That's a pretty big claim to throw out there. What evidence do you have to support it ?
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).
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)
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.
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.
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).
> 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.
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%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)
> 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:zPJS4o3...)
So? The Chinese government is arguably more responsible than many democratic countries (as far as foreign policy is concerned). It is not involved with any foreign wars (whilst democratic countries such as the USA are involved in 2).
China (as an autocratic country) is arguably better governed than democratic countries in the same position (e.g. India). So I don’t really get the point of what you are trying to say.
PS: Note that Britain tried to destroy the very fabric of Chinese society by flooding the country with Opium (see for example the Opium Wars). Trying to create a captive market by flooding a country with drugs (enforced by a navy) is pretty evil, IMHO.
> but the brutal effects of Colonialism are taught throughout the British national school curriculum and in various British museums.
Yet the symbolism remains. A good example is Cecil John Rhodes who basically raped the 3rd world (he owned the country of Zimbabwe). Yet a lot of things are still proudly named after him. Another example is the continued British reverence of the Royal Family (which was basically a hereditary dictatorship). So, the German equivalent would be naming things after Himmler and revering the Nazi Party.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner of this year is a fairly obscure writer in China. It is nothing more than the Nobel Prize committee giving the middle finger to China. IMHO it was a worse choice than Al Gore, Obama, Kissinger or Arafat.
> Instead we just get dumbfucks like you equivocating Nazis with
Nice ad hominem. Do you seriously wanted British Colonialism to last another 200 years? Maybe I am not as objective, since the British killed my people in concentration camps. Destroying all industry and putting people in concentration camps sure did a lot to uplift people!
> when they really have more in common with the current Chinese administration.
Really? The current Chinese administration is only involved in the ethnicide in one other country (Tibet) and has no ambitions to control other countries for its own benefit.
How many countries did the British Empire control?