SuperSage125
Banned
What was the most "benevolent" empire to under during the Second age of Imperialism (relations with natives; investment in colonies; economic growth; post colonial stability, etc..)(Africa, Southeast Asia, East Asia)
What was the most "benevolent" empire during the second age of Imperialism(1800-1970)?
- Thread starter SuperSage125
- Start date
All the options listed were exploitative toward their subject populations. There is a huge difference between the "most influential" and benevolent. If we are ranking them by the latter, I would have to go with the Portuguese or the Dutch as they were the weakest. The Dutch are getting the vote.
Last edited:
I've gone for Portuguese. They were less racist than most, willing to let people of mixed race have full citizenship and not very powerful.
On the debit side they did hold on longer than most.
On the debit side they did hold on longer than most.
SuperSage125
Banned
Can't believe that people picked the Germans; they committed Genocide against the Herero people in Present Day Nambia. Also the Portuguese were pretty brutal to their colonies in Africa; due to their neglectful attitude toward their colonies.
I voted for French, I heard they ruled with a relatively light hand. That said , I could be wrong as I am no expert on colonialism. I wonder why Belgium and Japan are even on the list considering how brutal the Congo was as well as the entire Japanese Empire.
While, like all Empires,the British Empire was an exploitative entity, it was the first major Empire to outlaw slavery and actively suppress the slave trade. And that's a major global first.
The answer varied considerably between different decades of the given 170 year period.
Last edited:
Yes this.
While thinking it through, I tried to go through to process of "Alrighty, what do I know about each of these" (I'm not the most versed with in depth details about the colonial empires of certain nations and the aftermath), and the main point I ran into was the fact that while certain colonies were more stable than others, that changes as you go.
The other big thing for me was "How many of their colonies gained independence through violence, or had immediate violence afterward?" which left me with not many choices.
Really I don't think any of them are good, because even those with "Good" colonies have their bad ones. The British Empire has their good peaceful (IE without a revolution) colonies with Canada etc, but then they have the Bengal Famine and such.
I really don't think Any empire can be defined as "benevolent" really.
Firstly, no colonial empire has ever benefited its subjects more than it harmed them. This is the inherent nature of the Imperial system, where wealth is taken from the periphery into the interior for the purpose of the benefit of the interior. There is no 'benevolent' colonial power as benevolence does not come into the equation of extraction of resources and the creation of a captive market. While Britain is arguably the 'least bad' of the colonial powers, this does not mean they were good. Even the nominally positive things they did were designed to strengthen the colonial grip on the native economy, such as the construction of railways in Burma and India, rather than to help the locals.
While British rule was not as destructive as German, Japanese, or Belgian rule, this did not mean it was good, and the colonial idea of 'benevolence' was often just as damaging, see; the Stolen generation in Australia, which was conducted to 'help' lighter-skinned natives settle into the enlightened Anglo-Saxon culture, and perpetuated such horrendous damage that the aftershocks are still sorely felt more than half a century after the practice was officially ended.
While British rule was not as destructive as German, Japanese, or Belgian rule, this did not mean it was good, and the colonial idea of 'benevolence' was often just as damaging, see; the Stolen generation in Australia, which was conducted to 'help' lighter-skinned natives settle into the enlightened Anglo-Saxon culture, and perpetuated such horrendous damage that the aftershocks are still sorely felt more than half a century after the practice was officially ended.
This thread demonstrates the fundamental issues of White Man's Burden that dominated New Imperialism. The european powers told themselves they were on a mission to civilize, but they instead subjected and barred the natives from ruling themselves. If they had allowed the natives to rule themselves in exchange for taxes and infrastructure, that would be something.
