Did Britain Wreck the World?

[Ebusitanus]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212015

By Jove, it certainly seems that way. Most of today's festering conflicts can be traced to colonial-era meddling, either through partition—slicing and dicing the planet as they saw fit—or, worse, indiscriminately corralling unrelated ethnic groups into a single, quarrelsome country. To wit:

SRI LANKA
During their 150-year rule, the British favored Tamils and other minority ethnic groups over the majority Sinhalese. After 1947's national elections, the Sinhalese tried to reverse the discrimination, culminating in a quarter-century-long civil war.

INDIA/PAKISTAN
When the Brits arrived, the Subcontinent was a patchwork of princely states. When they left centuries later, they divvied it up by religion, prompting mass migration and perhaps a million deaths. Kashmir, which had a Hindu leader and a Muslim majority, has been contested ever since.

IRAQ
Border disputes and ethnic tensions have been rife since 1920, when the British forged modern-day Iraq out of three Ottoman states: Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul. The Brits decamped after a 1958 revolution, but their hellish handiwork lives on.

SUDAN
A British-Egyptian alliance ruled North and South Sudan separately until 1946, when the Brits abruptly changed their minds and decided the two should merge. The north was economically and politically favored over the south, and civil war has been on and off ever since.

ISRAEL/PALESTINE
As anti-Semitism gained ground in Europe, an influx of Jews complicated land claims, but the Brits—in charge of this former Ottoman territory starting in 1921—flip-flopped on the declaration of Israel as the Jewish homeland and proposed partition, which was rejected by both sides. In 1948 they cut their losses and left it up to the United Nations. Today, a solution is as far off as ever.

SOMALIA
Fashioned in 1960 from a British protectorate and an Italian colony, Somalia has been divided against itself ever since. In the 1990s, after decades of civil strife, the government collapsed and the two neighbors declared autonomy.

NIGERIA
The West African nation was once two distinct states—officially joined in 1914, but administered by the British separately until independence in 1960. Here, the British favored the south, setting the stage for decades of strife.

I don't see how British actions created the situation that exists today in regards to palestine. They were put in charge of the territory by the League of Nations, attempted to find a workable solution and failed, possibly because there is no solution. However, they didn't create the problem in the first place.

[Babur]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212015

By Jove, it certainly seems that way. Most of today's festering conflicts can be traced to colonial-era meddling, either through partition—slicing and dicing the planet as they saw fit—or, worse, indiscriminately corralling unrelated ethnic groups into a single, quarrelsome country. To wit:



I don't see how British actions created the situation that exists today in regards to palestine. They were put in charge of the territory by the League of Nations, attempted to find a workable solution and failed, possibly because there is no solution. However, they didn't create the problem in the first place.

well Britain along with other colonial powers ruined Africa that's for sure.

in South Asia they left a mixed legacy while bringing in some infrastructure they left the subcontinent divided and now the region has two nuclear powers.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

well Britain along with other colonial powers ruined Africa that's for sure.

Africa (except Egypt) was ruined to begin with. The Barbary States in the north & barbaric tribes in the south weren't exactly pristine governments to begin with.

[Tacitursa]

I think the main reason it all went pear shape was world war 1. If the war didnt happen and britain held onto its empire it would have taken over the world.

The entire globe would use British health , Education and law systems. Everyone would be treated the same we would be one country - Humans.

The human race is never going to progress at a decent speed untill a decent country completely takes over.

All we do is compete with each other. Once somebody takes over and there is only 1 goverment and 1 nation we'll progress as a whole unit of beings. All military research and funding will be removed and instead poored into Medical funding and research and space exploration.

The EU is already made. Once USA,Mexico and Canada merge into one it will eventually merge together with the EU.

Then it will be a case of forcing everyone else to join or wiping them out. My guess is south america will join. Africa has no choice.

Middle east will say no resulting in them getting wiped out followed by asia and russia.

Or middle east , russia and asia join forces and World War 3 starts , World dies and Africa becomes the best economical and technological continent using hunting spear and rock technology.

It's not a matter of If those two outcomes will happen its a matter of when. Im personally hoping for the second outcome.

[Chukada1]

I think the main reason it all went pear shape was world war 1. If the war didnt happen and britain held onto its empire it would have taken over the world.

The entire globe would use British health , Education and law systems. Everyone would be treated the same we would be one country - Humans.

The human race is never going to progress at a decent speed untill a decent country completely takes over.

All we do is compete with each other. Once somebody takes over and there is only 1 goverment and 1 nation we'll progress as a whole unit of beings. All military research and funding will be removed and instead poored into Medical funding and research and space exploration.

The EU is already made. Once USA,Mexico and Canada merge into one it will eventually merge together with the EU.

Then it will be a case of forcing everyone else to join or wiping them out. My guess is south america will join. Africa has no choice.

Middle east will say no resulting in them getting wiped out followed by asia and russia.

Or middle east , russia and asia join forces and World War 3 starts , World dies and Africa becomes the best economical and technological continent using hunting spear and rock technology.

It's not a matter of If those two outcomes will happen its a matter of when. Im personally hoping for the second outcome.

. The Chinese would have surely protested.

[Babur]

Africa (except Egypt) was ruined to begin with. The Barbary States in the north & barbaric tribes in the south weren't exactly pristine governments to begin with.

but I meant Central,Western,East and Southern Africa

[CtrlAltDe1337]

but I meant Central,Western,East and Southern Africa

Well, Britain did disrupt their tribal societies, which was a bad thing and has contributed to problems even today. But like I said, these weren't exactly great places to be before the British got there. I'd much rather be in South Africa where the British colonized more than somewhere like Nigeria. At least you have a little infrastructure and law.

