Comment by TazeTSchnitzel

10 years ago

> I must come to Britain's defence here - it's behaviour was normal in those times

Yes, all of Europe was engaging in the monster known as colonialism.

That doesn't make it any less morally repugnant.

> it did eventually give up most of its "ownership" without actually being defeated in wars

It gave up its ownership only after being devastated by two World Wars.

> By modern standards, British behaviour was despicable, but a lot of the invaded countries got enormous benefits - rule of law, economic infrastructure, transport networks etc.

None of these things couldn't have been achieved without the British. And all these things came with a cost.

This justification has been used for colonialism time and time again. We saw this last year in Ukraine. It doesn't make it right.

5 comments

TazeTSchnitzel

Reply
walshemj  10 years ago

would you rather had the British empire or the Belgium or Germans as your colonial masters?

  • pm90  10 years ago

    If you're genuinely interested in an answer, then like a sibling said, its "neither". Colonialism wasn't as inevitable as its made out to be, and the countries that were colonized weren't "uncivilized" or "barbaric": things that world history (amazingly) continues to propagate.

    e.g. Colonialism in India was an incredible amount of good luck and some wily statesmanship, and not due to lack of technological progress. Once the country was colonized, the British had an ulterior interest in preventing industrial development and the concomitant economic progress.

    • walshemj  10 years ago

      True and India is a good example of why relying on foreign mercenary's to fight your wars has its downside.