Was the British empire as evil as people say?

File: britanniaboxpack.jpg (197KB, 768x215px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 768x215px

>>1794702
No. There's nothing wrong with bringing civilization to savages.

Obviously even the Nazis didn't REALLY believe the Empire was all that evil, since Hitler supposedly made all the SS recruits watch some old film about British India as an example of how to keep the population in line.

mixed bag, as all empires
among the good things they introduced newspapers, commerce, sports and transport

>>1794725
And sanitation. Don't forget the loos.

>>1794721
It was "The Lives of a Bengal Lancer" I believe.

>>1794702

Yes. But it's specially the attitudes that marks the difference.

Anglo protestants are terribly scared of poverty. Poverty is the worst thing ever, the biggest sin. Home poverty must be hidden from the national reflexion, poor people blamed and despised. Less advanced societies must be treated with brutality, despise, condescendence at best, because they are essentially untermenschen in the eyes of the anglo protestant mind.

Acquiring material wealth, extorting the weaks and annihilating/submitting the other ones is the uncontested driving force of the anglo protestant ethic.

It's worse than nazis. At least nazis had some moralistic philosophical ethos.

>>1794721
If you're resorting to the Nazis as a moral compass, then you aren't really making a great argument. In fact, your argument has convinced that the British empire was indeed an evil one.

File: 1471030987369.gif (2MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x150px

>ancient civilizations conquering and/or genociding their neighbors
>not evil

>18th-20th century European nations exploiting foreigners economically
>evil

>>1794798
Both are evil

>>1794721
>There's nothing wrong with bringing civilization to savages.
>wrong
>"civilization"
>"savages"
The dark whig rises.

>>1794798

the ancient conquerors - while no doubt brutal - tended to include subjugated peoples and territories in the imperial project, giving them more or less equal rights, freedom of movement and trade throughout the empire, and making them equal citizens/subjects of the state, while continuing to develop those conquered territories infra-structurally, politically, and economically (see: the Mongol Empire, the Maurya Empire, the Gupta Empire, the Achaemenids, etc)

19th century European colonialism on the other hand excluded subjugated peoples and territories from the imperial project, using them merely as resource extraction sources to transfer wealth back to the imperial core (which was in Europe) while the imperial periphery (India, China, the Middle East) economically deteriorated.

>>1794736
>ancient civilizations conquering and/or genociding their neighbors
>not evil
Lolno.

There's a reason why Assyria lives in Infamy and Mongol is used as an insult.

>>1794721
t. neocon

anglos are the ottomans of the west
prove me wrong

>>1794880

no

ottomans engaged in actual empire-building, like the romans or the persians or the abbasids

anglos just built colonies to extract resources (India), or built colonies where they could dump their goods on the local market without tariffs through state-enforced colonial monopolies (US, China, Middle East). what the anglos did actually destroyed the local economies of the colonies.

>>1794702
Only revisionist Eternal Teuton Wehraboos actually think Britain was evil

Imperialism is evil by default