-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
How many deaths do you think the British Empire is responsible for?
- Thread starter Deleted member 3534
- Start date
I'm aware. If we are just taking about direct it's much less but I included indirectly in that number through their kick starting of slavery and the wiping out of indigenous people in the US and Canada. Destabilization of Africa has led to untold number of deaths. The Israel/Palestine situation they are very much a part of.
It's in the definition of what democide is as opposed to people killed in a war. I did note that these are deaths from demoices but I'll give the definition: Democide is the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder. Democide is not necessarily the elimination of entire cultural groups but rather groups within the country that the government feels need to be eradicated for political reasons and due to claimed future threats.
The number of deaths you stated from Japanese invasion also include deaths from actual war, these are deaths by a government or in a lot of cases an occupying force. There's a difference. If we count the wars.it will be larger. I stated democides since deaths from an Empire fit deaths from an occupying force due to government policies, actions, and the like. It's more like willful killing.
Yeah, and it ultimately led to the decline of power of Qing Dynasty, which really plunged China to the dark ages for almost hundred year.
Why the Chinese government are so skeptical of Western power? There was precedent, thanks the British, mostly.
Alright, I get you now.
I don't think that's a useful way to think about "responsibility" however. Either way, I'll concede that point, I'm getting the thread sidetracked.
The Roman empire with industrial and empire wide slavery along with gladiatorial games, has to be up there.
Not really, the fact that Britain could boss China around was indicative of how weak the Chinese state was at the time.
The British Empire is a weird one. Like Rome before it, they never set up to create an empire to slaughter people and viewed themselves as the great civilising force. I am in no way forgiving of the atrocities committed in the past -and there are many- but I think empires that happen by accident (and this certainly happened here) are nowhere near as bad as empires that were carefully calculated to exterminate a group of peoples like the Nazis.
I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to measure empires in absolutes, because it is arguable that empire is inherently bad. From my point of view the break up of the Ottomans and the nationalism that followed in (in part guided by America) has lead to a lot of problems we have today. Britain leaving Palestine leaving a terrible conflict to follow and India and pakistan seperating are two such examples I can think of.
I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to measure empires in absolutes, because it is arguable that empire is inherently bad. From my point of view the break up of the Ottomans and the nationalism that followed in (in part guided by America) has lead to a lot of problems we have today. Britain leaving Palestine leaving a terrible conflict to follow and India and pakistan seperating are two such examples I can think of.
By any measure it wouldn't approach billions. That is just laughable.
It is hard to even count. You can trace the current conflict in Syria back to the British Empire, for example. Even the idea of dominant minority rule.
The spread of capitalism and exploitation through the East India Company, borders all over the world drawn on a desk in London without knowledge or respect for the local circumstances...how could you ever put a number on that?
The spread of capitalism and exploitation through the East India Company, borders all over the world drawn on a desk in London without knowledge or respect for the local circumstances...how could you ever put a number on that?
The British empire = Best empire. They turned half the map of the world pink and also weren't named after a piece of furniture.
Anyway, no-one can answer the OP's question, it's impossible. But as to why no-one seems to hold much of Britain's history against the British? Good PR.
Anyway, no-one can answer the OP's question, it's impossible. But as to why no-one seems to hold much of Britain's history against the British? Good PR.
We lost a lot of people during world war 2 to the Japanese as the Empire did almost everything wrong when it came to defending Singapore.
They put all their eggs in a basket by building all the cannons facing south as they assume that is the only way the Japanese troops can approach. So the Japanese army just cycle through Malaysian forest and invaded us from the North.
Not to mention the Japanese army was facing critical water shortage and would have to surrender if the Empire just fought for another week but of course the Empire surrendered and the rest as they said is history.
They put all their eggs in a basket by building all the cannons facing south as they assume that is the only way the Japanese troops can approach. So the Japanese army just cycle through Malaysian forest and invaded us from the North.
