If the British Empire was so awful, how come former possessions are doing so well?
- Thread starter Wolveryeti
- Start date
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Hmmm. You can view the past few thousand years of Ethiopian history as one in which empires rise, expand, recede and fall within the Ethiopian space.
Also, Ethiopian 'feudalism' (the concept needs to be used very carefully outside the European context) relied on gulti land tenure, in which a layer of aristocrats extracted tribute from peasants and passed it upward to the Emperor. This was different from the situation in England, where feudalism could and did give rise to agrarian capitalism, in which rural lords and notables still predated on the peasantry, but also engaged in 'improvement'.
Another argument from the days when dependency theory was popular was that even if Ethiopia had maintained political independence, it's economy was still structured by the world market in a dependent fashion, trapping it in a production of basic commodities which could never lift the broad masses out of underdevelopment.
Also, Ethiopian 'feudalism' (the concept needs to be used very carefully outside the European context) relied on gulti land tenure, in which a layer of aristocrats extracted tribute from peasants and passed it upward to the Emperor. This was different from the situation in England, where feudalism could and did give rise to agrarian capitalism, in which rural lords and notables still predated on the peasantry, but also engaged in 'improvement'.
Another argument from the days when dependency theory was popular was that even if Ethiopia had maintained political independence, it's economy was still structured by the world market in a dependent fashion, trapping it in a production of basic commodities which could never lift the broad masses out of underdevelopment.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
All the ones that kept the British system did well. The others all got nut cases in charge.
See Malaysia and Indonesia. The Dutch got tossed out of malaysia but not Indonesia. Pity for the Indonesians.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
HA HA BLOODY HA!
You're spoofing right? The Dutch were never bloody in Malaysia, it was a British job.
Sorry I didn't notice this post before. Better check up on your facts. The Malay seem to think they were there according to their museums and the British seem to think they kicked them out. The Portugese were there as well.
The Dutch stayed in Indonesia up to the late 40s and were tossed out by the Indonesians.
bushphobia
New Member
Wow, isn't the answer obvious?!
NO??
It's because the British don't have claim over them any more. They have freedom from that particular discipline of thuggery. Yes, the world has changed. There is no longer a Britain. There is only England. The percieved morallity of the world stage Can no longer accept the Colonial moral authority that BRITAIN once waved, to better the development of the darker lands. There was also WW2, which bankrupted the country, weakened it's hold over it's former possesions.
NO??
It's because the British don't have claim over them any more. They have freedom from that particular discipline of thuggery. Yes, the world has changed. There is no longer a Britain. There is only England. The percieved morallity of the world stage Can no longer accept the Colonial moral authority that BRITAIN once waved, to better the development of the darker lands. There was also WW2, which bankrupted the country, weakened it's hold over it's former possesions.
No it's because the British set up communications and governmental systems in the countries we went to and not just stole the best bits as the Dutch did in Indonesia.
Maybe the colonial past was wrong but at least the British left some good things behind that the better governments kept and so prospered.
See the British in Malaysia and the Dutch in Indonesia if you want to understand more instead of spouting shit about ancient British foreign policy.
Pop over and visit the two places I mentioned to see the contrast.
Treacle Toes
Time
Erm.... First of all I think you need to give us some examples. Then you need to define what you mean by doing 'well'.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Canada and the US are doing pretty well; but that doesn't really apply to the people who were here when the British took control.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Obviously it depends where. The ex-colonies which are now part of the rich world are all colonies that suppressed/killed the indigenous population and where the dominant population now comprises the descendants of colonists from the UK. Where the majority population is now descendants of slaves taken to the country by the British or descendants of the people who were already there, they are doing in the main much less well. And of course the people who ran the British empire were deeply racist. British colonial society operated a colour bar which prevented even the possibility of the indigenous population being allowed a share in the spoils. It is hard to see how this can be characterised as benevolent.
How would you define less well ? For example lets say a place like Kenya. Would the native population have had higher life expectancy, lower infant mortaility rate, that sort of thing prior to the Brits turning up ?
Probably about the same. The British didnt go there to improve the Kenyans health. They went to make money.
Literacy and transport links were improved but were the population any better off? Probably not...
I do wonder what members of the Commonwealth get from it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
Similar threads