[Stalins Ghost]

I wouldn't say "wreck" arbitrarily. It certainly changed the world, in some aspects for the better, some for the worse. Whether a triumphalist (e.g. the insufferable Niall Ferguson) or a critic of the Empire, most can agree that Britain certainly helped shape the modern world. It and the other colonial powers colossally screwed up nation building on the way out, I would stress that. Market capitalism had had a mixed impact. In some places it's lead to infrastructure boons that couldn't have been implemented without them, but at the same time trying to bring free market capitalism has resulted in hyper-economic disparity and long term resentment - and this is still an on going legacy, with the US at its helm.

[Yorkshireman]

Newsweek certainly produces some indepth articles!

I like how they've tried to palm the current situation in Iraq solely onto Britain. Very generous of them.

[Arch-hereticK]

You cant froget Ireland too and Cyprus to a lesser extent.
Oh and Gibraltar, don't get me started on the Falklands and the Aboriginals in Australia.
And the natives in the Americas where Britain was concerned.
There's a mixed legacy in Hong Kong too.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, Falkland already decides to stay with UK, so Argentina should just shut up.

In Hong Kong majority of population do appreciate British rule, largely because many of them were refugees during Chinese Civil War - you know, many of them were probably dead if they stayed in China.

[Ardruire Iacób]

You cant froget Ireland too

Nonsense. We are more than a little bit responsible for our own mess.

[Arch-hereticK]

Nonsense. We are more than a little bit responsible for our own mess.

I didn't say it is all their fault, but if it wasn't for britain we couldn't have as many problems as we do. When compared to the other countries on the list surely Ireland deserves mention.

[Ardruire Iacób]

I didn't say it is all their fault, but if it wasn't for britain we couldn't have as many problems as we do. When compared to the other countries on the list surely Ireland deserves mention.

If it wasn't for Britain, our country could be far worse off than it is. Hell, we had a much better rail network when London ran things. Central European countries have had much worse histories than us, yet no one's asking if Austria wrecked Europe.

[SonOfAlexander]

Very true! Britain (or should I say england - that's what people mean when they say Britain, no-one's thinking of n.ireland scotland or wales :@) has such a superiority complex that it just can't stop sticking it's noses into other people's business. It is just oppressive enough to make sure that they up the place they are occupying, but are wimpy and liberal enough to not keep it / get any money flowing through it / improve the quality of life for said conquered peoples

[Ardruire Iacób]

or should I say england - that's what people mean when they say Britain, no-one's thinking of n.ireland scotland or wales :

Why not? The Irish, Scots, and Welsh were all culpable in Britain's international activity. Nationalists refuse to acknowledge that their own countrymen took part in some of the Empire's less savoury actions.

[Reidy]

Aha, ooh I like this.

So the premise of the article is to blame all of the worlds problems on Britain because of what happened to its colonies after they gained independence? Well in that case we'll be taking all the credit for what has happened in America since 1776 and all the benefits to the world that have originated from there, too. Ta.

It works both ways.

[Nikitn]

Aha, ooh I like this.

So the premise of the article is to blame all of the worlds problems on Britain because of what happened to its colonies after they gained independence? Well in that case we'll be taking all the credit for what has happened in America since 1776 and all the benefits to the world that have originated from there, too. Ta.

It works both ways.

Difference is, that in the 1770's Americans were considered British, not like African untermenche. So the USA was naturally far more stable and developed then Africa after Britain, and even Asia.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Difference is, that in the 1770's Americans were considered British, not like African untermenche. So the USA was naturally far more stable and developed then Africa after Britain, and even Asia.

That's not the reason, Niktin. The reason is that in America there is only one substract -- the colonial substract -- as the Native American substract could not be assimilated or "conquered" due to its nomadic/semi-nomadic nature. In other words, North America wasn't conquered, but rather, colonized in the proper sense of the world.

On the other hand, Africa and Asia were both populous continents with previously-developped infrastructures upon which we had to build. It isn't the same to build a colony ex-novo and have it grow according to its needs, than to arrive in a country full of people and having to do everything at once.

[Nikitn]

That's not the reason, Niktin. The reason is that in America there is only one substract -- the colonial substract -- as the Native American substract could not be assimilated or "conquered" due to its nomadic/semi-nomadic nature. In other words, North America wasn't conquered, but rather, colonized in the proper sense of the world.

On the other hand, Africa and Asia were both populous continents with previously-developped infrastructures upon which we had to build. It isn't the same to build a colony ex-novo and have it grow according to its needs, than to arrive in a country full of people and having to do everything at once.

Dude, first of all there was nearly no infrastructure what-so-ever in inland Africa during the 19th century. Second, of course the white colonizers got far better treatment and resources then the African, or Asian ones. The systematic exploitation of Britain's colonies didn't need a developed country or educated and wealthy native people.

Britain was still one of the "better" (or lesser evil - a better word) powers in the region, compared to the like of the Belgians.

That's "untermensch," and I'd like you to never refer to any people as that ever again. Unless you, Nikitin, proud Russian that you are, are into that absurd ideology known as 'National Socialism,' which I sincerely hope that you are not, considering the damage done to Mother Russia by that political concept. Also, this is far too simplistic, and LC Jones has adequately desribed the actual reason

First of all, learn to understand Sarcasm. I said the British considered Africans sub-humans, and thus they got far worse treatment then their own colonisers. I never said I considered anyone Sub-Human (all humans are equal), and I certainly as hell do not follow Nazism.