Was the British Empire a good thing?

A History A essay
Bonny Wong 4/8/2011

Introduction The Empire in which the sun never sets is a description that has been entitled several grand empires throughout this planets history. These at start, small nations set sails several hundred years ago to expand their territories and to explore the world, searching for new riches, trading exotic spices and finding ways to exploit the land and its native inhabitants to power the empires growth. The British Empire was perhaps the most impressive empire established in modern time. At its peak, it governed a quarter of earths population scattered throughout the many colonies that was under the empires control. These masses of land stretched from Canada, trough Africa and India and finally down to Oceania, giving The Empire in which the sun never sets quite a literal meaning (Brittiska imperiet). But with respect to different point of views, a state striving for imperialism can be attributed both negative and positive properties caused by its means of acquiring land, wealth and manpower. Some historians believe that if not the Empire had existed, modern principles such as liberal capitalism and parliamentary democracy would not be as widespread as they are today (Ferguson 366). While other pinpoints the darker side of this imperial story with focus on the inhumane treatment of certain populations. Whether the British Empire was good or bad is a question that can be discussed countless of times.

The Empire was not good or bad The development of the British Empire was largely dependent on the trade occurring between the colonies. After the Great Seven Year War, Frances imperial ambitions declined and the British East India Company could in such way secure a trade monopoly in India. This act gave the Empire a large economic boost. Throughout the Empires history it has always been trying to introduce western ideas onto its colonies. Defenders of colonialism such as the British philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that the foreign nations needed European assistance and had to adapt to the British culture, which according to him was more civilized (Schultz och Georgios 165166). In Mills book Principles of Political Economy (1848) he states the changes needed to take place in the less developed nations in order for a more beneficial trade to occur: First: a better government: more complete security of property; moderate taxes; a more permanent . . . tenure of land. Secondly, improvements of the public intelligence: the decay of usages or superstitions which interfere with the effective implementation of industry; and the growth of mental activity. . . Mill in essence pushes the old native values aside and introduces new and more refined ways do control things to benefit the British Empire, which now India was part of. Niall Ferguson, a British historian, argues that these changes the Empire brought to colonies such as India were positive. He credits the British Empire most institutions in India, such as elite school, universities and the army, claiming that they were all based on British model and wouldnt exist without the British rule. Although he does not deny that the Empire was far from perfect. Ferguson writes Of course no one would claim that the record of the British Empire was unblemished. . . Yet the nineteenth century Empire undeniably pioneered free trade, free capital movements and, with the abolishment of

slavery, free labour. (Ferguson 366) He addresses the wrongdoings by the Empire, but points out that the good that the Empire has brought shouldnt been overshadowed by its darker history.

The Empire acted only on own interests The trade in the British Empire consisted not only of goods such as wool or exotic spices, but also slaves. As the cost of white labor rose during the early stages of establishing colonies, the Empire turned their eyes on Africa. They saw a potential to gain both manpower, for the growth of the Empire, and money by selling them to plantation owners. On only the island Barbados, which housed several sugar plantations 387000 slaves were shipped over between 1627 and 1807. The slaves were considered as goods, tightly packed in slave ships under inhumane conditions and often sold in auction houses. (Watson) Despite the heavy promotion and use of slaves it was ultimately the British themselves that ended it. This transformation of moral in the Empire is said to have started at Clapham, where three men, a former plantation worker Zachary Macaulay, John Thornton and Parliamentary orator William Wilberforce formed the Clapham Sect with the goal to abolish slavery (Ferguson 116). While Ferguson argues that the reform mainly was based on moral grounds (Ferguson 117), the Caribbean historian Eric Williams deems that there is a larger underlying reason. In his book Capitalism and Slavery he suggests that beside the moral issue the usage of slaves slowly became unprofitable (Williams 138) as a result of land in the West Indies becoming exhausted (Williams 150). In his sense it was more of an economic reform and not moral reform that happened early 19th century. He writes The Slave trade was abolished in 1807, slavery in 1833, the sugar preference in 1846. The three events are inseparable . . . The humanitarians, in attacking in attacking the system in its weakest and most indefensible spot, spoke a language that the masses could understand What Williams see is a correlation between the events, he further writes They could never have succeeded if a hundred years before when every important capitalist interest was on the side of the colonial system (Williams 136). What Williams ultimately tries to say is that the abolishment of slavery came as a result of unprofitable sugar trade and not out of good faith. He sees it as an act by coldhearted capitalists only out to gain wealth for the Empire and themselves.