Now, I won't say any of these empires were all bad. I think everyone but the most violent racists and misogynists would approve the amount of resources Britain levied against the slave trade or their attempts to end the practice of hindi women burning themselves when their husband died. But, unlike the first wave of European Imperialism, there simply isn't enough good intention in the government's actions for me to say any of them were a fair trade off. I might like the industrial revolution and it's definitely saved countless lives, but it was built off the destruction of empires and the bloodshed and genocide might amount to more lives ended than the Industrial Revolution could ever hope to fix
Now, I won't say any of these empires were all bad. I think everyone but the most violent racists and misogynists would approve the amount of resources Britain levied against the slave trade or their attempts to end the practice of hindi women burning themselves when their husband died. But, unlike the first wave of European Imperialism, there simply isn't enough good intention in the government's actions for me to say any of them were a fair trade off. I might like the industrial revolution and it's definitely saved countless lives, but it was built off the destruction of empires and the bloodshed and genocide might amount to more lives ended than the Industrial Revolution could ever hope to fix
Last edited:
Which was mostly due to the high integration the mainland had with the colonies.
SuperSage125
Banned
They were also particularly brutal toward the natives of their colonies in Africa
With a list like these, where the "goodness" of an Empire is debateable at the very best and there's clear negatives, sometimes seeing the "well, I don't know about all of these others and who's the least bad, but 'it'll be a cold day in hell' before Japan or Belgium is regarded as a benevolent empire."
If it was only post 1900, the answer would be the Spanish without a single doubt just because they did less damage than anyone else since they had 2 colonies (and they didn't contorl the interior of either Western sahara or Rio Muni until the late 20s/early 30s), one of which (Fernando Po) had one of the highest quality of life of any African colony just before indepndence.
But then it's 1830+ which includes the mass slave trade to cuba, plantationsand terrible repression in Cuba and phillipines so idk.
But then it's 1830+ which includes the mass slave trade to cuba, plantationsand terrible repression in Cuba and phillipines so idk.
I know the US isn't one of the choices and the Americans were certainly plenty brutal when they wanted to be but they did put the Philippines on the path to independence fairly early and I believe the Philippines even had the first elected legislature in East Asia for whatever that is worth
Mainland or in a colony? Which colonies? I'd rather live in London than any of the dominions and them before the Raj. Hong Kong is a maybe. ... before ww2
SuperSage125
Banned
I like the dutch since they had a actual government policy dictating that they help improve the natives life (Dutch ethical policy) by investing a education and improving irrigation techniques.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Ethical_Policy
Might be helpful to begin by defining your standards of comparison.
Number one, what are the ethical standards you're using? Modern ones? If so, which modern group's standards do you prefer? We've got plenty of diversity today. Or is the thread applying imperialists' own standards, as some responses suggest, and saying that they failed to live up to their own press? (If so, the ruthless ones who had no standards would actually do better in this comparison.) Or is it the colonized people's standards? If so, are we talking pre-colonization, post-colonization, or something else? I imagine that the Aztecs didn't appreciate the Spanish putting a damper on their human sacrifices, for example, but most modern people wouldn't exactly call this a legitimate ethical complaint against Cortez. Or is it something else? And then there are the details: utilitarian approaches will diverge on "ends justifies the means" questions more than some other approaches.
Number two, to whom are we comparing the imperialists? Is it enough to be less-bad than the regime the imperialists replaced? Or are they being held to the standards prevailing in highly developed modern democracies, regardless of how good/bad they were in comparison to their contemporaries or the regimes that preceded them? (And some modern democracies are still being accused of engaging in imperialist wars in the modern era, so there's that, too...)
Number one, what are the ethical standards you're using? Modern ones? If so, which modern group's standards do you prefer? We've got plenty of diversity today. Or is the thread applying imperialists' own standards, as some responses suggest, and saying that they failed to live up to their own press? (If so, the ruthless ones who had no standards would actually do better in this comparison.) Or is it the colonized people's standards? If so, are we talking pre-colonization, post-colonization, or something else? I imagine that the Aztecs didn't appreciate the Spanish putting a damper on their human sacrifices, for example, but most modern people wouldn't exactly call this a legitimate ethical complaint against Cortez. Or is it something else? And then there are the details: utilitarian approaches will diverge on "ends justifies the means" questions more than some other approaches.
Number two, to whom are we comparing the imperialists? Is it enough to be less-bad than the regime the imperialists replaced? Or are they being held to the standards prevailing in highly developed modern democracies, regardless of how good/bad they were in comparison to their contemporaries or the regimes that preceded them? (And some modern democracies are still being accused of engaging in imperialist wars in the modern era, so there's that, too...)
Last edited: