Originally Posted by Angelica
I am horrible at history however I am open to learn.....
You seem to be very good with research.....I am curious to explore the good aspect of the British rule....Can provide a view on what you consider to be a good aspect of colonization????
Frankly, you don't seem to be so "horrible
You should excuse me if I'm currently trying to be as careful as possible regarding any single statement, just to avoid as much as possible any misunderstanding.
Infrastructure and Order have always been typical traits associated with the conquest of nations, in fact virtually inevitably inherent to any conquest, even the German conquest in eastern Europe during WW2 or the Mongol conquests of the XIII century.
In fact (empirically so) the more brutal the conquest the more ordered its aftermath will be.
Regarding infrastructure (e.g. transportation) it is easy to understand why is it so useful for the colonial exploitation of any conquered territory; that's exactly why such infrastructure was the main target of both partisan movements and strategic bombing against the occupied Europe in WW2.
The expected and virtually inevitable political effect of any conquest (even by democratic powers) is the promotion of local authoritarianism; for any conqueror it will always be exponentially easier to deal with any single head that with a plurality; my local ruler might be a b*st**d, but it would still be my
The search for the economic benefit of the conquerors naturally tends to promote the better exploitation of the natural resources under any conqueror, even in Poland under Hans Frank; but naturally that fact doesn't imply per se that the local native population must be benefited from such improved exploitation.
Any conqueror's military presence (especially when it is quantitatively scarce, as it was almost systematically the case for the British Empire) virtually inevitably tends to follow some Divide et Impera
strategy, i.e. making local collaborators by relatively favoring some local groups against each other.
This strategy makes exponentially easier the administration of large conquered territories (especially if densely populated) but at the expense of the inevitable (in fact, regularly deliberate) Balkanization of the conquered nations and the proliferation of local inter-ethnic conflicts, especially post-colonial conflicts.
Regarding specifically the British Empire, the cases of Palestine / Israel & India / Pakistan couldn't be more paradigmatic, even if hardly unique.
Even leaving aside the exploitation of the conquered nations, most (if not all) of the conquerors have at one time or the other genuinely worried for the general welfare of the conquered populations, at the very least because no nation of this Planet is made up from pure sadists.
Even so, it is easy to verify in this same thread the effects of even the objectively well-intentioned but discriminatory practices imposed over the conquered Australian Aboriginal Nations, objectively resulting in nothing less than genocide.
Another eloquent example; the harsh Japanese rule over conquered populations (including the indisputable modernization of Korea & Taiwan) was actually their own twisted version of the Golden Rule, according to their own Bushido code. The treatment of the own Japanese recruits was not any less brutal.
Plainly, the famous proverb on the road to Hell paved by good intentions couldn't apply any more here.
That's exactly why in spite of all the aforementioned blessings of essentially any colonial conquest, virtually no native nation all around this Planet all along History has ever genuinely willingly asked for being conquered.
The very case of the proud British people themselves all along the XX century would be paradigmatic.
Just ask Mr. Winston Spencer Churchill
Hope this long boring post may be helpful in some way.