The British Empire: Good or Bad?

[@grahamgillard3722]

The British naval blockade of Brazil also stopped the slave traders. I think it was around 1805.

[@JLZerilli]

Britan deserves credit for helping to end slavery worldwide 👏👏

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

Because of economic reasons and the British ended slavery because it was cheaper to throw cheap Irish people to the factories

[@marksanders2168]

Nope. Where did you get that joke from? 😅

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@marksanders2168 amen amigo

[@JLZerilli]

@@marksanders2168 It’s a fact that the British Empire was instrumental in ending the slave trade world wide. Gotta give credit where credit is due. Kudos to the British for using their power for good 👏🏽

[@marksanders2168]

@@JLZerilli dude you're coping hard. Lol.

[@moglimogify]

I wish there was a movie about the navy hunting slave ships. Will probably never be made.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

Consider this: as Britain was the major maritime nation, continuing the slave trade would have generated significant profits for them.

[@rajashashankgutta4334]

That's why they took more popular route of indentured servitude.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@rajashashankgutta4334 Indentured servitude is not slavery. Now the British indentured servitude, particularly from India, did increase after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, but it was more of a partial and temporary replacement rather than a major substitute for slavery.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@WagesOfDestruction Exactly because it is cheaper to have Indentured servitude, slavery is more expensive, so to conclude, the Anglosphere is demonic

[@nicolestimothy9921]

But they choose the other path and battle againts them and sunk their ship. They are the West Africa Squadron. A naval armada hunt and destroy slave trade ships.

[@matreece7423]

@@nicolestimothy9921no they FREED them

[@rockya13]

This video would've been better if you went into why the British Empire ended slavery. Surely it was not because they just felt like being good guys.

[@SandileNgwenya-gv7nx]

I think Christianity played a part since a lot of priests in England were the leaders of the Anti-slavery movement

[@nomadmarauder-dw9re]

Why go to the expense of keeping slaves when you can sell the means for people to enslave themselves? Hold my opium pipe

[@jonnorgard5945]

Literally no real rebuttal

[@kordellswoffer1520]

Actually it was. Sure there was a certain niche material argument. Their efforts were driven heavily by a Christian moral argument.

[@noeticjustice1535]

Correct. They didn’t just feel like being good guys. They were compelled by their truly held Christian beliefs.

[@marksanders2168]

Lets talk about the Spanish empire law of the indies. And lets talk about British india companies. 🤷

[@thenneklkt7786]

Having read a fair amount on the latter British Empire, its now laughable to me looking back that anyone's perception of it in its heyday could be of an implacable overlord that bent its subjects to its every whim. The Empire wasn't really much of an Empire by 1900, and it fell apart largely because England ceased to be the domineering hegemon revisionists assert that it always was. By the time the issue of Imperial cohesion became a primary concern, every conference arranged to discuss the issue became a dominion-led event; the various dominion representatives would argue amongst themselves while English representatives acted as mediators. In the few decades before it all fell apart, the Empire had ceased to be an Empire and instead was transforming into something new and radical, but its idealism led to its premature death.

[@johnrichards7337]

Good analysis.

[@sammead7911]

Very good video man

[@spiritof1983]

No discussion on the topic of labour. Britain used indentured servitude before switching to slavery with the trans-Atlantic slave trade as its source. To develop its external colonies which required hardy men to withstand the extreme conditions to tame the jungles and swamps. Once it became apparent chattel slavery was uneconomical to the market economy and monopolies practised in the British empire they sought to destroy the slave trade and replace it with migrant labour from South Asia, China and the Far East (which they controlled by control of the high seas). In the Industrial era, skilled workers were more needed and slaves could not fulfil this role. Hence need for shift in labour. The labourers came from areas of war and famine (often caused by Western and British adventurism) but also from natural impoverishment due to backwardness. They were desperate and came under near terms of indentured servitude with the labourers paying their costs. Which includes agent fees, transport to colonies and food and lodging. Hence the difference is in slavery, the slave cost is borne by the owner whereas in the system that followed the worker pays for his expenses and hopes to have leftover money which he can use and repatriate home. Better money for the British traders and lesser expenses to the British Empire. Now why was this omitted from the video?

[@spiritof1983]

Incidentally, the UK still suffers from the same problem as before. Inability to move from the external empire model, with laws and policies favouring the privateer/external entrepreneurs and low domestic productivity. Not unique to UK with many of the former colonists and colonies needing external labour migration and investment to sustain their economies and lifestyles. To be fair to the UK, this has been the model of the world. Exploiting labour and resources, with brain drain and investment going primarily to areas of better affluence. Within these countries itself, this is evident.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

Thank you for this great comment

[@NicholasKohen]

