> Probably many more died because of the British Empire's policies
I don't think body counts are a useful indicator of the level of evil intent of a government or a regime.
On that basis the U.S. would fare significantly worse than Nazi Germany, based on the 10-16 million killed as a result of U.S. foreign policy since 1945 alone (see http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Co...)
It would take a crackpot to declare the U.S more "evil" than Nazi Germany.
> The benefits that you mentioned was[sic] simply benefits of an industrial society
Not true.
China is increasingly a heavily industrialised society yet still maintains an autocratic system of government with no democracy. It doesn't follow that just because a society embraces industrialisation it implements a fair system of government or invests heavily in infrastructure programs - just look at the crumbling roads and transport in North Korea alongside their hi-tech nuclear ambitions.
> The general population in the victim countries did not share in the advantages of it
To quote Manmohan Singh (the current Prime Minister of India):
"Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day."
> Probably the worst thing that the British Empire did was large scale ethnocide
This is undeniable, and indefensible. However, unlike Nazi Germany it appears this wasn't the Raison d'être for the empire.
> People in Britain still live with the mindset that colonialism and their colonial empire was a good thing.
Not true. I don't know what evidence you are basing this opinion on, but the brutal effects of Colonialism are taught throughout the British national school curriculum and in various British museums. No punches are pulled.
(see http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zPJS4o3...)
> China is increasingly a heavily industrialised society yet still maintains an autocratic system of government with no democracy.
So? The Chinese government is arguably more responsible than many democratic countries (as far as foreign policy is concerned). It is not involved with any foreign wars (whilst democratic countries such as the USA are involved in 2).
China (as an autocratic country) is arguably better governed than democratic countries in the same position (e.g. India). So I don’t really get the point of what you are trying to say.
PS: Note that Britain tried to destroy the very fabric of Chinese society by flooding the country with Opium (see for example the Opium Wars). Trying to create a captive market by flooding a country with drugs (enforced by a navy) is pretty evil, IMHO.
> but the brutal effects of Colonialism are taught throughout the British national school curriculum and in various British museums.
Yet the symbolism remains. A good example is Cecil John Rhodes who basically raped the 3rd world (he owned the country of Zimbabwe). Yet a lot of things are still proudly named after him. Another example is the continued British reverence of the Royal Family (which was basically a hereditary dictatorship). So, the German equivalent would be naming things after Himmler and revering the Nazi Party.
The British did a lot to modernise he primitive cultures of the world. Even the nobel peace prize winner this year claims that another 200 years of British colonialism is what china needs to uplift itself out of totalitarianism. Sadly, we will never know. Instead we just get dumbfucks like you equivocating Nazis with the british, when they really have more in common with the current Chinese administration.
> Even the nobel peace prize winner this year claims that another 200 years of British colonialism is what china needs to uplift itself out of totalitarianism.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner of this year is a fairly obscure writer in China. It is nothing more than the Nobel Prize committee giving the middle finger to China. IMHO it was a worse choice than Al Gore, Obama, Kissinger or Arafat.
> Instead we just get dumbfucks like you equivocating Nazis with
Nice ad hominem. Do you seriously wanted British Colonialism to last another 200 years? Maybe I am not as objective, since the British killed my people in concentration camps. Destroying all industry and putting people in concentration camps sure did a lot to uplift people!
> when they really have more in common with the current Chinese administration.
Really? The current Chinese administration is only involved in the ethnicide in one other country (Tibet) and has no ambitions to control other countries for its own benefit.
How many countries did the British Empire control?
I don't think body counts are a useful indicator of the level of evil intent of a government or a regime. On that basis the U.S. would fare significantly worse than Nazi Germany, based on the 10-16 million killed as a result of U.S. foreign policy since 1945 alone (see http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Co...) It would take a crackpot to declare the U.S more "evil" than Nazi Germany.
> The benefits that you mentioned was[sic] simply benefits of an industrial society
Not true. China is increasingly a heavily industrialised society yet still maintains an autocratic system of government with no democracy. It doesn't follow that just because a society embraces industrialisation it implements a fair system of government or invests heavily in infrastructure programs - just look at the crumbling roads and transport in North Korea alongside their hi-tech nuclear ambitions.
> The general population in the victim countries did not share in the advantages of it
To quote Manmohan Singh (the current Prime Minister of India):
"Today, with the balance and perspective offered by the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, it is possible for an Indian Prime Minister to assert that India's experience with Britain had its beneficial consequences too. Our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories have all been fashioned in the crucible where an age old civilisation met the dominant Empire of the day."
(see http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/jul/12spec.htm)
> Probably the worst thing that the British Empire did was large scale ethnocide
This is undeniable, and indefensible. However, unlike Nazi Germany it appears this wasn't the Raison d'être for the empire.
> People in Britain still live with the mindset that colonialism and their colonial empire was a good thing.
Not true. I don't know what evidence you are basing this opinion on, but the brutal effects of Colonialism are taught throughout the British national school curriculum and in various British museums. No punches are pulled. (see http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zPJS4o3...)