah, but Thomas Jefferson lived a hundred and fifty years before Gandhi and Mao. Still an idiot with zero foresight, but it's quite a bit different.

there's been a major famine in India about once a generation ever since the invention of agriculture. Deaths due to famine only went up during the Raj because as British rule was so much better than what had come before India experienced a sharp population increase.

AHAHAHA

The British killed 1/3 of the population in Bengal, 10 million people, only a decade after taking it over, long before population growth could have been an effect. Given that there had been no substantial famines in India since 1702, it certainly wasn't "every generation" either...

Not to mention that the policies of the British are pretty directly responsible for the damages.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770#British_East_India_Company_responsibilities

fpbp, essentially

>enslavement
They were not enslaved at all; they were liberated from their barbarism.

Records in pre-British India are sporadic - because many have been lost to time, and record keeping was often inaccurate to begin with - and famines were more isolated due to the far less integrated economy in pre-British India. So not only are death tolls hard to estimate but a famine which devastated one part of India might only merit a passing mention in the records of principalities at the other end of the subcontinent.

We do know, however, that there were major famines in central India in 1630, 1655, 1682, and 1704. And again in 1791 (this is pretty much the earliest famine that there are well-preserved records for) - which was before that part of India had been taken over by the British. So your suggestion that India didn't have a regular problem with famines long before the British turned up is bullshit.

You also forgot to mention that the areas of Bengal affected by the famine in 1770 had suffered heavy raiding by the Maratha princes in the decade leading up to the famine, which had looted basically anything of value that could be carried away. And even then the most immediate cause of the famine was the same one it always is in India: drought caused by an irregular monsoon season.

But I'm sure you don't have an ideological axe to grind or anything.

England actually never had a real Empire... Not in the real sense of the term. Unlike the Romans, the Mogols... and the Spanish was the last of the real Empires; this is not only willingness to rule over a large territory, but also to colonise, educate, mix...

>Argentina's national anthem

Whoops, ignore name it was a faggot I was trying to piss off.

You forgot the part where we had the best fleet in the world and routinely BTFO enemies who outnumbered and outgunned us at sea.

Whenever people bring up the topic of British military history there's always anti-British faggots who wilfully ignore anything but the land battles. When Britain was explicitly a maritime power which favoured sea-borne operations over land battles.

Admirals > generals. If great generals counted for shit then the whole world would be speaking French or German as their second language. Just remember whose language you're speaking when you insult us.

People learn English as a second language because of America, not Britain.

1: America wouldn't be a thing if Britain hadn't BTFO the French (and Dutch) in the 18th century.

2: That's at best a half-truth. Latin America, for example, might have picked up their English from the USA, but there are literally billions of people in England's former colonies whose English skills come from Britain itself. English might not have achieved absolute dominance until the period of American ascendancy, but English was on its way to becoming the main language of international communication in the second half of the 19th century (even if French was still a close second in that period).

They didn't help Denmark during the Second Slesvig War, and by not helping, they helped create the German meme """"""""""empire""""""""""

#Anglosplaining
#lindyposting

>and everything they made was better.
>Prove me wrong.
they made you

still better than you

>Have textiles gone too far? One empire kills millions to sell them cotton shirts.

What? you're so incoherent here. you say Spain had a real empire as it colonised, but England also colonised its empire itself?

>Better than trying to fight the robber and getting BTFO

The truth, Portugal tried to hold onto their holdings and just got btfo'd. Same fate would have come over the failing and weak British Empire. They chose American vassalization instead.