Edit: I spent a fair bit of time going country by country through a historical map for the sake of discussion, to elaborate on an uncommon point of view that mi

Edit: I spent a fair bit of time going country by country through a historical map for the sake of discussion, to elaborate on an uncommon point of view that might benefit thinking about. If I'm mistaken on the facts, or you disagree with the sentiment, would you care to discuss instead of just downvoting? I've spent a fair bit of time studying history, warfare, trade, and the rise and fall of civilizations, including British history, and I'd be happy to hear opposing points of view. > Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom. There's a map of the British Empire here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_British_Empire.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_Briti... Almost every one of those regions has been more peaceful, stable, and prosperous than neighboring non-British managed regions. Almost all of them saw a decrease in prosperity once they left the British Crown, with only a couple exceptions. Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule - nowdays, not so much. India? Much further along than Pakistan and its non-British governed neighbors. Serious decline in prosperity, freedom, and safety; massive increase in religious violence and resurgence of the caste system after the British pulled out. The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand obviously turned out quite well largely modeling British systems of common law, trade, treaty, military organization, and government. Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance. Ireland's a mixed bag, the British did some good and bad things there. I'm a quarter Irish and a quarter English by the way, and the British legitimately did some good things. The religious infighting was nasty, but Ireland is quite prosperous today, all of the UK is along with Wales and Scotland. The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule. And then there's Hong Kong, which is where I am right now. Any doubts there? Oh, I forgot Singapore, and having done jobs in both Malaysia and Singapore, who are neighbors of the same ethnicity, climate, geography, and natural resources, there's no doubt that Singapore is much better off. So was it serfdom under the British Empire? Was it bad? You tell me - would you rather be under British governed Burma, or Burmese governed Burma? British Egypt or Egyptian Egypt? British Hong Kong or PRC Hong Kong? British India or Indian India? I missed the island countries - Maldives, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Bermuda, and the rest of the British Caribbean and Polynesia. If you had your choice in 1700, would you want to be in one of the British governed islands or the local governed islands? Yeah, self governance? Not high on my list of priorities. Sane, good governance, minimal violence and corruption, safety? High on my list of priorities. Again, keep me safe and leave me alone, and I don't care so much that I have a say in the government.