Was the british empire the most evil?

Just ordered a book about this thought i see what people think

Other urls found in this thread:

ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/data/mpd_2013-01.xlsx
books.google.co.uk/books?id=YeoEiNLtrLsC&pg=PA532&lpg=PA532&dq=hong kong gdp per capita 1913
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Magna Carta
>Bill of Rights
>Abolition of slavery
So evil

>the Boer Wars
>WWII
Yeah I'd say so.

>British Empire
>WWII

>buying a book clearly designed exclusively to make money for it's author

Yes, they were also exceptionally incompetent and did not actually bring civilization or enlighten anyone as they claim

Yep, no civilization to see here, move along.

Don't most GDP graphs of that time scale look similar? And perhaps also its not incompetence per se, but more that we were extracting the money and sending it to Britain rather than spending it on the natives.

>write a "history" book
>mistake england for britain the whole way through

Fucking americans

>but more that we were extracting the money and sending it to Britain rather than spending it on the natives.
false
you can't ''extract money''
indians were willingly trading with britain within the empire

fix'd

The British have pretty much been the main villains throughout history, fortunately they were defeated by their own arrogance and are still self destructing to this day with things like Brexit.

>>Magna Carta
meme whig history
>>Bill of Rights
meme whig history. read about it and you'd see it wasn't so extraordinary as it sounded
>Abolition of slavery
slavery was already becoming less profitable

I don't see how cutting half the timespan off to misleadingly blame the world wars and depression solely for the lack of increase is "fixing" anything, even if I agree that there would inevitably be a jump postwar no matter what.

Anyway, it's a little more flat than Europe's long-term but not considerably.

Literally every book exists solely to make money for its authors.

Anyone got a good book on English foreign policy in the 18th century?

19th i mean

>lets not look at the half of the graph that makes britain look bad.

wouldn't be best to look at growth before, during and after the empires control

India's GDP per capita declined after European presence, but not severely. From a height of $792 in 1600 to a low of $533 in 1871.

>correlation implies causation

Electric power generation began in the 1880s, everyday objects we take for granted such as refrigerators, radios and cars weren't widely available until the 1920s and it would be decades until these things became more economical. Though industrialists like Tata had some success in India, during the 19th century the most economical place for heavy industry using technology of the time was grain producing temperate regions like Europe, north eastern United States and Japan. It was not feasible for India to go from $500 to $6000 from 1850 to 1910 let alone 1820 to 1880, 's own graph proves that even "evil colonialists" couldn't achieve that.

Some of the data in 's chart is skewed. Low points were chosen when India was faced with turbulent times just after independence.

ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/data/mpd_2013-01.xlsx

This gives the following from decades 1920 to 1960, 635, 726, 686, 619, 753, it wouldn't be until the 60s before india gained greater prosperity than the high points before the great depression and WW2.

The effect of technology and to a lesser extent environment on GDP per capita is overwhelming. Modern technology has seen it rise from $500 to $25000+ (today's dollars), including in countries like Finland, South Korea and Taiwan which have no colonies. South Korea is often claimed to be a colony of the USA. Colonies like Hong Kong had a GDP per capita of $1500 in 1913 (1990 dollars) which rose to $39028.47 in 1990, far outstripping independent India. Of course this was due to Hong Kong's position as a city and trade center so I would not claim this proves colonialism is a good thing. Correlation does not imply causation and I know this. Skewing and misinterpreting data to fit some view, even if you think it helps some good cause, would be dishonest and petty.

books.google.co.uk/books?id=YeoEiNLtrLsC&pg=PA532&lpg=PA532&dq=hong kong gdp per capita 1913

The causal link has been established.

If your neighbour who is a capable writer broke into your house, stole your pen and paper ate your food, used your power and water and took whatever he wanted and when asked why he said "because he was producing a masterpiece" would you allow him to do it? And even if he did this would you still sit their and appreciate his work while ignoring what he has done to you and your own to write this so called masterpiece? Do you have any share in his work?

I assume you mean publisher? Because art is a thing that exists

>Yep, no civilization to see here, move along.
Actually, I'm inclined to agree.

