Political Crossfire Forums

[Timur The Lame]

wannabe wrote: Timur The Lame wrote: DSwain wrote:


The League of Nations Mandate in Palestine is more an example of a British administration holding the line with British money and British lives to try to secure a fair and equitable outcome. We weren't able to square the circle in Palestine and I wish we had.

The largest democracy in the world today is India; the most successful democracy in the world today is the United States. Both former British possessions.

The interests of indigenous peoples were not ignored; granted, they might not have always been well dealt with particularly effectively or sympathetically. But if we'd been the iron-booted Brits of folklore, could the Empire have survived for how long it did? How did the British control such a large empire? It wasn't through force of arms - Britain never had sufficient military manpower to control 1/4 of the world's surface and 1/5 of its population. It was because the British did listen and did try to respond to local conditions and local wishes. This is why the withdrawal from Empire was relatively strife free, unlike the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese; because WE LISTENED and we left when we were asked to.

Was the British Empire enlightened? Not essentially, but then the era of European empires was not one of enlightenment. Did some indigenous people suffer under the British Empire? Absolutely. Did some of them benefit under the Empire? Undoubtedly.

The modern world is a product of the British Empire - some of us might see that as the greatest reason to pillory that Empire! I would not, however. Models of commerce and industry were born in the Empire. The great migrations of the British Empire have shaped the nations and the continents of the world today. And yes, the spread of democracy is a result of, among other things, the British Empire.


Can you say white man's burden? :roll:

he's right though....the British was the world's first great liberal Empire.....

I would not call em liberal, but I would call them the first who tried to make amends for the past.

[Timur The Lame]

Spider wrote: I'd also have to say British. I believe at one point they held about 1/4 of the worlds total land area and about the same proportion of the worlds population.

Their influence is also seen throughout the world today..at least as much if not more so than the Romans...

As for America post WW2... american imperialism was pretty much over with at this stage...and please, before you refute me on this, look up the word imperialism.

Of course you do, it has not even been 100 years since they fell, give it 2000.

[eynon]

Timur The Lame wrote: wannabe wrote: Timur The Lame wrote: DSwain wrote:


The League of Nations Mandate in Palestine is more an example of a British administration holding the line with British money and British lives to try to secure a fair and equitable outcome. We weren't able to square the circle in Palestine and I wish we had.

The largest democracy in the world today is India; the most successful democracy in the world today is the United States. Both former British possessions.

The interests of indigenous peoples were not ignored; granted, they might not have always been well dealt with particularly effectively or sympathetically. But if we'd been the iron-booted Brits of folklore, could the Empire have survived for how long it did? How did the British control such a large empire? It wasn't through force of arms - Britain never had sufficient military manpower to control 1/4 of the world's surface and 1/5 of its population. It was because the British did listen and did try to respond to local conditions and local wishes. This is why the withdrawal from Empire was relatively strife free, unlike the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese; because WE LISTENED and we left when we were asked to.

Was the British Empire enlightened? Not essentially, but then the era of European empires was not one of enlightenment. Did some indigenous people suffer under the British Empire? Absolutely. Did some of them benefit under the Empire? Undoubtedly.

The modern world is a product of the British Empire - some of us might see that as the greatest reason to pillory that Empire! I would not, however. Models of commerce and industry were born in the Empire. The great migrations of the British Empire have shaped the nations and the continents of the world today. And yes, the spread of democracy is a result of, among other things, the British Empire.


Can you say white man's burden? :roll:

he's right though....the British was the world's first great liberal Empire.....

I would not call em liberal, but I would call them the first who tried to make amends for the past.

maybe not when the empire first got started, but by the 1840s they were a liberal empire......still had a lot of kinks to work out, but they did create the most widly used form of democracy and legal rights.

[Timur The Lame]

wannabe wrote: Timur The Lame wrote: wannabe wrote: Timur The Lame wrote: DSwain wrote:


The League of Nations Mandate in Palestine is more an example of a British administration holding the line with British money and British lives to try to secure a fair and equitable outcome. We weren't able to square the circle in Palestine and I wish we had.

The largest democracy in the world today is India; the most successful democracy in the world today is the United States. Both former British possessions.

The interests of indigenous peoples were not ignored; granted, they might not have always been well dealt with particularly effectively or sympathetically. But if we'd been the iron-booted Brits of folklore, could the Empire have survived for how long it did? How did the British control such a large empire? It wasn't through force of arms - Britain never had sufficient military manpower to control 1/4 of the world's surface and 1/5 of its population. It was because the British did listen and did try to respond to local conditions and local wishes. This is why the withdrawal from Empire was relatively strife free, unlike the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese; because WE LISTENED and we left when we were asked to.

Was the British Empire enlightened? Not essentially, but then the era of European empires was not one of enlightenment. Did some indigenous people suffer under the British Empire? Absolutely. Did some of them benefit under the Empire? Undoubtedly.

The modern world is a product of the British Empire - some of us might see that as the greatest reason to pillory that Empire! I would not, however. Models of commerce and industry were born in the Empire. The great migrations of the British Empire have shaped the nations and the continents of the world today. And yes, the spread of democracy is a result of, among other things, the British Empire.


Can you say white man's burden? :roll:

he's right though....the British was the world's first great liberal Empire.....

I would not call em liberal, but I would call them the first who tried to make amends for the past.

maybe not when the empire first got started, but by the 1840s they were a liberal empire......still had a lot of kinks to work out, but they did create the most widly used form of democracy and legal rights.

True, but we will have to wait to see their true lasting influence.

[eynon]

Timur The Lame wrote: wannabe wrote: Timur The Lame wrote: wannabe wrote: Timur The Lame wrote: DSwain wrote:


The League of Nations Mandate in Palestine is more an example of a British administration holding the line with British money and British lives to try to secure a fair and equitable outcome. We weren't able to square the circle in Palestine and I wish we had.

The largest democracy in the world today is India; the most successful democracy in the world today is the United States. Both former British possessions.

The interests of indigenous peoples were not ignored; granted, they might not have always been well dealt with particularly effectively or sympathetically. But if we'd been the iron-booted Brits of folklore, could the Empire have survived for how long it did? How did the British control such a large empire? It wasn't through force of arms - Britain never had sufficient military manpower to control 1/4 of the world's surface and 1/5 of its population. It was because the British did listen and did try to respond to local conditions and local wishes. This is why the withdrawal from Empire was relatively strife free, unlike the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese; because WE LISTENED and we left when we were asked to.

Was the British Empire enlightened? Not essentially, but then the era of European empires was not one of enlightenment. Did some indigenous people suffer under the British Empire? Absolutely. Did some of them benefit under the Empire? Undoubtedly.

The modern world is a product of the British Empire - some of us might see that as the greatest reason to pillory that Empire! I would not, however. Models of commerce and industry were born in the Empire. The great migrations of the British Empire have shaped the nations and the continents of the world today. And yes, the spread of democracy is a result of, among other things, the British Empire.


Can you say white man's burden? :roll:

he's right though....the British was the world's first great liberal Empire.....

I would not call em liberal, but I would call them the first who tried to make amends for the past.

maybe not when the empire first got started, but by the 1840s they were a liberal empire......still had a lot of kinks to work out, but they did create the most widly used form of democracy and legal rights.

True, but we will have to wait to see their true lasting influence.

Modern Indian and America are legacies of the British empire.....we'll see how long their empires last.

[DSwain]

Timur The Lame wrote: DSwain wrote:


The League of Nations Mandate in Palestine is more an example of a British administration holding the line with British money and British lives to try to secure a fair and equitable outcome. We weren't able to square the circle in Palestine and I wish we had.

The largest democracy in the world today is India; the most successful democracy in the world today is the United States. Both former British possessions.

The interests of indigenous peoples were not ignored; granted, they might not have always been well dealt with particularly effectively or sympathetically. But if we'd been the iron-booted Brits of folklore, could the Empire have survived for how long it did? How did the British control such a large empire? It wasn't through force of arms - Britain never had sufficient military manpower to control 1/4 of the world's surface and 1/5 of its population. It was because the British did listen and did try to respond to local conditions and local wishes. This is why the withdrawal from Empire was relatively strife free, unlike the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese; because WE LISTENED and we left when we were asked to.

Was the British Empire enlightened? Not essentially, but then the era of European empires was not one of enlightenment. Did some indigenous people suffer under the British Empire? Absolutely. Did some of them benefit under the Empire? Undoubtedly.

The modern world is a product of the British Empire - some of us might see that as the greatest reason to pillory that Empire! I would not, however. Models of commerce and industry were born in the Empire. The great migrations of the British Empire have shaped the nations and the continents of the world today. And yes, the spread of democracy is a result of, among other things, the British Empire.


Can you say white man's burden? :roll:

Emoticons an argument do not make

[eynon]

DSwain wrote: Timur The Lame wrote: DSwain wrote:


The League of Nations Mandate in Palestine is more an example of a British administration holding the line with British money and British lives to try to secure a fair and equitable outcome. We weren't able to square the circle in Palestine and I wish we had.

The largest democracy in the world today is India; the most successful democracy in the world today is the United States. Both former British possessions.

The interests of indigenous peoples were not ignored; granted, they might not have always been well dealt with particularly effectively or sympathetically. But if we'd been the iron-booted Brits of folklore, could the Empire have survived for how long it did? How did the British control such a large empire? It wasn't through force of arms - Britain never had sufficient military manpower to control 1/4 of the world's surface and 1/5 of its population. It was because the British did listen and did try to respond to local conditions and local wishes. This is why the withdrawal from Empire was relatively strife free, unlike the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese; because WE LISTENED and we left when we were asked to.

Was the British Empire enlightened? Not essentially, but then the era of European empires was not one of enlightenment. Did some indigenous people suffer under the British Empire? Absolutely. Did some of them benefit under the Empire? Undoubtedly.

