Why did Britain try to colonise the world?

[Mr Rayon]

What were their motives?

 

And has it made this world a better place?

[Djordje]

1. Material reasons

2. It had brought prosperity to some of the colonies, but mostly no.

[CaptainPanic]

What were their motives?

Wealth.

Power.

And has it made this world a better place?

I do not know what the world would have looked like by now if the European powers hadn't colonized the world.

[rktpro]

There are a lot of reasons for Britain to colonize other countries.

Industrialization

The sudden rise in demand, introduction to new technology like harvesting machines and steam power gave rise to industrialization. This increased the production 10 times.

To meet the rise in demand England needed resources. To attain these resources England started making colonies.

World Market

The production was so tremendous that it was now termed as surplus. To sell the surplus produce markets were necessary. Thus, England started colonizing other areas to gain markets and sell their products.

Political Motive

It was just like a war between England and France and other European nations. To make an impressive and strong political nation they wanted more and more land.It was just like a competition.

Rise in Population

The introduction of advanced medical services steeped down the death rate. The population was increasing at a fast pace. To give land to the ever increasing population colonizations was followed.

 

There is a lot of debate about colonization and its positive and negative effects. I can put forward two faces of the debate-

Development

It can be learned that the countries England colonized were economically and educationally backward as compared to England itself. For ex- India at that time was educationally backward. But the Britishers introduce education in India though they wanted to educate people so that they could find easy employees who would be ready to work at low wages in military and civil services. They introduced law which formed the basis of the current law system of India. In countries like America, they boosted the technological advancements 5 times the previous. They tried to improve the society and eradicate evils out of it like child marriage and dowry system. They helped low caste people who were ill-treated in their states, convert to Christianity and enjoy a life of dignity.

Unfair Methods

But their methods were always unfair. They used policies like Divide and Rule. To gain control over the colony they used force and inhuman activities. Thousands of innocent people were killed many times. Their policies always focused on how they could gain more and more profit. For ex- they smuggled opium to China.

could gain more and more profit.

Destruction:Economically

They destroyed the local business rapidly. Industries were shattered as European goods were cheap and good in quality. This made the lives of local people miserable. They destroyed handcraft business as hand made goods were costly as compared to machine made goods.

Apartheid

They initiated apartheid in South Africa. Thankfully apartheid is not a problem now because of Nelson Mandela.

[Horza2002]

Power and influence over their neighbours and enemies would be the obvious one. Also to aquire the resources that those new lands provided would be another.

 

It's difficult to say whether the world benefited from it because there's nothing to compare it too. If I had to guess, I would tentatively say yes, it did make the world better. Yes granted entire populations were wiped out because they didn't want to be ruled; but they also spread the value of education, paved the way for world-wide travel and increased trade around the world.

 

I think you also need to remember that it wasn't just the British who colonised everything. The French colonised large portions of Africa, the Dutch colonised loads of island chains, the Spanish colonised south America, the Turks (then the Ottamon empire) conqured the middle east. And then there were all the empire before the 1800's your talkign about....the Romans managed to conquer and colonies the whole of Europe, the Holy Roman Empire also tried to....The Mongolians had a fair stab at trying it as well and the Mayan controlled south America before the Spanish defeated them.

 

It can be learned that the countries England colonized were economically and educationally backward as compared to England itself. For ex- India at that time was educationally backward

 

Please be careful here. It was not the English that colonised, but was the British; there is a difference.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Horza2002

[Djordje]

There are both pros and cons. World as whole prospered but colonized nations hadn't.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Djordje

[John Cuthber]

"Apartheid

They initiated apartheid in South Africa. Thankfully apartheid is not a problem now because of Nelson Mandela. "

I think that, had the English initiated this they would have called it something like "Separateness" or "segregation" . The reason it's known by an Afrikaans name is that it's not actually English.

 

Anyway, as for the reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtx3ezwDyO0&feature=related

[michel123456]

Imperialism.

 

"all of these stars ... these vast worlds that remain out of reach. If I could, I would annex other planets." Cecil Rhodes.

[Marat]

There has been considerable discussion over the last few years that the British colonial enterprise was largely mistaken, since most of the colonies turned out to be too expensive to administer and defend for whatever material advantages they produced. You find some awareness of this already in the debates between Gladstone and Disraeli in the late 19th century over whether imperialism should be extended or retrenched as unprofitable. The ultimate reason for the death of General 'Chinese' Gordon at Fort Khartuom was that the British government did not want to get militarily entangled in the Sudan since they felt further colonial annexations in that area would be unprofitable. Another negative influence of the imperial system was that by providing a captive market for British manufactures, it encouraged a decline in the quality of British exports, since they were largely insulated from competition. This meant that the British gradually woke up to the shock ca. 1900 that German industry had gotten ahead of them, and that in turn entailed Britain forging the alliances with which it could defeat German economic advantages militarily in the First World War.

[Klaynos]

Please be careful here. It was not the English that colonised, but was the British; there is a difference.

 

Of course at the time the term English was for the most part used to mean British. This has changed over the last 100 years or so.

[Marat]

If you had asked Sebastian Cabot who is he was colonizing the New World for he would have answered 'England,' not 'Britain.' 'Britain' started to come into use after the legislative union of Ireland and England, but for much of its colonizing history 'Britain' was properly called 'England.' Though people do make a fuss about this distinction today; for example, Winston Churchill used to bristle at the fact that the German ambassador to Britain, Ribbentropp, used to refer the country as 'England.'

[Djordje]

If you had asked Sebastian Cabot who is he was colonizing the New World for he would have answered 'England,' not 'Britain.' 'Britain' started to come into use after the legislative union of Ireland and England, but for much of its colonizing history 'Britain' was properly called 'England.' Though people do make a fuss about this distinction today; for example, Winston Churchill used to bristle at the fact that the German ambassador to Britain, Ribbentropp, used to refer the country as 'England.'

 

After all the English were those in charge and UK or Britain was used merely to satisfy the non-English people and make 'em feel equal.

[JohnB]

While they did use some deplorable tactics, on the whole I think the Empire was a good thing. For a start it helped spread Democracy across the world when it devolved into the Commonwealth.

 

By 2000 there were 120 Democracies worldwide and 54 of them belonged to the Commonwealth, a not too shabby percentage. Especially when compared to the stirling efforts of the other Empires. The former colonies of Spain and Portugal in South and Central America have always been beacons of light and good governance to the world, have they not? Similarly the former French colonies have always displayed stability.

 

Yes the British Empire did some very bad things from todays POV, but in the historical context they were the best of a pretty ugly bunch. And frankly for all the bitching about the whites "invading" Australia, I've yet to meet the Aboriginal who wants to give up his car, mobile phone, computer and supermarkets to go live in a Gunya and eat roos that he's hunted and speared himself. I find myself in sympathy with Monty Python.

 

[Marat]

I spent some time living on the Caribbean Island of St. Lucia, where the dearest wish of the people (who became independent from Britain in 1979) was to become a British colony again so that they could cheaply 'import' its reputable colonial government facilities instead of suffering with its own domestic, corrupt, and inefficient government. People used to point to neighboring Martinique, which was still governed by France, as the model of what they would like. But the modern political correctness which equates colonialism with evil would not allow a return to the old system.

[Blahah]

"Apartheid

They initiated apartheid in South Africa. Thankfully apartheid is not a problem now because of Nelson Mandela. "

I think that, had the English initiated this they would have called it something like "Separateness" or "segregation" . The reason it's known by an Afrikaans name is that it's not actually English.

 

 

Apartheid was not instigated by the British, but by the Afrikaaner Nationalist Party. However, the pass laws and various other segregating laws which were basically precursors to Apartheid were passed by the British colonial rule.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Blahah