I wonder what Q. Victoria would think were she to find this book under her pillow

Hong kong is a tiny city state.
Comparing that with a country like india is pretty strange.

>skewing data.
The british had an active policy until the first world war to prevent nearly any major industrial development in india. Nearly any value that was added to the indian economy (railways being the most prominent) were reinvested in britain instead of the indian economy. If you look at the graph you see that slight bump after 1900 when the swadeshi movement was launched which helped indian industrialists compete for consumer products in india.
>economic growth in the 60s which was a result of the largely socialistic 50s policies that Nehru established which among other things helped in the creation of india's heavy industrial base.

>brits made the U.S.

One free (You)

The British had nothing on the mongols (in fact pretty much all steppe empires) as well as pretty much any Mesopotamian state that could reasonably be called an empire.

I wish I could hunt down and kill anyone who uses GDP as a metric of how "good" or livable a nation is.

Any examples at all or are you just speaking out your ass?

I don't see any civilization here.

no it hasn't

>what is Art

Very funny book OP. I have a copy. It's hilarious.

Please link to the studies

Wow, India experienced a post-WWII boom JUST LIKE EVERY SINGLE OTHER FUCKING NATION.
Honest graph is honest.
This.

>foundations of rule of law and rights of man
>Le memes xD xD

Brits planted the seeds of civilization that grew into the USA
So edgy

The Brits don't even hold a candle to the Ottomans.

Britain's former colonial holdings are doing much better today than those of any other former empire so take that as you will.

The majority of that wasn't colonized by the british though user.

>England

Wew. Just gonna act like Scotland, Wales and Ireland played no part in the BRITISH empire?

Why the fuck is the Magna Carta seen as such a big step towards human rights/democracy even though other medieval kingdoms like Poland already had a kingship that was highly dependent upon the support of the nobility? And that's not even mentioning Athens, Rome, Novgorod and Venice which were ruled much more democratically. The Magna Carta is Anglocentrism at its most blatant.

Empire by Niall Ferguson is great. British /con lean but informative

Because the question wasn't "Which country was the most democratic" it was "Was England the most evil country"

>2969924
>>Magna Carta
Meme that literally has no significance
>>Abolition of slavery
Also meme, since britian still had colonies
>So evil
I dont think the word "evil" is appropriate; lets be honest, anglos cant have emotions or states in the first place because they are one step away from cockroaches.

because non of them barring Rome and Athens the roots of the free western world as opposed to the Manga Carta which symbolically hamstrung the English monarchy and planted the idea of the government serving the people as opposed to continental absolutism and the republic/dictatorship cycle.

it lay the groundwork for the free world while Novgorod and Venice sat around sacking cities and cucking to mongols.

they had no great effect on history as opposed to the English monarchical system and its successors

>Also meme, since britian still had colonies
colonies don't imply slavery

Boring, you can do better then that user.

One of the best and nicest ones really. The world would be in a lot worse place if it wasn't for the Brits.

Honestly the Magna Carta only really had an impact on English politics, the peak of absolute monarchies in Europe only came in the 18th century and was then replaced by Napoleon by systems based on French revolutionary principles, not English-inspired systems.

You're absolutely correct. That's why we're all speaking French right now.

Was it profitable to enforce the slavery ban with the royal navy?

no, it was pure virtue signalling moralfagging on the side of the brits

only for the British isles. and even then, the English got more benefits than anyone else.

the british empire was the least shitty of the European Empires. But they were still very shitty when compared to other empires throughout history.

>Also meme, since britian still had colonies
Colonies don't imply slavery, British colonialism did involve installing cooperative despotic government's, but even the british parliament wasn't required, and didn't, hold elections until 1695, long after Britain's first colonial ventures in 1604, Britain had coloies before it had required elections, so the idea of a despotic, unelected govener wouldn't have been that different to Britons, considering they were ruled by the combination of a despot, and a large unelected administrative body owned by the despot.

>But they were still very shitty when compared to other empires throughout history.

can you name any?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
"The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. It did suppress the slave trade, but did not stop it entirely."
It's pretty hard to regulate trade at the helm of collosal empire with fleets of trading ships to look out for.

ungrateful colonials

...

3/10

Yeah, not like they actively hunted down slave ships, all talk and no action.

>current era
>still using the term English
The citizens of the United Kingdom are British through and through

>Implying that india wasn't the whipping boy of the empire
Dude come on, you're using an example of a nation that broke free of the corwn as an example of the civilizing effects of the crown, that makes no sense.

In response to the statement "Britain brought no civilization to the world", yes I am.

Civilisation is already a difficult thing to define, if you mean that they projected european influence across the globe then yeah, sure, but to say that because a people are migratory and non agraian that they're uncivilised is dumb, consider the mongols.

Civilization is a (relatively) advanced state of culture, science, industry and government. With that definition I would argue that the colonization of North America did bring civilization.

It was actually just strategically intelligent. By the 1830's the British were virtually divested from overt slavery and could rely on alternative means to extract wealth from colonies.


Their competition, however, between the Spanish and the French, were much more reliant on slave labor. The Spanish were as bad as the Turks when it came to operating their plantations- most of the Atlantic Slave Trade stemmed from Spanish plantations that had a habit of working slaves to death- and while much of the French territories were not slave reliant, they still had some.


By comparison the British colonies that did depend on slavery had revolted and left the British crown decades prior to the 1830's. The ones the British retained didn't exactly need slave labor either; India had it's caste system which did more than the British could have ever dreamed of.

>cherrypicks out the part immediately after

>Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans

k senpai

>Hong kong is a tiny city state.
Exactly. There is more than 1 factor. Asking why India had low gdp per capita growth before modern technology is pretty strange, asking for 1820 to 1880 before we even had large scale electric power generation is even stranger.

>The british had an active policy until the first world war to prevent nearly any major industrial development in india.
I have seen virtually no proof of this besides some weavers getting mad at the East India Company for bringing calicos to Britain in the early 18th century. These weavers would later become luddites, the first union.

If the British were devils that wanted to stop India industrializing (despite the fact it would increase their own taxes and profits) they could have easily stripped Tata of his assets. They didn't. They were doctrinally devoted to free markets and free trade.

>reinvested in britain
They invested wherever they would gain the highest returns. Due to geography and other practical reasons this wasn't always India. I'm sure many British were evil racist meany beany devils, but when it came to money it was 100% market forces.

>that slight bump
Correlation does not imply causation and the data in is skewed. If you look here you can see there were many more "bumps". Just out of interest I charted it.

ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/data/mpd_2013-01.xlsx

>swadeshi movement
It was largely confined to Bengal and on too small of a scale to have much effect. It wasn't until 10 years after independence that India exceeded its high point in 1929.

Protectionism also stifles the economy. While it is good for some industries the rise in prices is bad for the economy as a whole, as was the case during the "licence raj". India's growth rates were dismal compared to its peers until economic liberalization in the 90s.

Yes, OP. The way the British had human sacrifices en-masse constantly in their backwards belief that it'd keep the sun rising was just one example.

The UK is just an evolved form of England, this is so.

So much butt hurt. So stupid.

So anyway it's a FUCKING COMEDY BOOK THAT'S REALLY FUNNY.

Artists need money too

It is good to see that someone understands that it was matter of competition. I fucking hate how Brits like to jerk themselves off thinking what good people they are for ending slavery, when it was just to fuck with the rest of the powers.

>implying they didn't sacrifice millions to the invisible hand of the free market.
The Aztecs sacrificed muscular warriors who were captured in ceremonial flower wars. They all unironically believed they would be with their gods once sacrificed and it was an honor. Lunacy perhaps but not exactly immoral.

On the other hand the Anglo intentionally orchestrated famines to starve conquered peoples to death, to the Aztec this would be considered petty and foolish.

Sound analysis.

One man's good is another man's evil, it's all subjective in that regard

>Was the british empire the most evil?

The brits were simply the most wide spread. Other empires were far crueler and destructive however they were comparatively short lived and confined territoriality.

>The Aztecs sacrificed muscular warriors who were captured in ceremonial flower wars. They all unironically believed they would be with their gods once sacrificed and it was an honor.

It was such a great honor that locals rushed to fight with foreigners to kill off the Aztecs en mass.