The modern world is a product of the British Empire - some of us might see that as the greatest reason to pillory that Empire! I would not, however. Models of commerce and industry were born in the Empire. The great migrations of the British Empire have shaped the nations and the continents of the world today. And yes, the spread of democracy is a result of, among other things, the British Empire.


Can you say white man's burden? :roll:

Emoticons an argument do not make

Brits did soem amazing things......created the first modern nation states, ended the slave trade, pinoneered modern science, economics, and social theory, created the global economy, and standardized politics and judical systems world-wide.

like I said, they were teh first great liberal empire.....lets hope we have a few more :)

[XiangYu]

Hmmm, a LIberal Empire, I bet people would have a hard time coming up with a concrete definition for that term....

[eynon]

TwinkieDP wrote: Hmmm, a LIberal Empire, I bet people would have a hard time coming up with a concrete definition for that term....

a liberal empire...........an empire with a representative government and free-market economics.

[cloud]

the popular vote is the British empire, and i agree.

[XiangYu]

wannabe wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: Hmmm, a LIberal Empire, I bet people would have a hard time coming up with a concrete definition for that term....

a liberal empire...........an empire with a representative government and free-market economics. Or perhaps an empire that started out using military might to enforce unequal aggreements on foreign populations for the enrichment of the home nation, but towards its declining stage began to institute more liberal policies out of necessity to continue to maintain colonial ties to the Motherland.

[Melcar]

TwinkieDP wrote: wannabe wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: Hmmm, a LIberal Empire, I bet people would have a hard time coming up with a concrete definition for that term....

a liberal empire...........an empire with a representative government and free-market economics. Or perhaps an empire that started out using military might to enforce unequal aggreements on foreign populations for the enrichment of the home nation, but towards its declining stage began to institute more liberal policies out of necessity to continue to maintain colonial ties to the Motherland.

Yeah, that's more accurate.

[DSwain]

TwinkieDP wrote: wannabe wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: Hmmm, a LIberal Empire, I bet people would have a hard time coming up with a concrete definition for that term....

a liberal empire...........an empire with a representative government and free-market economics. Or perhaps an empire that started out using military might to enforce unequal aggreements on foreign populations for the enrichment of the home nation, but towards its declining stage began to institute more liberal policies out of necessity to continue to maintain colonial ties to the Motherland.

Or rather initiated more liberal polices concurrently with such policies being enacted in the home nation.

[eynon]

DSwain wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: wannabe wrote: TwinkieDP wrote: Hmmm, a LIberal Empire, I bet people would have a hard time coming up with a concrete definition for that term....

a liberal empire...........an empire with a representative government and free-market economics. Or perhaps an empire that started out using military might to enforce unequal aggreements on foreign populations for the enrichment of the home nation, but towards its declining stage began to institute more liberal policies out of necessity to continue to maintain colonial ties to the Motherland.

Or rather initiated more liberal polices concurrently with such policies being enacted in the home nation.

yep.....

[cloud]

i think if one discounted all the things the british achieved apart from the industial revolution the empire will still lord it over all other empires.

the industial revolution alone is what has made the world what it is today.

[anti-communist]

Beacase i'm chinese, i like tang(china dynasty),the reason:tang had the largest territory in china history and strongest national power china ever has.Its GDP was 50% percent of world at that time Athough it was strong empire ,but it had never invaded other country, ,the empire had keep long peace with its neighbors. It was open to the world,its capital xi'an was larger and prosperous than any city in the world,many foreign business man poured into xi’an and this city even became a center town of world trade .more important,the empire allowed people to choose their religion belief freely,not like what communist party has done now
But at neutrality point of view, the britain empire has done more to influen the world modern history,for exmple the free market economy system,democratic political system,human right concept,too many togive example,even english lauguage itself is the influence this empire left to the world

[JackarooSundown]

anti-communist wrote: Beacase i'm chinese, i like tang(china dynasty),the reason:tang had the largest territory in china history and strongest national power china ever has.Its GDP was 50% percent of world at that time Athough it was strong empire ,but it had never invaded other country, ,the empire had keep long peace with its neighbors. It was open to the world,its capital xi'an was larger and prosperous than any city in the world,many foreign business man poured into xi’an and this city even became a center town of world trade .more important,the empire allowed people to choose their religion belief freely,not like what communist party has done now
But at neutrality point of view, the britain empire has done more to influen the world modern history,for exmple the free market economy system,democratic political system,human right concept,too many togive example,even english lauguage itself is the influence this empire left to the world

They also had Hong Kong, but then they gave it up. :td:

[Siberian Fox]

The Soviet Union and the US.

[sunwook]

China.

Foundation of Eastern world. One of the oldest civilizations around. Lead the world in technology during ancient China. Survived many civil wars, anarchy, colonization, invasion... Rebounding today, with the largest population and the most potential to overtake the U.S. as the world's greatest power. Drawback: socially inept (no offense to chinese)

[anti-communist]

sunwook wrote: China.

Drawback: socially inept (no offense to chinese)
what's that mean when you say "socially inept"?Do you mean its long feudal history,over 2000 years?