4 ms·

Read up about the British Empire and its history (it really is no secret). Examples include favouring certain classes in Sri Lanka (creating strife that lasted

Read up about the British Empire and its history (it really is no secret). Examples include favouring certain classes in Sri Lanka (creating strife that lasted to this day in Sri Lanka and Malaysia). Overseeing immense famine (while British landowners exported food) in India and Ireland. Putting (and killing) people in concentration camps (e.g. South Africa and Kenia). Letting certain businessmen (e.g. Cecil John Rhodes) basically own countries (with all the abuse and rape that this entails). Did you learn in history books that the British Empire was a divine and enlightened entity that existed for the benefit of mankind? (Because it basically enslaved 400 million people for the benefit of an Island of less than 40 million).

whyleyc 16y ago
I agree that the examples you give are terrible and inexcusable, however they don't support your assertion that the British Empire was more evil than the Third Reich, given what we know about the sheer scale of systematic extermination during the Holocaust. It just doesn't compare I'm afraid. Also, the British Empire, whilst causing harm, did bring benefits to some countries (something it would be hard to argue the Third Reich did). For instance: * Infrastructure improvements (railways, roads, canals, industrialisation) * Improvements in education * Parliamentary democracy * A professional civil service * Free trade * Medicine (hospitals, vaccinations) .. and of course cricket :)
- Jach 16y ago
  Sounds like you're saying the British Empire was more similar to the Romans than to the Third Reich. I don't necessarily disagree, since I consider myself ignorant on large swathes of history to make a confident judgment, but doing a little searching brings up a couple numbers. The Holocaust killed ~15 million (which includes non-Jews too). In the late 19th century, the British Empire was directly responsible for ~30 million deaths from starving people in India. ( http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=84138&d=21&m=6&y=2006 http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&articl... ) The Empire did a lot of good things, but do you think their good outweighs their bad over 250 years? I think it's part of human psychology to say a short, painful event (like the Holocaust) is worse than a prolonged, perhaps even more painful event ( http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_exper... ), especially if the ending is a peak or decay (Nazis were still evil in the end, British Empire hasn't been very "empirical" after WW2).
  - philwelch 16y ago
    The Third Reich killed 15 million people within barely over a decade, plus a few more dozen million in the wars it started, with virtually no redeeming characteristics. The British empire killed more people than that, yes, but over the course of centuries and with enough redeeming characteristics that they likely saved tens of millions of lives as well, by enriching their empire through infrastructure improvement, free trade, and good government. It's quite notable that of all the countries Britain supposedly oppressed in their empire, many of them freely choose to remain part of the Commonwealth today. If you judge any regime by the worst thing it's done, every regime is evil.
  - whyleyc 16y ago
    I agree that human psychology seems to pre-dispose us to being more shocked by tragic events that occur within a shorter timeframe (this has been even more amped-up since the advent of 24 hour rolling news of course). However, as I've mentioned below I don't think body counts are a useful indicator of the evil intent of a regime (it opens up a can of worms for many modern states). In terms of the "balance sheet" for the British Empire, ultimately it's hard to argue for more good than bad in the forced imposition of power from one state on another. The legacy of territorial conflicts birthed by Britain's hasty withdrawal have not helped either. However, my point was not to try and write a defence of British imperialism, but to try and discredit this notion that the British Empire was more evil than the Third Reich, a state that more than any other plumbed the depths of human misery. It seems strange to argue that Nazi Germany had any benefit to it.
- Untitled 16y ago
