But in the Victorian age they saw themselves as bringing civilisation, at the same time trampling on peoples in the North of England and in Ireland and India (think the famines).
As I said -- they come on the positive on the whole, but just about.
They were not the grand bringers of charity etc. but bringers of charity -- a leser magnitude, but still good.
The Brits? They’re a great people. As such, they have their dark side as well. But the world we inherited would not have come about without them, and would have been much poorer for it. That’s how I define “great” this morning, after having coffee.
So how does that definition match the Arabs? They invented Algebra (if they didn’t steal it from the Assyrians. Did they, anyone?), scared Europe enough that they went on the Crusades that started the European world moving towards the Renaissance, and made the Castilian/Catalonian alliance of Ferdinand and Izabella a Spain-wide phenomenon, so they could drive out the Muslim Moors, start the Inquisition to fleece Jewish and Muslim backsliders, and finance Columbus’ attempt to find a westerly route to India so they could avoid the brigandry and tariffs of the overland route, and the long trip around Africa. By accident, he discovered America instead, all because of the Moose Limbs. So they, too, were catalysts of great things, which happened in opposition to them, just like the British. But unlike the British, Arabs are mostly f@#$ed up in the head. There. I made a distinction. Hah.