Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As colonizers, British excelled in transforming barren islands or small fishing villages
into great trading ports, i.e. Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Port Aden, Malacca,....etc.
Have all British colonies evolved into better places after the British left? Not really. Though there are stellar examples like Singapore and Hong Kong, many other British colonies ended up like Somalia and Zimbabwe.
they were great at business and great at genocide
germans get the bad rep but the crimes of british were far more diabolical
Very interesting. Charles Mann wrote a book,1491, about European domination of the Americas. One of the reasons that the Europeans were able to make headway in the Americas and Australia/New Zealand but not elsewhere was that the single-land mass continent of Europe, Asia and Africa plus its satellite islands such as Britain and Ireland had disease immunity. The relatively dense Asian and African populations were successful in at least partially repulsing European encroachment, limiting the whites to a few fringe cities. Even in India the British writ didn't run far beyond Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay (Mumbai), Karachi, Lahore and a few similarly sized cities.
You will notice that European concentrations are limited to their own bailiwick, most of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. They didn't make a dent in Africa or non-Russian Asia. General Smallpox didn't help much there.
Very interesting. Charles Mann wrote a book,1491, about European domination of the Americas. One of the reasons that the Europeans were able to make headway in the Americas and Australia/New Zealand but not elsewhere was that the single-land mass continent of Europe, Asia and Africa plus its satellite islands such as Britain and Ireland had disease immunity. The relatively dense Asian and African populations were successful in at least partially repulsing European encroachment, limiting the whites to a few fringe cities. Even in India the British writ didn't run far beyond Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay (Mumbai), Karachi, Lahore and a few similarly sized cities.
You will notice that European concentrations are limited to their own bailiwick, most of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. They didn't make a dent in Africa or non-Russian Asia. General Smallpox didn't help much there.
Correction to above (beyond editing time):
You will notice that European concentrations on the land mass shared by Europe, that is in Asia and Africa, are limited to their own bailiwick, and small cities, with the exception of Nairobi or in South Africa on the coast. They didn't make a dent in Africa or non-Russian Asia. General Smallpox didn't help much there.
By contrast, the Europeans filled most of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand.
That is in dispute, and in Tasmania Australia it was legal to shoot to kill Aborigines in the early 19th century, if they did not relocate to the reserves. There were still massacres in Australia against the Aborigines by the Europeans right up to the 1920s.
That is in dispute, and in Tasmania Australia it was legal to shoot to kill Aborigines in the early 19th century, if they did not relocate to the reserves. There were still massacres in Australia against the Aborigines by the Europeans right up to the 1920s.
The problem with that is that the shooting of aboriginals were not big enough in number to significantly reduce their population. Europeans arrived in Australia around 1787 if I recall correctly and "General Smallpox" was the advance force that killed most of them.
The problem with that is that the shooting of aboriginals were not big enough in number to significantly reduce their population. Europeans arrived in Australia around 1787 if I recall correctly and "General Smallpox" was the advance force that killed most of them.
It was not just small pox but other diseases that killed them as well a alcoholism. Australia was not even densely populated prior to European contact. In addition the Tasmanian population just prior to European settlement was around 5000 to 10 000 people. .Overall Australia had a population of 750 000 people just prior to European settlement and at least 20 000 of them were killed in frontier wars. https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial
It was not just small pox but other diseases that killed them as well a alcoholism. Australia was not even densely populated prior to European contact. In addition the Tasmanian population just prior to European settlement was around 5000 to 10 000 people. .Overall Australia had a population of 750 000 people just prior to European settlement and at least 20 000 of them were killed in frontier wars. https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/colonial
I could have typed out "diphtheria" and"tuberculosis" as well. 2.7% were killed in wars; that's it.
I could have typed out "diphtheria" and"tuberculosis" as well. 2.7% were killed in wars; that's it.
However it is uncertain with the true numbers that were killed in wars. In the state of Queensland there are estimates with 65 000 Aborigines died as a result of the conflicts.
Also right up to the 1960s they were not even considered citizens of Australia. They were not free to live where they want, and were largely compelled to live in reserves. If they lived in urban areas they lived in the most neglected and poorest areas. In addition Aborigines also experienced slave like conditions where tens of thousands of them were compelled to work on farms, with little or no pay. There were forced separation of families, and Aborigines even had to request permission even from the authorities to even get married. They were even forbidden to speak their own language as well. They also suffered threats and force from the slave like conditions where they were compelled to work, and flogging was common. Even if they did get paid, it is the fraction of the White wage. The settler colonial system inherited from the British, shows that they are not likely the least bad of the colonial powers. Did legalised slavery exist in Australia? - Bush Telegraph - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
In addition during the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, a million Irish people starved to death. Ireland was under British rule then. Yet even during the famine Ireland continued to export food. The British government policy was against free handouts and expected private organisations and churches to help them. However that help was very limited and resources stretched to the limit. Even the British government became aware of the famine, very little was done and even soup kitchens were closed down during that time. http://www.historyplace.com/worldhis...amine/ruin.htm
The story of the smallpox blanket was made up? Do you have a source for that? I am not saying your wrong but I thought I read that it was done in a war or two. Pontiac's war? I don't remember.
They have found journals and notes that confirm it was done against the Native Americans. However, it seemed even in that day it wasn't something widely supported so the perpetrators hid their activities. They also have Washington acknowledging that it was a strategy used against the colonist by the English in the Revolutionary war.
In terms of who was least bad it appears in reading the history of my own tribe that the French were much better than the British in dealing with the Native Americans. So to me the French were less bad.
This sums it up nicely:
"New France had a rather small population, which resulted from more emphasis being placed on the fur trade rather than agricultural settlements. Due to this emphasis, the French relied heavily on creating friendly contacts with the local First Nations community. Without the appetite of New England for land, and by relying solely on Aboriginals to supply them with fur at the trading posts, the French composed a complex series of military, commercial, and diplomatic connections. These became the most enduring alliances between the French and the First Nation community. The French were, however, under pressure from religious orders to convert them to Catholicism.[12]"
As to how they were throughout other areas of the world I can't say. People are people and there is no country that hasn't at one time or another done atrocious things. And certainly all countries have barbaric individuals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
