What do you know about... the UK?

[u/MarktpLatz]

This is the sixth part of our ongoing weekly series about the countries of Europe. You can find an overview here.

Todays country:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK is the second most populous state in the EU. Famous for once being the worlds leading power, reigning over a large empire, it has recently taken the decision to exit the EU.

So, what do you know about the UK?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'd say the package did more good than harm overall.

[u/AbstractLemgth → u/[deleted]]

I'd say the package did more good than harm overall.

tell that to the victims of the bengali and irish famines. this is precisely what i'm talking about when i say that the UK population is staggeringly undereducated on the empire.

[u/[deleted] → u/AbstractLemgth]

I'm aware of those. Once again, more good than harm overall, not no harm at all. Assuming ignorance on the part of those who hold opinions you disagree with isn't a good idea. Many very stupid people are convinced that they are the only intelligent person in the room.

[u/AbstractLemgth → u/[deleted]]

I think one has to be staggeringly undereducated to think that the asset stripping of entire countries and the exportation of man-made famines which killed millions of people is outweighed by any of the few 'good' things which the Empire brought during colonial rule. To this day, colonised countries do not have full possession of their own resources because they were handed over to private hands before the UK fucked off.

[u/[deleted] → u/AbstractLemgth]

I think one has to be staggeringly biased to describe the good things provided by the empire as 'few'. Even if we ignore the vast swathes of scientific and technological advance achieved within the Empire, there are the immense infrastructural advances, the introduction of modern legal systems to countries where the rule of law was previously a matter of patronage where it existed at all, the eventual introduction of democracy, the introduction of educational systems, the abolition of slavery and the provision of medicine based on science rather than superstition.

Hell, if you want to see the advantages of the Empire, compare Hong Kong to mainland China. I know which bit I'd want to live in.

[u/AbstractLemgth → u/[deleted]]

vast swathes of scientific and technological advance achieved within the Empire

The Industrial revolution happened in Britain, not in one of it's colonies. In fact, India was deliberately not industrialised by the Empire, and it would not begin to industrialise until the Raj was dismantled. The Indian economy remained stagnant for the entire Raj rule.

the introduction of modern legal systems to countries where the rule of law was previously a matter of patronage where it existed at all

What utter revisionist bollocks. Of course legal systems existed before the nice enlightened British came along. Even then, British law was applied sparingly and arbitrarily - the East India company essentially had free reign to do what it wanted in spite of the law. For that matter, the only people who were 'equal before the law' were the colonists. And that isn't going into the regions, such as India, where the British colonialists adapted and reinforced the Caste system in order to push racial hierarchy and consolidate control over the natives. All of these things being negatives which still apply today. Oh, also, the 'introduction of '''modern legal systems'''' was actually a forced imposition against the will of the natives.

there are the immense infrastructural advances

The infrastructure which was built not only benefited solely the white colonialists, but the proceeds of which were shipped out of the country and back to Britain. For example, the decision to replace Indian food crops with cash crops like cotton (which later resulted in the Bengali famines).

the abolition of slavery

After it's use for decades, using the Empire as a tool to enslave entire populations.

the provision of medicine based on science rather than superstition.

Which pales in comparison to the loss of life of establishing and maintaining the Empire.

You're entire schtick here is that the British invaded other countries, murdering and subjugating their population, but they implemented common law and medicine, so really it cancels out. In reality, the '''''benefits''''' of the Empire were felt only by the white colonialists, who took their wealth with them when they left. If the Empire had never existed, countries like India would not have suffered the loss of over 10 million lives in one event, and would likely be in a far better situation today.

I mean, jesus, Ireland's population has STILL NOT RECOVERED from what the Empire did. How the fuck can you think (wrongly) that a few traintracks outweigh the millions of dead natives?

[u/AbstractLemgth → u/[deleted]]

''''Quit the drama''', the lost lives of millions of indigenous people was literally fine because they weren't white'

edit: lol nvm this is his actual view

[u/WeighWord → u/AbstractLemgth]

>Told to stop being so hysterical

>MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T WHITE

Christ. Listen to people when they're engaging you.

[u/AbstractLemgth → u/WeighWord]

That is literally what happened. You are literally defending a white supremacist here. Are you going to suggest that the Bengali and Irish famines were just accidents?

[u/WeighWord → u/AbstractLemgth]

Sigh

No, I'm pointing out that when somebody requested you to calm down and discuss the points reasonably, you resorted, once again, to low-hanging fruit and a low-resolution analysis.

Consider nuclear fission: It's proved to possess immensely destructive and immensely creative qualities. And that's a very simple analogy.

Try to be more malleable and objective in your approach.

[u/AbstractLemgth → u/WeighWord]

This thread literally started with someone saying 'the good of the Empire outweighed the latter'. My entire point is 'you must have a very fucking dim view of life if you consider a handful of railroads to offset the avoidable deaths of over ten million people'.

I'm not interested in 'moderating my tone' because i'm attempting to say precisely what needs to be said - no more, no less. That guy is an apologist for Imperial war crimes and a white nationalist to boot, so I don't see any reason to treat him with any respect. Nor do I have any hope of rationally convincing someone who adheres to an explicitly anti-rational ideology. I comment first because it's cathartic, but secondly because the other people reading this thread need to have it explained how people like him are not only ethically revolting, they're also factually wrong. Especially in an age where fascism is on the rise again, and the Empire (like Holocaust denial) is a popular rallying point for the far right.

[u/WeighWord → u/AbstractLemgth]

You're obviously young, and I (sort of) admire your spirit, but I can't talk with you. Don't pick sides, it's unrewarding, dull, and does not engage anybody. Read.

Have a nice a day.

[u/AbstractLemgth → u/WeighWord]

All of life is picking sides, and it's ignorant at best (and manipulative at worst) to suggest that one has the luxury of being able to be 'above it all'.

Beyond that, I don't have any problem with being on 'the side' against fascism and subjugation.

You suggest that i'm young (which is irrelevant, but maybe wrong depending on your definition of 'young'), but I think it is far more immature to suggest that 'all sides' have equal value or otherwise hidden merit. While this may be true in some examples, it is not true in all. There is no value to the claim that the Sun goes around the Earth. There is no value to the claim that paedophilia is acceptable. And there is no value to the promotion of fascism. It is useful to understand why individuals and groups may turn to fascism, but the matter itself is inherently destructive.

One of my favourite quotes on the matter, relating to holocaust denial, sums up my point nicely:

'Another very important part of fighting Holocaust Denial is to reject the notion that this is a story "that has two sides". This is often used to give these people a forum or argue that they should be able to somehow present their views to the public. It is imperative to not walk into this fallacious trap. There are no two sides to one story here. There are people engaging in the serious study of history who try to find a variety of perspectives and interpretation based on facts conveyed to us through sources. And then there are Holocaust Deniers who use lies, distortion, and the charge of conspiracy. These are not two sides of a conversation with equal or even slightly skewed legitimacy. This is people engaging in serious conversations and arguments vs. people whose whole argument boils down to "nuh-uh", "it's that way because of the Jews" and "lalalala I can't hear you". When one "side" rejects facts en gros not because they can disprove them, not because they can argue that they aren't relevant or valid but rather because they don't fit their bigoted world-view, they cease to be a legitimate side in a conversation and become the equivalent of a drunk person yelling "No, you!" but in a slightly more sophisticated and much more nefarious way.'