Was the British Empire a Force for Good?

[Aexodus]

The British Empire left behind the partition of India and Ireland, Boer concentration camps and famines. However it also brought peace to areas where the locals had already been engaging in tribal warfare for centuries, building infrastructure, and bringing education to places that had no written language prior. Indeed, in parts of Africa the wheel hadn't yet been adopted. The English language allowed for increased trade in the developing world as a part of a vast empire, and a creation of a new middle class. To this day, there are tea plantations in for example owned by a native Sri Lankan middle class that owes its origins to the Empire. But in what other ways did Britain affect the rest of the world?

[isa0005]

Honestly I don't think the British Empire was a force for good, Empire's never are. Yes they where instrumental in forging our modern world, but I question how good this world really is.

That's not to say that there is not good in this world, on the contrary there is a great many good people on this Earth, people are good, but Empire cannot be good because by its very nature, the notion of Empire represents the systematic oppression of others for the benefit wealth and power. The Biritsh Empire as you said left behind the partition of India and Ireland, Boer concentration camps and famines, it systematically exterminated entier native populations, for example here in my home of Australia. Yes as you said it brought wealth and in some regard, a semblence of peace and what could be considered prosperity to some places, but who's to say such a thing could not have occured organically without Britian. I don't think the "good" of the British Empire out weighs the havvoc that it wreaked across the world, its aftershocks can still be felt even to this day after all.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

It depends who you ask. Different societies and peoples, different social classes, various individuals, had different interests that were affected negatively or positively by British domination.

Anyway my personal opinion is that the British Empire had many positive effects. There would have been no India or Indian democracy without Britain. Most of Africa's infrastructure, literacy or modern institutions would not have existed without the British. Slavery would likely not have been abolished across the world had it not been for British declaration of universal freedom.

[bigdaddy1204]

The British Empire was an evil imperialistic oppressor, built on extortion, massacre, blackmail and brute force. Its core values were racism, exploitation, slavery and murder.

The only thing the British Empire exported to other countries was terror, famine, war and death. The Empire was a colossal parasite, sucking the life out of India, the Middle East and Africa. In many cases the deep structural problems of those places were caused by British colonialism. It is still causing dire consequences to the present day.

To cite two examples: Iraq was artificially created by the British and then ruled by a puppet king and the oil companies extracting the country's wealth. Kurds, Shia and Sunni Arabs were thrown together in an unworkable country that has never had stability in its entire existence since 1918.

The other is Israel-Palestine, which was invaded by the British and turned into an uber nationalist homeland for Jewish people, against the wishes of the Arab inhabitants. I've personally met people whose family members were forced at gunpoint out of their home by British soldiers, so that a Jewish family could live there. Such crimes motivate the resistance which leads directly to 9/11. Osama bin Laden said it himself: this is a retaliation for the monstrous crimes that are happening daily in Palestine. Why the US? Because its unwavering support for Israel enables directly those crimes and prevents any chance for peace.

I object to bin Laden and disagree profoundly with his ideology and his actions. Targeting civilians is NEVER justified, in any circumstances whatsoever. I condemn and utterly reject the action of 9/11.

None of this changes the fact that if it weren't for the British Empire, the real injustices that led to 9/11 would not have existed.

In fact it's even worse, because the British also 'gifted' the world with the ideological spread of Wahhabism in the first place. By supporting ibn Saud against the Ottomans, it was the British that prompted the rise of this obscure ideology to the world stage. Thanks British Empire. Not.

I hope readers understand that all of the above relates to the political entity "The British Empire". So No, I'm not "anti British". (nobody claimed I was, but just getting this in now to avoid any wrong assumptions).

Britain achieved a lot of amazing things historically. But the question was specifically about the "Empire".

[hellheaven1987]

partition of India and Ireland

I think most people forget both India and Ireland are artificial creation by British. Regardless, one important thing about British Empire is much like Mongol Empire, it makes international trade and migration much easier, often change the demographic of various regions permanently.

[Cyclops]

Was it a force for good? No. It was for profit. Did it do some good? Yes, usually incidentally.

Flipping the question, was it a forcer for evil? Equally no, although it did some evil, usually incidentally.

Incidentally the Empire still exists in a shadowy form. Her Majesty owns half of the world's tax havens (which she rules directly without recourse to parliament through appointed administrators), from the Channel islands to Man to the Caymans and Bermuda. The relationship of this network of money laundering outlets to The City is one of the fundamental components of the British economy, and the growth of the Empire in its second phase.

[Aexodus]

Indeed, it does seem strange to me that The City almost has its own jurisdiction...

[LinusLinothorax]

The British Empire was an evil imperialistic oppressor, built on extortion, massacre, blackmail and brute force. Its core values were racism, exploitation, slavery and murder.

Gustav Nachtigal is a good witness of African Muslims hunting Kuffar. He accompanied Bagirmi warriors in central Sudan when they went on a "Ghazawa", a raid, to the south of their kingdom. The villagers had already taken refuge in the trees:

"They had not the smallest restraint to hunt down these "cursed infidels" like guinea fowls, as they refused their submission under a Muslim king and the Islamic law"!""(...) my authority found its limits here, as it was for them a religious right, about which a Christian was not competent enough to judge about.(...) Soon, a second defender was mortally hit (by a gun), who tried to clasp on a tree for a couple of seconds and then, a dead mass, fell from the heigths. An abonimable scene developed. Ours mobbed the corpse, and soon it was hashed and torn to pieces by their swords". (own translation based on "Tibesti: Die Entdeckung der Riesenkrater und die Erstdurchquerung des Sudan 1868-1874")

An even better one here, again with Bagirmi Jihadis attacking a village:
"It was the firearms that deserved the sad honor of the day. Entrances were cut into the thicket, one crept and crawled from all sides to the center, and when the great hut of the war-village had been set on fire, the fate of the day was decided. The men became fewer and fewer, the village was cremated, the thicket swarmed with ours, and when the defending remnant attempted a desperate outburst, the tragedy ended. Wounded, half-dead men were dragged out from under the bushes, and half-grown Bagirmi ended their sufferings in battle for their possessions. Fainting women and girls were brutally dragged out of their hiding places, and almost every time an often bloody struggle for their possessions took place, in which delicate children, torn from the arms of their mothers, fell to the ground with twisted limbs, an unwanted prey ,
This continual quarrel between the prey for the possession of these unfortunates, whose parents, home, bliss, future, and all, had lost everything, outweighed the horrors of battle by their cruelty and disgust. Twenty to thirty surviving men, who gave themselves mercy, were spared. The king of Bagirmi had three or four hundred more slaves, and a happy, prosperous village had vanished from the ground." (Google translation based on "Bagirmi, der Sklavenhandel und die Brüsseler internationale Association zur Erforschung und Erschließung Inner-Afrika’s.", "Deutsche Rundschau Band X")

Almost all African regions colonized by the British had been terrorized by such Muslim Ghazawas for centuries, even more so the French territories. The abolishment of slavery, together with modern medicine, was one of the greatest gifts Africa ever received. The artificial borders obviously not so much.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Even the evil Belgians who conquered the Congo abolished slavery.

The history of the Congo Free State is necessarily tied together with Arab slavers. All of the people who died in Belgian Congo, some of it was caused by Belgian mercenaries enforcing terrible conditions on the locals but a situation that did not last that long all things considered, it is likely that far more of the natives were killed by Arab slavers which the Belgians themselves defeated. It was because of the atrocities committed by these mercenaries that the Congo Free state was removed from the hands of King Leopold and given directly to the Belgian government to administer. Given that the Congo Free State existed only for half of the colony's history and the Arab slavers existed for much longer then it is easy to see who was the worse of the two. It is a statement of fact that the natives were not the noble savage trope either and they could really pile on the cadavers given that they were no strangers to committing acts of brutality and genocide and some of these people had a history of decapitating Christian missionaries, but I digress.

The atrocities of the mercenaries and the military administration in the Congo Free State were leaked to the Anglo-American press. There was an international investigation that was followed by demands in Belgian Parliament to remove control of Congo from the king, that led to the creation of Belgian Congo. Technically the Congo Free State was the property of King Leopold II because he was the one who funded all of these expeditions to explore and conquer that part of the Congo River Basin. The Belgian government itself was uninterested in colonizing Africa, if it were up to the Belgians they never would have set foot in Africa. But due to the Berlin Conference which partitioned Africa, Belgium already had claim over that area which allowed Leopold II to establish the Congo Free State over there. A claim which itself came about from the desire to mediate between the various powers which led to their compromising and giving that area to Belgium. At the end of the day Leopold II used that territory to become absolutely rich by selling ivory and rubber and eventually made a few bucks from selling diamonds as well (though not as much since the Belgian diamond industry did not compare to that of South Africa).

[Aexodus]

Considering parts of (but not necessarily all) West Africa hadn't yet adopted the wheel or had an indigenous written language, I would think they're in better shape technologically now than they would have been otherwise. And when it comes to the partition of India, Britain didn't want it to happen, the Muslim League in Pakistan forced their hand, they couldn't bear living in a majority infidel country

[sumskilz]

And when it comes to the partition of India, Britain didn't want it to happen, the Muslim League in Pakistan forced their hand, they couldn't bear living in a majority infidel country

It was probably all the drinking on Diwali. The food is really good, but inevitably somebody always vomits in the elevator, and that's not halal.

[hellheaven1987]

And when it comes to the partition of India, Britain didn't want it to happen, the Muslim League in Pakistan forced their hand, they couldn't bear living in a majority infidel country

Traditionally there was no political India before British created it in 19th Century, so it is already a miracle British India only broke up into two parts after British left instead dozen states like in past. India is, as most people do not realize, a very young and muddy concept that even modern Indians cannot define what it is (which is one of major problem for Indian society today).

It was probably all the drinking on Diwali. The food is really good, but inevitably somebody always vomits in the elevator, and that's not halal.

On the other hand there is a large minority believing India should be Hindustan and are too happy to seek their revenge on Muslims for past thousand years of oppression.