The Empire mainly brought good to its colonies Much that is mentioned about the backside of the British Empire involves the mistreatment of humans. Historians such as Johann Hari and Mike Davis, believes that the British Empire had induced mass starving in India. Johann Hari goes as far as saying that the Empire caused the death of 29 million Indians in the late 19 th century (Hari). But Lawrence James a historian and supporter of the Empire counters such claims. He means

that In 1897 more than 33m Indians were being sustained by the government, which had allocated 4.3m (about 200m in todays money) to relief operations. By this date, the railway network (a British innovation) was sufficiently advanced to distribute rice and grain to regions of dearth. There was no holocaust: between 1871 and 1901 Indias population increased by 30m. James continues to tell that the British Empire was much more open compared to Stalins Soviet that some historians likes to compare the Empire with. He, just as Ferguson gives the British Empire credit for establishing a functioning infrastructure in India and more freedom. While he too, acknowledges the sometimes brutal nature of the British forces, he believes they should not be portrayed on the same plan as slaughters occurring in Soviet Gulag or calling them holocausts. He states further that I believe that on balance the British Empire was a force for good and should be a source of national pride. (Lawrence)

Analysis When speaking of good or bad deeds related to the British Empire, the subject of slavery and the sometimes barbaric nature of, not the natives, but the British Empire are unavoidable. It is correct as both James and Ferguson states that bad parts of the Empire cannot be neglected. However it seems that they do not really address the issues further other than acknowledging that they have existed. While it isnt possible to bring back the dead slaves, or take back the physical and mental damage that the Empire caused hundreds of year ago. It is still possible to talk about them. However judging by Johann Haris post on his website If you point out basic facts about the British Empire that the
British deliberately adopted policies that caused as many as 29 million Indians to starve to death in the late nineteenth century, say you smack into a wall of incomprehension and rage., it seems

that he is the subject of personal attacks by supporters of the Empire such as Ferguson and James (Hari), which has no place in an proper discussion of a very real problem that existed during the colonial era. James and Ferguson keeps mentioning that it brought good principles to the world and reinstated several institutions in India. Maybe to such an extent that it gives an unfair view over the situation. Ferguson especially compares India with its counterparts such as China and Russia, claiming the success that the British models have brought, while the other two nations imposed incalculable misery on their subject people (Ferguson 366), which is ironic as the British Empire did exactly the same thing. And now when both China and Russia are more developed than India, does it mean that the British model was bad? Williams believes that the abolishment of slaves was caused by a declining sugar plant profit, which might seem reasonable. But in fact, slavery was already on decline during late 18th century, in other parts of the world, without any economical links. It would be more reasonably to argue that the abolishment of slavery actually was an action for a moral transform of the Empire than an economic one. (Ferguson 117)

Conclusion: In this essay, three different views of the British Empire have been presented. The British Empire was a complex piece of machinery that could not be described in simple terms such as good or bad or in merely 1500 words. It is undeniable that the Empire had a great influence on the world. It brought several principles that now are linked with the western world and a language that is used all over the world. But judging by the arguments and issues the above historians have mentioned, the British Empire was a rather balanced organ, which sometimes happened to do bad things and sometimes good things. It is not possible for any government in the world, or even a human being to be completely perfect. And certainly not an Empire that had to take a quarter of Earths population into account.

Bibliography
"Brittiska imperiet." Nationalencyklopedin. 7 April 2011 <http://www.ne.se/brittiska-imperiet>. Ferguson, Niall. Empire : How Britain Made the Modern World. London: Penguin Books, 2003. Hari, Johann. "The truth? Our empire killed millions." 17 June 2006. JohannHari.com. <http://www.johannhari.com/2006/06/17/the-truth-our-empire-killed-millions>. Lawrence, James. "Nailing the lie of the evil Empire." 18 June 2006. The Sunday Times. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article675882.ece>. Schultz, Bart and Varouxakis Georgios. Utilitarianism and Empire. Lexington Books, 2005. Watson, Karl. "Slavery and Economy in Barbados." 17 February 2011. BBC History. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/barbados_01.shtml>. Williams, Eric. Capitalism and Slavery. The University of North Carolina Press, 1944.