Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: all the best
European colonizers brought their advanced social/political/cultural systems.

This is so true throughout the African continent (don't forget about India), for example, where any country that they were in charge of had increased life expectancy, better sanitation, better education, better governments, much more human rights, etc., etc.

They should be proud of themselves especially when you look at the living conditions in absolutely every country they were chased out of.

8 posted on 11/04/2011 7:17:39 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: All


Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


9 posted on 11/04/2011 7:18:14 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: laweeks

I noticed the same thing when I did a paper on African countries back in school. There was a systematic difference between countries that had been British colonies versus the non-British colonies. The colonial institutions provided a foundation that gave lasting benefits. It’s a shame that the colonizers are demonized in such a biased fashion today without recognizing the good impact they had.


13 posted on 11/04/2011 7:26:14 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Skepticism and Close-mindedness are two very different things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: laweeks

By and large, at the end of the imperial era the former British colonies did better than the former colonies of other European states or those few that had not been colonies at all. However, even in the former British experience, the results were uneven. In those ex-colonies like Ghana were the British officials were sent packing fairly soon after independence and the locals took full control, things went to pot very quickly. In other countries like Kenya, where the British administrators were encouraged to remain and continue to run the day-to-day business of the country, they did very well.

To some extent it was that the British ran their colonies better for the benefit of the locals, and to another extent...well, you draw your own conclusions about who was qualified to run a country.


16 posted on 11/04/2011 7:41:29 AM PDT by henkster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: laweeks
well, in the case of india, the overall productivity, standard of life and wealth went down under the British Empire. The Brittas Empire was a mixed blessing/curse to the Indians -- a bit more on the plus than on the negative side, but still not a complete +

And the reason for that is that the Indians were at the same (or arguably) higher level of civilisation than the Brits when the English first came in the 1600s. This did not change until late 1773 when the British won the battles of Plassey. From that point on, you can also trace the rise of English industrialization and their domination of India -- both happened at the same time. They wrapped up their domination of India by the mid-1800s and then had the Indian Mutiny in 1857. overall their empire there was abotu 120 years at the least and about 250 odd for some places (like the cities of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta they founded).

18 posted on 11/04/2011 7:46:18 AM PDT by Cronos (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787101/posts?page=58#58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson