The British Empire is something to be Proud of

So you have taken the tough road of disagreeing with both of my assertions. 1) You argue that the British Empire was not good for its time 2) You argue that somethings are always wrong and that we cannot be proud of relatively positive actions You claim that I need to read up on some history over India. I don't know where you get this idea that India was already a country before the British from. It's certainly not what most historians say. Northern India was part of the Mogul Empire - a barbaric islamic empire which discriminated heavily against the Hindus (it's also where the Taj Mahal comes from). The south of India was part of the the Dravidian Kingdom which was a separate state. No - India did not exist before the British Raj. Also, following the collapse of the Mogul Empire, it's rule of the north disintegrated into several smaller states at war with each other. The British colonised India with actually very little violence - it was mainly done by stealth. Most of the north was actually given large amounts of autonomy under local Maharajas which were allied with the British. Of course there is still violence against the Muslims in India. But guess what - the British are no longer in India. While the British were in India religious violence was heavily surpassed. The treatment of the Vedas in India and Sri Lanka is not the responsibility of the British Empire but of the governments of today. Again of course Sharia law exists but it was suppressed by the British. Can you imagine how much more backward Pakistan would be if the British hadn't been there forming the basis of a democracy and restoring liberty and law and order? My example of the Sudan still stands. You said it was replaced by trans-atlantic slavery. What?! The British Empire completely banned the slave trade in 1807, 58 years before the US. Slavery in the UK had already been declared illegal after the Somerset Case in 1772. The Sudan was absorbed into the Empire in 1899. No - the Arab slave trade was not replaced by the Transatlantic trade. The truth is that the British navy was instrumental in destroying the slave trade and the colonial forces were equally important in destroying other forms of slavery. The slave trade is wrongly blamed as being part of the British Empire. Firstly, the British empire didn't even exist by the time Trans-atlantic slavery had begun. It was British corporations and not the British state which committed the crimes of the slave trade. The British state was absolutely complicit in this for sure but to claim that the British empire was the cause of trans-atlantic slavery is patently not true. This idea about spreading democracy in the Third world is fascinating. I ask: do you deny that the British Empire spread any democracy? The Indian, Australian, Canadian, Kenyan, Ugandan... parliaments are based on the British house of commons. They all share in the fruits of democracy whose seeds were planted by the British empire. Even the current main beacon of freedom and liberalism in the world - the USA has its constitution based on the English Bill of Rights. Furthermore, the USA was much worse at speeding democracy in the Cold War. Many of the countries the USA effectively colonised like South Vietnam were replaced with capitalist right-wing dictatorships not democracies. President Ngo Dinh Diem was a complete tyrant put into power by the Americans. The same goes for the likes of Pinochet. The USA is an expert in setting up military, basket-case dictatorships. The middle-east is not solely the fault of the big 4. The violence in the region is also the responsibility of the governments of the region. The incessant meddling of the USA is also a cause. Saddam Hussein was backed by the USA and then toppled by the USA and yes the UK as well. The complete cock-up of Iran in 1979 was a huge driver of middle east instability and had nothing to do with the British Empire. Also this crazy idea that Iraq and Syria would not exist without the British. Iraq and Syria and other states existed well before colonialism. Iraq was under the Hashemite monarchy for years. Furthermore, surely instability would still exist without the British Empire. The British Empire did not exist in a vacuum. If not the British mandate then the French Mandate or the German Mandate or even the Russian Mandate or just the lovely ottomans instead with their straight lines too. There is no way out of colonialism in the 19th century. The fact is that the British were the best at making a good job out of it. Yes in its context the British empire was good. Next the moral question. You provide this analogy of the less cruel robber. Firstly, I think this is a bit misleading because you equate the British Empire to an actively bad 'robber' whereas I argue that actually it did many good things. So it's not as simple as a less bad robber. Even so, consider the environment of of this nicer mugger. I would argue that they have grown up in a time of crime and injustice in a dog-eat-dog world. They don't have a clear moral code. All they know is that everyone around them is doing the same thing and in order to survive they need to do this too. It doesn't mean that their individual actions, by modern standards, are good. But it does mean that in their environment they were much more progressive and something to be at least impressed with. Sometimes, things that bring great progress and, in the end, positive effects to the world have negative aspects to them. The ancient greeks kept slaves and so did the Romans but does that not mean that those civilisations cannot be appreciated? Good historians shouldn't blur their view of history by throwing emotion and modern hysteria at it. I think that the actions of our robber are immoral but considering the context of the robber I don't believe they were an immoral person. I'd much rather be mugged by them than the others and in that respect I am proud of the progress that they have made to bring about a better world. But in order for your robber analogy to even work you need to prove that the British Empire literally is a robber. Of course, by today's standards colonialism is wrong. But the world has changed. Colonialism including neo-colonialism is a real problem because it no longer progresses mankind. But in the 19th century and early 20th century some colonialism did. The British Empire represents this. It was a force for good in the world. By today's standards we couldn't be proud of it. But considering the cess-pit of immorality surrounding it the British Empire is something that merits pride. It is ethically utilitarian to support the option which does the greatest good to the greatest number - that choice is the British Empire. Anything which brings about the least suffering is a morally right thing to pursue. The decisions for Empire were made in a context. If the Kings at the time had the same moral reasoning of today of course invading other countries would be immoral but they did not. In their time the decisions that they made were moral by their standards and so their actions must be seen as fair as the intentions were not in any way as evil as we consider them to be today. Therefore, their morality is something I'm very proud of. I wonder if revisionist historians wrote about the Roman Empire in the same way? The Italians are certainly very proud of the Roman Empire. I think that the Roman Empire, like the British Empire, was a good thing for the world and thus considering the moral standards of its time and the fact that it adopted the same position of the least suffering I'm proud of that Empire too.