4 ms·
The difference is that the British, instead of killing the "lower races", sought to reform them with what history indicates was a genuine sense of altruism amon
by forensic 15y ago
The difference is that the British, instead of killing the "lower races", sought to reform them with what history indicates was a genuine sense of altruism among British Empire-builders.
Hitler put the minorities in gas chambers.
England invited minorities to Oxford and taught them everything they knew.
- thomasz 15y ago> The difference is that the British, instead of killing the "lower races", sought to reform them with what history indicates was a genuine sense of altruism among British Empire-builders. The Empire understood that collaborative local elites were beneficial for the plundering of the colonies, and where necessary, it invested in them. That's all.
- forensic 15y agoYou can find cynical explanation for every act of altruism if you want to. Bottom line is there were plenty of powerful British idealists and humanists with a vision for the world who acted to help the colonies at Imperial expense.
- yxhuvud 15y agoIf you believe England didn't gas minorities, then you should read up on what Churchill did to the Kurds during the 20's.
- forensic 15y agoHis treatment of the bengals was worse. Nevertheless my point stands