Redpill me on imperialism

i had a history teacher try and tell me the British empire was all bad and no good today and that I should be ashamed of it, gibs me stuff to use against that kike tomorrow.

Attached: E1C593C2-F4B1-4115-8E13-FCD7854AEA9C.jpg (225x225, 14K)

go back to tumblr or wherever you're from.

Your teacher is right.

Attached: 1870-1895._Nozze_d_argento_di_Roma_in_occasione_del_25_anniversario_della_Breccia_di_Porta_Pia.jpg (352x550, 58K)

well for one the british banned slavery across the empire in 1833 and bought out slavers and slaveholders freedom to the tune of trillions adjusted with inflation. now without the empire to enforce a more civilized way of life there is no way to stop rampant slaving. tl;dr there are more slaves than ever after granting africa independence.

Italian unification?
Unexpected post, just wish that mr Tortellini had actually spent more time industrializing instead of making agreements with Hitler.

The problem is that a lot of this stuff is esoteric. I would say the best angle you could go for in a setting like that is some variation of this argument:

Every civilization strove for empire, in historical times you were either running an empire or you were part of one and to single out the British Empire as "all bad" is unfair and dishonest. The British Empire was one of the key proponents in the end of slavery worldwide, they peacefully gave up most of their territory and holdings, how can you say they were "all bad"? Can the [insert nonwhite empire name], or the [insert empire name] say the same?

The British deindustrialized India, pumped opium into China, and fucked up taxation/representation in America so bad that the effects are still visible to this day. They actually tightened the caste system in India during the British Raj as well to make administration easier, with the side effect of social stratification and corruption.

Imperialism was pretty retarded how the Brits executed it.

>Unexpected
Yeah well, miss civilization in OP's pic reminded me of the Goddess herself.
>wish he had spent more time industrializing
Italy would still be fascist if that were the case.

Attached: Giggino.jpg (648x444, 60K)

That being said, there is a "right" way to do imperialism, which is simply to turn states into protectorates and let them self govern in exchange for tax revenue, strategic bases, resource extraction, etc via corporate activity. Hong Kong was one place the British did right after about 1900. It's hailed as a libertarian case example of the success of a free market with the exception of real estate which is leased by the government to fund social welfare programs. Unfortunately they didn't mimic the scheme elsewhere.

Portuguese also did this in Macau

Probably wouldn't be much of a bad thing in the grand scheme of things

Are you in high school? Your question is rather imprecise.
Britain abolished slavery worldwide and uplifted numerous African states to the standards of living they now enjoy. It uplifted India to a state above the backwardsness it was found in. On the other hand, British imperialism provided Britain with no tangible, long-term economic benefits. It cost the lives of many young Englishman.
>The British deindustrialized India
Wrong

>Probably wouldn't be much of a bad thing
It would be glorious lol.

Attached: Palazzo_dei_congressi.jpg (766x511, 92K)

He is right. Look at you, you let yourself become infected by it.
>I'm for a multi-racial world in which each race keeps to itself, in harmony with the other races. Like in a garden, you have flowerbeds of roses and flowerbeds of carnations and irises and different other flowers. They don't intermarry. They stay separate, and each one has its beauty. . . . I'm against colonialism for the reason that colonialism infects the master as well as the slave. It even infects the master more.

Attached: photo-family5.jpg (488x700, 93K)

Because imperialism destabilizes whole regions turning them into volatile warzones that are prone to violence, lead to overstretching your armed forced, you can no longer do nuanced answers and must do shows of force to keep people from rebelling, and leads to an arms race with other imperialist powers that culminate on a clusterfuck of a war which in turn leads to another war.
We are still dealing with the aftermath of imperialism, namely with terrorist cells.

Who is this based quote from?

Pic related.

The sad part is statecraft in the grand scheme isn't so complicated, some things are actually pretty simple. However you always have brainlets who don't care to uplift their nation or go about it in the dumbest of ways.

Could there be a better way to do imperialism or is is really a 17th century “my balls are bigger than yours” kind of thing. Maybe if it had been done along the lines of the East India company, things may have gone differently? Or am I completely off the mark?

Savitri Devi i think

The real error of Imperialism is thinking it's worth your time to civilize the rest of the world when you could just sell them shit to get rich

Attached: de nederland leven.jpg (1767x2500, 821K)