Not to mention the Japanese army was facing critical water shortage and would have to surrender if the Empire just fought for another week but of course the Empire surrendered and the rest as they said is history.
lmao. That phrase refers to primary sources, not to call historians fake news. The latter have the job to evaluate sources and write history that eliminates such factors.
1) That wasn't the question.
2) It's arguably the biggest offender in that regard. Next to France, probably.
That's because their military-scientific-exploration mindset pushed them farther than any other empire. There was nothing preventing china from conquering the same lands the British did (with the same end result no doubt), but they thought they already knew everything and that their world map was complete. The realization that we are ignorant (science) pushed British to explore and in the end conquer pretty much everyone (with the bloody results we all know).
Cognitive dissonance existed before empires.
You'll never learn about the real British Empire in school and, if you do, it will always be about positive aspects.
It's easy to hide when it's never taught. It's also why a lot of people reject the likes of the EU qnd dismiss it as German imperialism - other countries have accept their past and worked towards removing, British exceptionalism prevents that.
It's easy to hide when it's never taught. It's also why a lot of people reject the likes of the EU qnd dismiss it as German imperialism - other countries have accept their past and worked towards removing, British exceptionalism prevents that.
The British Empire is high-key the worst genocidal regime to have ever existed.
You are bang-on there. I honestly thought it was a force for good until I went to Uni.
Since when was the world not aware of Britain's awful atrocities?
As a Brit I have always been acutely aware of the scumbaggery we have been involved in, we had the largest (land mass) empire in recorded history and did untold amounts of damage. No idea what the body count would be, but surely in the hundreds of millions towards numbers in the billion(s)?
As a Brit I have always been acutely aware of the scumbaggery we have been involved in, we had the largest (land mass) empire in recorded history and did untold amounts of damage. No idea what the body count would be, but surely in the hundreds of millions towards numbers in the billion(s)?
School history is pretty selective in what attocities it points at. Victors and empires that directly lead to our current way of life are treated as "good" and basically inevitable.
I'd wager tens of millions directly, hundreds of millions indirectly. The tougher aspect of that is calculating what number of those would have died anyway and which would have survived had the British Empire not intervened - and substracting the ones who survived thanks to British intervention on the rare occassion when they would have died without it.
The famines in India are particularly difficult. There's no doubt that the colonial administration's attitude worsened some famines. At the same time, India has always suffered famines. Take this one in 1791-1792 which primarily hit pre-colonial parts of India:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doji_bara_famine
Upwards of 11 million dead, caused by an El Nino. Colonial regions were actually hurt less severely, probably because they had access to imported grain to a higher degree. And in an interconnected world, who gets which share of the blame for the Bengal famine? It was triggered by the Japanese invasion of Burma, after all, and exacerbated by Nazi German military pressure on the UK which reduced the British ability to respond.
There's nothing uniquely evil about the British Empire. It behaved the exact same way as the other colonial powers. Not to mention that it existed during a period of history where truly benign rulers were very few and far between, with the states of the non-colonised world typically consisting of feudal or monarchic governments. I'd argue that tribal populations likely experienced the most severe repercussions of colonisation because they were, after all, self-governing, but I'm not sure if being a serf under a Mughal Emperor was any better than being a peasant subject of the Queen.
Yeah, no, the British only held Syria for about five years during WW2. They had basically nothing to do with the country. Before that it was ruled by France for some 20 years, but the greatest influence bar none before independence was obviously the Ottoman Empire which ruled the country for over 400 years. Dominant minority rule is hardly a British invention either. Case in point being the Mongol Empire, Roman Empire, Mughal Kingdoms, or any other time in history where one people conquers and rules another.
The famines in India are particularly difficult. There's no doubt that the colonial administration's attitude worsened some famines. At the same time, India has always suffered famines. Take this one in 1791-1792 which primarily hit pre-colonial parts of India:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doji_bara_famine
Upwards of 11 million dead, caused by an El Nino. Colonial regions were actually hurt less severely, probably because they had access to imported grain to a higher degree. And in an interconnected world, who gets which share of the blame for the Bengal famine? It was triggered by the Japanese invasion of Burma, after all, and exacerbated by Nazi German military pressure on the UK which reduced the British ability to respond.
There's nothing uniquely evil about the British Empire. It behaved the exact same way as the other colonial powers. Not to mention that it existed during a period of history where truly benign rulers were very few and far between, with the states of the non-colonised world typically consisting of feudal or monarchic governments. I'd argue that tribal populations likely experienced the most severe repercussions of colonisation because they were, after all, self-governing, but I'm not sure if being a serf under a Mughal Emperor was any better than being a peasant subject of the Queen.
Yeah, no, the British only held Syria for about five years during WW2. They had basically nothing to do with the country. Before that it was ruled by France for some 20 years, but the greatest influence bar none before independence was obviously the Ottoman Empire which ruled the country for over 400 years. Dominant minority rule is hardly a British invention either. Case in point being the Mongol Empire, Roman Empire, Mughal Kingdoms, or any other time in history where one people conquers and rules another.
Last edited:
Right, but one can only blame themselves for keeping their head in the sand
On an individual level sure, but if you want any real chance in the matter then look no further than the school books.
Then again in elementary school, each step in history gets so little time that it's impossible to give a moral lecture about each one. I guess that's something that happens in universities and college, but not everyone goes there.
It's amazing to me, as a non Brit, that the royal family isn't more maligned. They have directly benefited from the enslavement and destruction of countless societies and civilizations but we still goo-goo over every wedding or when one pops out another entitled little bugger.
I'm talking about Sykes-Picot and how they betrayed their Arab WW1 allies.
From a BBC article:
At a meeting in Downing Street, Mark Sykes pointed to a map and told the prime minister: "I should like to draw a line from the "e" in Acre to the last "k" in Kirkuk."
ISIS specifically wanted to erase that border, it is still a source of conflict. That's all I meant.
Also, most of us weren't alive back then. Seems unfair to blame me for something I didn't do, just because of where I happen to have been born.
I agree that the type of history taught school is mostly crap, but I knew that when I was at school. A cursory look or discussion with anyone with even a slight understanding of history knows some of the realities of the mechanism of imperialism and how native countries and people have been exploited. Everyone covered slavery in school, how does one not sit there and realise the level of brutality, subjugation, and power structure in play to create such a thing. At that point it's willful ignorance to me
Sure but Id like it if we at least remove churchills name from the hundreds of places/landmarks across the world.
That seems a bit short sighted, if you are white and British you have benefitted nonetheless. It's not about blame, it's about accepting your nations past - same goes for America and slavery - and the privileges afforded to you (obviously ignore this to a point if you are not white British)
Not just in the wake of the empire, but the aftermath and current state of many countries that were under its occupation.
A lot. Like, it's a grim, grim task to try to tally this. The famines alone during the century under the British Raj lead to tens of millions of deaths in the Indian provinces.
The 3rd Reich was far from a calculated empire and German national socialism in it's early days was a counter-revolution movement. Yes, the Nazis were scum but their main objective was not killing all the jews. It was
a: "make Germany great again" after the Versailles treaty
and b: fighting Bolshevism.
WWII was inevitable with or without Nazi Germany. German expansion was not the typical imperialistic expansion - it was a reactionary expansion driven by ressources (Russian oil), geo-political strategic thinking (get to Europe's Westcoast to fortify it) and invade Russia before Stalin invades the West.
Huge numbers. The right's obsession in this country with the empire and those "good old days" is constantly fucking alarming. Also Churchill was a cunt.
Reading about Operation Legacy (the destruction of all the atrocities committed by the Empire in India at least) the count is probably far higher than any of us would expect.
That old axiom isn't nearly as true as people make it out to be. You sound like a Holocaust or Ottoman apologist when you talk about "real history".
How is that bullshit?
Congrats on the one word/pointless exclamation though
Christ on a bike! Thanks, saved me a good bit of energy there haha
I would also like to know why you have deemed it "bullshit".
I'd like it explained how I, as a white British male have benefited. Generalisations like that are bullshit.