That’s wrong. In those times it was not economically advantageous to bring in labourers from other nations at all. British Workers charged a very tiny bit more than those of India, China and SE but the cost difference was so minimal that it was not profitable to hire them as you would need tens of thousands of translators of languages that were new to almost all of society and the cost of moving those labourers around would be too much considering the amount of profit the factory owner’s could make on the worker’s salary alone and hiring British workers was financially way better like 5-7x more cheap. On the other hand many Brits moved to India to settle in and establish a new life for themselves and married local woman that is why we have had Anglo Indians for 400 years but British Indians for only like 75 years in major numbers. I can see that you’re Indian and so am I but there is so much bullshit taught by Indian Historians which is made up. Like for example the amount of money that We claim the British took from us was 46.5 Trillion dollars in today’s money but that figure was made up in an Al Jazeera Article without any sources but just a maths formula which just multiples India’s economy in the 1800s by 3.4-7% every year which is just dumb. If we believe Al Jazeera then we should also believe them calling the Indian Army a Paper Tiger.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

​@@NicholasKohenanglo Indians are anomaly compared to ancient Greece, to ancient Rome and imperial Spain

[@NicholasKohen]

@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 Your comment makes no Lexical or Grammatical sense. Please use proper English though you can write in Hindi if you want

[@82abhilash]

Eternal thanks to the British Empire builders for civilizing my ancestors.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

What did they build? The British empire was a looting operation, you are confusing that for the Spanish empire.

[@82abhilash]

@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 the built a civilization. They have us law, freedom of religion, civil rights, infrastructure, even our language.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@82abhilash 1) I don't see freedom of religion as a positive, that was because Anglos could careless about people's soul. The Anglo became a demon once they accept Protestant heresies. 2) Civil rights was a way to make non-Anglos (to be fair, the Anglo elite hate their own kind) feel special while never intending to integrate the non-Anglos into Anglosphere. Civil rights was a disaster. 3) infrastructure was there for straight looting as taking the resource, putting them on a train, then putting on ship to England to never benefit the people 4) Most people that where England went don't speak English unless there was a genocide like in Australia and the USA. India could not be genocide, thus English never became the language. 5) English common law sucks, prefer Roman law any day. PS If you want to know who the built a civilization, it was Espanya. They have us Roman law, the only true correct religion (Roman Catholic because they care about souls of the people they came in contact with) not this gay liberal freedom of religion because the Anglo just want to steal from the people they came in contact with, no civil rights but something better of integrating the people the conquered any Hispanize them as similar to what Rome did with Romanization, infrastructure that actually benefit, even our language.

[@82abhilash]

​@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 1)That is your problem. You don't see freedom of religion as a positive. And you are wrong that they did not care about people's soul. Without freedom of religion, your soul is captive to the will of an earthly tyrant. 2)I am least bothered about Anglos and non-Anglos are integrated or not. That is a nice to have, not an essential. And regardless of motivations, that you attribute to them, which I have doubts about, civil rights are a virtue. 3)Infrastructure was not always for looting. You do not seem to know the history of that. 4) Most people all over the world speak English because their nations were once part of the British Empire. Moreover, they continue to learn and teach English to each other. That is why English is the de-facto world language today. That is why we are speaking in English now. India, FYI has the largest number of English speakers in the world after the USA. But the British also invented and sometimes standardized native Indian languages. 5) English common law has proved more adaptable and resilient than European Civil law. Even if you think otherwise, it is still an improvement over Shariah law or the Manu Smirti. All in all, despite its demerits, the British Empire was a civilizing influence all over the world.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@82abhilash 1)That is your problem. You don't see freedom of religion as a positive. And you are wrong that they did not care about people's soul. Without freedom of religion, your soul is captive to the will of an earthly tyrant. What Earthly tyranny are you talking about and second I don't see freedom of religion of positive because it show lack of care about saving the souls of the people you come in contact with. The British just want steal resources, so you could less about the religion of the people you are going to steal from. 2)I am least bothered about Anglos and non-Anglos are integrated or not. That is a nice to have, not an essential. And regardless of motivations, that you attribute to them, which I have doubts about, it is a virtue. It was never a virtue because Anglo elite could careless, it was nothing more PR (public relations) stunt to give allusion of caring. The Spanish had superior system, just mix with them and Hispanize them so they become an extension of the motherland like what Ancient Rome (Romanization) and Ancient Greece (Hellenization) and thus you do not need civil rights movement to begin with. 3)Infrastructure was not always for looting. You do not seem to know the history of that. Which infrastructure was not for looting? The Spanish actually built infrastructure for the native population to become Hispanize while the English infrastructure was just get the resource the stole as quickly to the ports and send them off to India. The British empire was nothing more a commercial enterprise larping as an empire.

[@bryantint1339]

I have British roots. Thank you. Well, the British had gratitude. The Americans lack gratitude.

[@SomeGuy-cw9rw]

Colonization: A Reckoning by Nigel Biggar. Great book.

[@st3v0s]

You either own and empire or you’re part of someone else’s empire. It’s a fact of life that people willingly ignore. I know which one I’d rather be part of.

