Lots of hate for the British Empire on Veeky Forums. Why? Yes, they did terrible things...

Lots of hate for the British Empire on Veeky Forums. Why? Yes, they did terrible things. But look at the developed countries of the "new world." All the best ones came from Britain. British Colonies grew into the better parts of the colonised world. They laid out infrastructure, they created civilised society, surely overall it was a net win?

Attached: 1200px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png (1200x600, 5K)

Other urls found in this thread:

britishexecutions.co.uk/execution-content.php?key=2373&termRef=John Amy Bird Bell
youtube.com/watch?v=QUHIZQLMo-0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Idk, I sense a double standard as most of these people also hail the Roman Empire.

It's almost always without fail is some butthurt Indian bringing up Bengal, as if he gives a shit about Bangaldeshi people in the first place

They generally left places better off than the French, Portuguese or Spanish, which is what the alternative would probably have been in many cases.

To be fair, Bengal was partitioned like the Punjab so they may or may not be Bengali-Indians.

>which is what the alternative would probably have been in many cases.
I don't really know if that's true about India.

Portuguese and Dutch influence was already diminished by local kingdoms and the last remaining colonial power was the Mysore allied French.

And I don't think the French India Company could have done the same as the EIC for many reasons.

Anglosphere best sphere

Attached: anglosphere2-500x189.jpg (500x189, 28K)

Are you defending the genocide of non european natives?

>Genocide
This is the most overused word on Veeky Forums outside wehraboo and tankie

I'm not defending anything. Just pointing out that if you take away the British Empire someone else would have been there to take their place, and likely be even worse.

You do know the British kept executing minors as recently as 1831, right?

britishexecutions.co.uk/execution-content.php?key=2373&termRef=John Amy Bird Bell

>British Colonies grew into the better parts of the colonised world.

4 out of over 200 British colonies turned out good
The 4 in which they genocided locals to replace them with whites

But if you look at the whole British Empire, 90% of it became shitholes
Overall, Spain has the best ex-colonies

Attached: 1504836334215.png (2714x1254, 202K)

And the Spanish never genocided anyone!

>A Fourteen-year-old Criminal, who murdered another Boy for the sake of Nine Shillings
Sounds like he deserved it desu,

Yes.

Not willingly at least
Diseases did

>why

Edgy contrarianism

>almost 200 years ago
>recently

>4 out of over 200 British colonies turned out good
I've literally corrected you before, there aren't even 200 countries so what do you mean by colonies?
If you mean literal colonies, not the countries they became then the USA counts as at-least 13.
Also this map is horse shit
Oman has a higher GDP per capita than Argentina
Countries with mass British migration are all success stories
Countries that maintained British institutions and infrastructure do better for having done that.
You say 4 but there are more than 4 blue countries on that map, what do you have to say for Hong Kong or Singapore who aren't even shown.
Of the 4 nations you've shown, Britain is the only nation with any success stories.

>US, a British colony trounces Spain in a war
>Argentine, a Spanish colony, gets utterly crushed by Albion

Stay mad Pedro

>whatabouttery

Not so fast, the bongs invaded Argentina twice in the 19th century, and got BTFO both times.

Britain never willingly genocide the natives
Not willingly at least
Crop failure did

when you're extending your tentacles across the entire globe, you can afford to lose one

Oh well, then. I'm sure the natives are thankful that the British mass-murdered them less than other hypothetical Europeans.

the british and french empires ended slavery worldwide. anyway i dont know what you want. a magic government of infinitely kind and selfless people? what gov't or group lives up to your standards? brits were kinder than average conquerors, and relatively restrained given their power.

"We killed less people than the nazis" is a pretty laughable moral standard.

We're keeping score here, and you're 2-1 vs. the Argies.

