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.
I do know that the Spanish brutally slaughtered the natives in areas of South America. Like most conquerers they also destroyed their native religion and burned their writings.
Anyway, you're only talking about the military and the leaders, not the ordinary people who were usually at home minding their own business. As for the English and Ireland, the average Brit was at home starving too.
I guess what we're discussing is the leadership anyway, not the ordinary people. Same with today, we can't be responsible for what our leaders are doing in other countries. This is a democracy and we can vote but even so, we still can't control what our leaders do.
I'm no expert, especially on the histories of colonial Spain, France, Portugal, Belgium.etc, but I've heard it said repeatedly that those nations conquered by the British got the best 'deal'. I was born in Singapore and moved to Australia as a baby and have lived under the shadow of Empire my whole life. Some reasons given include that the British bestowed upon us the English language (moreso in Singapore than say even India), a work ethic, system of government/law and order, and handsome colonial buildings. They did massacre folk, but not to the same extent as the Spaniards, although that's not really true, as can be seen in America and Australia, although a lot of the massacreing in America was post Independence.
First of you have to control for British colonies and British holdings, by that I mean, colonies that were established for the purpose of immigration (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.) and colonies held for the purpose of economic exploitation, (India, Africa etc). The second variable that needs to be controlled for would be how much importance you place in the presences or lack of institutional racism, respect/tolerance for indigenous cultures and ways of life.
So let's exclude the British migration colonies and look at those that were primary economic in nature. By enlarge the transition to independence is a mixed bag of gradual and peaceful moves to independence on one hand and violent and brutal opposition on the other. In either case, the British did leave behind important infrastructure, democratic institutions and a legal foundation, but in virtually every case a legacy of institutional racism unseen in the rest of the world. The French, Spanish and Portuguese for the most part left behind a mixed bag of inadequate economic development, few democratic institutions, and questionable legal foundation, but for the most part less racially antagonistic relations particularly for former slaves and their descendants.
Of course, there were far too many colonies with far too diverse histories, civilizations or economies for such a sweeping analysis. So it really depends on the colony in question and what you value most when it comes to colonial legacies.
If they massacred Irish..imagine what they did with "heathens". The least bad?..certainly not for natives. They were better if you were white and had a family, as they promoted free trade and colonies were not regulated by a monopolostic culture (la casa de contratación de Cádiz).
For example, when British took Minorca and Havana, local merchants and population at large were better off with them than with Madrid, both places prospered.
As to treatment of slaves, much better because of Catholic religion. Catholic Religion is not formally racist as were (are) some Protestant denominations. No doubt that blacks are natives are better assimilated in Spanish America, there was no planned policy of extermination except in some specific periods.
Yes but like I said a lot of the genocide was by the United States after 1812.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie20
They weren't very good as far as Ireland goes. Britain was in control when over a million people died in the Famine and food was exported from Ireland when it could have fed the Irish people. The Ottoman Sultan wanted to send $10,000 worth of food but Queen Victoria vetoed that idea because it would have shown up her measly contribution. As an Irish person I'm not of the opinion that British colonial power was so wonderful. Also the country is split even now. You really need to read up a bit more and take off your blinkers.
It's impossible to quantify who was "least bad" because a massacre is a massacre. That said (and I admittedly don't know a ton about all the various historical empires), I do remember reading that the Romans were slightly more inclusive in their empire which I understood as meaning that they were considerably less horrible to the people that they'd conquer.
The British were the 'least bad' of the colonial powers. Agree or disagree?
Disagree.
Based on what happened in the Americas, I think the French were the "least bad". My ancestors actually sort of liked the French. Thanks to Hernando DeSoto they kept the Spanish at arms-length. They absolutely detested the haughty, arrogant English (as distinct from the Scots and Irish), and in fact fought against England during the War of 1812. They had no experience with the Dutch or Portuguese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by California831
Im guessing your ancestors werent vietnamese.
I do not know about Vietnam or the huge French empire in Africa, but Nighteyes is correct about North America - at least about the huge colony of New France in what is now Canada and the United States.
The French tended to ally with the local native Indian tribes. The fur trade was more important to them then conquering the tribes and stealing their land like was common in the English colonies. This is why one of the larger Anglo-French wars is called the French and Indian War in the United States*, because so many Indian tribes were allied with the French.
This is not to say the French were perfect. Those tribes that refused to tow the French line were beaten or driven into exile like the Fox Tribe. Some tribes however like the famous Iroquois and the Chickasaw were successfully able to hold their own against the French.
The British laid a better foundation for Government than a lot of other colonial powers. For example most countries under Spain's rule such as a good portions of Latin America ( Mexico, Central & S. America) are now corrupt crap holes.
Compared to the USA, Canada and Australia you can see a vast difference. And both Britain and Spain are Christian countries.
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.
The British were the 'least bad' of the colonial powers. Agree or disagree?