[@meilinchan7314]

Great Britain ended black slavery........but then replaced its African slaves with coolies trafficked from China, and indentured labour from India. Infrastructure and education in the colonies were meant not to uplift Britain's colonial subjects - that was an afterthought after the First World War - but to mainly extract and deliver strategic resources - such as cotton and rice from India and tin from Malaya - back to the British metropole." Emancipation for Britain was not motivated by highmindness but a need to assuage abolitionists in Britain, and mollify pro-republican sentiment in the wake of the French revolution - the First French Republic notably REFUSED to abolish slavery. British India was NOT this nascent democracy with socialist planning guided by electoral politics. It was in essence, a continuation of Asian despotism, with the British sovereign now the padishah or maharaja, but the same old system of forced labour and socioeconomic segregation from centuries past was maintained, if not intensified, by Britain. As Japanese diplomats acidly noted, "It is by squeezing India that the British make their wealth, until they can squeeze no more.

[@floridaman318]

I guess abolishing slavery is actually bad. Well might as well bring it back then.

[@favourchima_]

Good is almost relative in this case, but overall nice video.

[@salemsaid5621]

We should at least appreciate the fact the title of the video is formulated as a question.

[@CoG3in1]

Wilberforce🙏

[@NatNay-cu3uv]

Look at the shlth0Ies these countries became after the brits left .

[@TheVistula]

Sometimes but not always thanks to british rule (vide policy of ,,divide and govern") and neocolonialism.

[@NatNay-cu3uv]

@@TheVistula always. Unless you can name. One. ?????

[@TheVistula]

@@NatNay-cu3uv Name one which became poorer because of Britons?

[@NatNay-cu3uv]

@@TheVistula S Africa. Rhodesia India Pakistan. And everywhere else

[@TheVistula]

@@NatNay-cu3uv India, Pakistan, Bangladesh indeed became much poorer because of British colonial rule.

[@schmeisfliege1]

It would be nice to believe that the gnostic-protestant & freemasonic-hermetic British Empire acted b/c of belevolence. With the rise of the industrial revolution (1740/50), there was no need for the old traditional slave economy. Now people could be enslaved without force by having to work in factories onwed by the new social class, hence the oligarchs.

[@rajeevd.296]

Everything stated in this video is true, however, it only covers a portion of the deeds of the British Empire, many others of which where markedly less humanitarian and Christian.

[@floridaman318]

Almost like people are not perfect even when otherwise shitty people can end up doing real good.

[@onurturhal6814]

Yeah the answer is no😂 Trust me if the people believed it was benevolent, they wouldn't leave. İn 🇹🇷 we tell the same storys about our empire. -Benevolent empire🌈 -Never forced our culture onto others🌈 -An empire of laws🌈 -Slavery was much harsher in the west👍🏻 -No genocides to be heard of😌 -✝️People wanted their first born kids to be taken away by the state so that if they became part of the bureaucracy, they could advance socially💪🏽👏🏻👏🏻 And if you talk with people around the world similar claims are made by all sorts of education systems and states 🇫🇷🇯🇵🇮🇹🇺🇲🇨🇳🇷🇺 US went into İraq to nation build Democracy after all Just like Russia is fighting Naz*s in Ukraine;)

[@aaradhyarawat7589]

Britain ended slavery. Yeah!!! Britain unalived millions in handcrafted famine while depleting the natural resources of an entire ivilization. Wut is that?

[@floridaman318]

Are you gonna cry, pranjeep? Are you gonna pee your pants, brahmin?

[@rajashashankgutta4334]

Yes britain ended slavery but it continued the spirit of slavery through indentured servitude and widespread exploitation of colonial labour.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@rajashashankgutta4334 amen

[@sakamotosan1887]

nothing is ever good enough for you, is it? you demand perfection while coming nowhere even close to it yourself.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@sakamotosan1887 No demands perfection, we are criticizing the world view and the application of the anglosphere

[@floridaman318]

That's nice pajeet, now face the toilet.

[@GPuup115]

I’d ask India this question

[@buddyfats4768]

Good thing the British stopped them from burning their widows.

[@itsnotatoober]

​@@buddyfats4768 hey no facts here, that's racist !

[@Sleepyirishcoffee]

In India's vast history, only the British bothered abolishing it

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

​@@buddyfats4768but in return caused a famine to starve Indians to death

[@NicholasKohen]

As an Indian, I thank the Brits for making us Modern. Most Indians blame Britain for India being poor and point to the Famines that happened and the fact that India was not industrialised but when we got our independence and started flowing socialism nothing in our nation changed. What happened under the British still happened under Congress, people do it so that they can just be like” Oh my god our civilisation was so perfect before those dirty Brits, you could fly by crapping your pants while looking at the NEicsiem star and praying the sifjemdk back then”.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

The british empire only ended slavery because of economic reason, not at of good will, if slavery still had economic benefit, it would legalize slavery once again.

[@floridaman318]

Hispanic cope.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@floridaman318 how is it Hispanic cope to say the truth???

[@mariospanna8389]

Stole Dave Starkeys thumbnail...and more...