>and when you think about it, Jeffrey Dahmer killed a lot less people than Jack the Ripper, he even raped some of his victims with kindness

>Boer concentration camps
>Famines in India
>pic related
>Gulf Monarchies
>creation of meme states to cuck India
and countless other crimes

The perfidious Anglo is the greatest criminal this world has ever seen

Attached: jallianwala.jpg (1200x538, 165K)

and yet according to the argies, britain occupies argentinian territory to this day

>Boer concentration camps
unremarkable pow camps
>Famines in India
not britain's fault
>pic related
not a single shot was fired by a briton
>Gulf Monarchies
kek no
>creation of meme states to cuck India
have you had a stroke?

>unremarkable pow camps
sure thing
>not britain's fault
diverting all food to Britain leaving them nothing is not their fault? Ok
>not a single shot was fired by a briton
that isn't an excuse
>kek no
who freed them from the Turk, gave them self determination and the oil fields in return for their help?
>have you had a stroke?
what are Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Roman empire was right for the time, British wasn't

I fucking hate the monarchy after Edward the 7th

Fucker caused WW!...

youtube.com/watch?v=QUHIZQLMo-0

>sure thing
absolutely sure
>diverting all food to Britain leaving them nothing is not their fault?
private companies choosing to sell their product as they please instead of giving charity isn't exactly government-enforced genocide
there was widespread recognition of the famine, and outrage that the government hadn't directly intervened (though again this would have involved seizing produce from private companies)
under the british arable lang increased eightfold, a rate in excess of population growth
>that isn't an excuse
so when asians willingly open fire on asians, blame the anglo?
>who freed them from the Turk, gave them self determination and the oil fields in return for their help?
turks are no better
>what are Pakistan and Bangladesh?
states that chose independence, along with hyderabad of course but the peace-loving indians annexed it with an army of fluffy pillows and puppies

>private companies choosing to sell their product as they please instead of giving charity
The company you're talking about was dissolved a century ago.

>taking bong-hate seriously
This is why we do it

Going straight to Nazi comparisons is brainlet behavior.

History is pretty much one example after another of a stronger group conquering a weaker one. The groups that seem peaceful are the ones who finished the job, so no one is left to complain about their crimes. This is true for all of recorded history, and presumably all of unrecorded history too.

>american
>anglo

Except they all did it at some point in their empires. Don't let your romanticized view of history blind you and pretend it didn't happen.

They did in some places like the Caribbean.

>the british and french empires ended slavery worldwide

Then used forced labour to bypass it.

>american
>anglo
That time has long since passed, Jorge Ladarius O’Donnell y Schliemann.

>another "anglos pretend USA is anglo because without it the list of "anglosphere" countries is laughable and pointless

Whatever you say Nigel.

>An English colony with english common law, form of government, countless bedrock institutions and plurality of ancestry isn't anglo episode
the butthurt delusion of it

>Africa.

Stop trying to justify the actions of the British empire. What's done was done and no amount of apologism or begging hypothetical alternatives is going to change that nor resolve the enmity that was generated.

>b-but things could have been worse

sums up your entire viewpoint and you use that as justification for what was essentially a common action in that point of history i.e. colonialism. Why is it so difficult for flag-waving brainlets like yourself to not get your knickers in a twist when someone denounces your rose-tinted historical perspectives? Accept that a neutral academic viewpoint is entirely preferable to a dumbed done post-rationalization of events been and gone.

Attached: 1499431930924.jpg (624x351, 29K)

>America
>Anglo
Lmao they've been swamped with German, Irish, Italian, Mexican and African immigrants
English blood is dead

Attached: 1516574720140.png (499x280, 127K)

thankfully

I miss old colonial America with puritan ideals

Attached: 1521753421287.jpg (500x623, 65K)

>red

Would Native Americans have fared better under American or British rule?

It's contrarianism. People hate the idea that Britain shaped the modern world, and try to pretend they haven't been influenced.

The fact is Britain was scientifically, technologically, and militarily streets ahead of every other country in the world. Even today it is responsible for many scientific discoveries and advancements, with a fraction of the budget.

My theory is it's because of the weather. There's nothing to do when it's raining other than sit inside and invent things.

...

I used to hate the British empire in a really edgy way. I've since amended my ways. The anglo is quite simply the master race, and thankfully he is usually benevolent.

Neither exists. The only true rule has ever been by the Jews. They've been behind it all