  > more evil than the Third Reich, given what we know about the sheer scale of systematic extermination during the Holocaust. Six million people died during the Holocaust. Probably many more died because of the British Empire's policies. The biggest causes of this was probably the policies of the British Empire that caused famines (by letting British landowners export food while the native population starves) and the British stoking of ethnic conflict in a strategy of “divide and conquer”. Two examples of this was the series of Indian famines in the late 19th century and of course the Great Famine in Ireland. Examples of the latter are probably too many to mention. Should wars basically caused by the British (between native populations) not also be counted? There are however other cases where the British simply killed people in concentration camps (by destroying the rural areas through a scorched earth policy and imprisoning the civilian population in camps and denying them food, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg). > Also, the British Empire, whilst causing harm, did bring benefits to some countries (something it would be hard to argue the Third Reich did). The benefits that you mentioned was simply benefits of an industrial society. The general population in the victim countries did not share in the advantages of it, yet they paid for it (with their natural resources and the sweat of their brow). In general not all people were allowed the benefits of education. The Catholic Irish were for long prevented from obtaining an education. In countries such as Sri Lanka, a ruling class was imported who received education. The aim of this was simple – to benefit Britain (not the local population). For Britain to develop to a high level at that time, required the work of many people in colonies (out of sight and out of mind) that was screwed in the deal. --- Probably the worst thing that the British Empire did was large scale ethnocide (destruction of indigeneous cultures and forcing native populations to use English). But yeah. At least the Germans owned up and agreed that the 15 years of the German Reich was a mistake (and abandoned the symbolism and nationalistic tendencies). People in Britain still live with the mindset that colonialism and their colonial empire was a good thing.
  - whyleyc 16y ago
    > Probably many more died because of the British Empire's policies I don't think body counts are a useful indicator of the level of evil intent of a government or a regime. On that basis the U.S. would fare significantly worse than Nazi Germany, based on the 10-16 million killed as a result of U.S. foreign policy since 1945 alone (see http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Counts.htm http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Co...) It would take a crackpot to declare the U.S more "evil" than Nazi Germany. > The benefits that you mentioned was[sic] simply benefits of an industrial society Not true. China is increasingly a heavily industrialised society yet still maintains an autocratic system of government with no democracy. It doesn't follow that just because a society embraces industrialisation it implements a fair system of government or invests heavily in infrastructure programs - just look at the crumbling roads and transport in North Korea alongside their hi-tech nuclear ambitions. > The general population in the victim countries did not share in the advantages of it To quote Manmohan Singh (the current Prime Minister of India): "Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day." (see http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jul/12spec.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jul/12spec.htm) > Probably the worst thing that the British Empire did was large scale ethnocide This is undeniable, and indefensible. However, unlike Nazi Germany it appears this wasn't the Raison d'être for the empire. > People in Britain still live with the mindset that colonialism and their colonial empire was a good thing. Not true. I don't know what evidence you are basing this opinion on, but the brutal effects of Colonialism are taught throughout the British national school curriculum and in various British museums. No punches are pulled. (see http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zPJS4o3TaqAJ:www.heirnet.org/IJHLTR/journal11/Harnett.doc+british+empire+national+curriculum&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zPJS4o3...)

whyleyc 16y ago

I agree that the examples you give are terrible and inexcusable, however they don't support your assertion that the British Empire was more evil than the Third Reich, given what we know about the sheer scale of systematic extermination during the Holocaust. It just doesn't compare I'm afraid. Also, the British Empire, whilst causing harm, did bring benefits to some countries (something it would be hard to argue the Third Reich did). For instance: * Infrastructure improvements (railways, roads, canals, industrialisation) * Improvements in education * Parliamentary democracy * A professional civil service * Free trade * Medicine (hospitals, vaccinations) .. and of course cricket :)

Jach 16y ago
Sounds like you're saying the British Empire was more similar to the Romans than to the Third Reich. I don't necessarily disagree, since I consider myself ignorant on large swathes of history to make a confident judgment, but doing a little searching brings up a couple numbers. The Holocaust killed ~15 million (which includes non-Jews too). In the late 19th century, the British Empire was directly responsible for ~30 million deaths from starving people in India. ( http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=84138&d=21&m=6&y=2006 http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&articl... ) The Empire did a lot of good things, but do you think their good outweighs their bad over 250 years? I think it's part of human psychology to say a short, painful event (like the Holocaust) is worse than a prolonged, perhaps even more painful event ( http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_exper... ), especially if the ending is a peak or decay (Nazis were still evil in the end, British Empire hasn't been very "empirical" after WW2).
- philwelch 16y ago
  The Third Reich killed 15 million people within barely over a decade, plus a few more dozen million in the wars it started, with virtually no redeeming characteristics. The British empire killed more people than that, yes, but over the course of centuries and with enough redeeming characteristics that they likely saved tens of millions of lives as well, by enriching their empire through infrastructure improvement, free trade, and good government. It's quite notable that of all the countries Britain supposedly oppressed in their empire, many of them freely choose to remain part of the Commonwealth today. If you judge any regime by the worst thing it's done, every regime is evil.
- whyleyc 16y ago
  I agree that human psychology seems to pre-dispose us to being more shocked by tragic events that occur within a shorter timeframe (this has been even more amped-up since the advent of 24 hour rolling news of course). However, as I've mentioned below I don't think body counts are a useful indicator of the evil intent of a regime (it opens up a can of worms for many modern states). In terms of the "balance sheet" for the British Empire, ultimately it's hard to argue for more good than bad in the forced imposition of power from one state on another. The legacy of territorial conflicts birthed by Britain's hasty withdrawal have not helped either. However, my point was not to try and write a defence of British imperialism, but to try and discredit this notion that the British Empire was more evil than the Third Reich, a state that more than any other plumbed the depths of human misery. It seems strange to argue that Nazi Germany had any benefit to it.
Untitled 16y ago
> more evil than the Third Reich, given what we know about the sheer scale of systematic extermination during the Holocaust. Six million people died during the Holocaust. Probably many more died because of the British Empire's policies. The biggest causes of this was probably the policies of the British Empire that caused famines (by letting British landowners export food while the native population starves) and the British stoking of ethnic conflict in a strategy of “divide and conquer”. Two examples of this was the series of Indian famines in the late 19th century and of course the Great Famine in Ireland. Examples of the latter are probably too many to mention. Should wars basically caused by the British (between native populations) not also be counted? There are however other cases where the British simply killed people in concentration camps (by destroying the rural areas through a scorched earth policy and imprisoning the civilian population in camps and denying them food, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LizzieVanZyl.jpg). > Also, the British Empire, whilst causing harm, did bring benefits to some countries (something it would be hard to argue the Third Reich did). The benefits that you mentioned was simply benefits of an industrial society. The general population in the victim countries did not share in the advantages of it, yet they paid for it (with their natural resources and the sweat of their brow). In general not all people were allowed the benefits of education. The Catholic Irish were for long prevented from obtaining an education. In countries such as Sri Lanka, a ruling class was imported who received education. The aim of this was simple – to benefit Britain (not the local population). For Britain to develop to a high level at that time, required the work of many people in colonies (out of sight and out of mind) that was screwed in the deal. --- Probably the worst thing that the British Empire did was large scale ethnocide (destruction of indigeneous cultures and forcing native populations to use English). But yeah. At least the Germans owned up and agreed that the 15 years of the German Reich was a mistake (and abandoned the symbolism and nationalistic tendencies). People in Britain still live with the mindset that colonialism and their colonial empire was a good thing.
- whyleyc 16y ago
  > Probably many more died because of the British Empire's policies I don't think body counts are a useful indicator of the level of evil intent of a government or a regime. On that basis the U.S. would fare significantly worse than Nazi Germany, based on the 10-16 million killed as a result of U.S. foreign policy since 1945 alone (see http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Counts.htm http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Co...) It would take a crackpot to declare the U.S more "evil" than Nazi Germany. > The benefits that you mentioned was[sic] simply benefits of an industrial society Not true. China is increasingly a heavily industrialised society yet still maintains an autocratic system of government with no democracy. It doesn't follow that just because a society embraces industrialisation it implements a fair system of government or invests heavily in infrastructure programs - just look at the crumbling roads and transport in North Korea alongside their hi-tech nuclear ambitions. > The general population in the victim countries did not share in the advantages of it To quote Manmohan Singh (the current Prime Minister of India): "Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day." (see http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jul/12spec.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jul/12spec.htm) > Probably the worst thing that the British Empire did was large scale ethnocide This is undeniable, and indefensible. However, unlike Nazi Germany it appears this wasn't the Raison d'être for the empire. > People in Britain still live with the mindset that colonialism and their colonial empire was a good thing. Not true. I don't know what evidence you are basing this opinion on, but the brutal effects of Colonialism are taught throughout the British national school curriculum and in various British museums. No punches are pulled. (see http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zPJS4o3TaqAJ:www.heirnet.org/IJHLTR/journal11/Harnett.doc+british+empire+national+curriculum&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zPJS4o3...)