| Line 34: |
Line 34: |
| | The '''British Empire''' was a global empire acquired and ruled by the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (or, from 1801, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, called "Great Britain" or "Britain" in historical studies). After 1945, the Empire collapsed and most former colonies joined the loosely organized "British Commonwealth," and many—including Canada and Australia—kept the monarch as their nominal head of state. | | The '''British Empire''' was a global empire acquired and ruled by the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (or, from 1801, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, called "Great Britain" or "Britain" in historical studies). After 1945, the Empire collapsed and most former colonies joined the loosely organized "British Commonwealth," and many—including Canada and Australia—kept the monarch as their nominal head of state. |
| | | | |
| − | At its peak in 1921, the Empire contained a quarter of the world's land area (with emphasis on Australia and Canada) and more than a fourth of the world's population (with emphasis on India). Imperialists often boasted, "The sun never set on the British Empire,", for it included parts of every continent. The Empire was held together by a highly professional bureaucracy based in London, and by the world's most powerful navy, the Royal Navy, which enlarged its power by creating naval bases and coaling stations in many of the colonies. It was the largest seaborne empire in history, and the largest in terms of land area (though the Mongol Empire was the largest in terms of contiguous — unbroken by sea — land area).<ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_largest_empire_in_history</ref> | + | At its peak in 1921, the Empire contained a quarter of the world's land area (with emphasis on Australia and Canada) and more than a fourth of the world's population (with emphasis on India). Imperialists often boasted, "The sun never set on the British Empire," for it included parts of every continent. The Empire was held together by a highly professional bureaucracy based in London, and by the world's most powerful navy, the Royal Navy, which enlarged its power by creating naval bases and coaling stations in many of the colonies. It was the largest seaborne empire in history, and the largest in terms of land area (though the Mongol Empire was the largest in terms of contiguous — unbroken by sea — land area).<ref>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_largest_empire_in_history</ref> |
| | During the time of the British Empire, around $45 trillion was looted from [[India]] alone, over a period of 200 years.<ref>https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/this-economist-says-britain-took-away-usd-45-trillion-from-india-in-173-years/story/292352.html</ref> Additionally, the British perpetrated atrocities against many others such as the Boer people of South Africa during the Second Boer War (1899–1902) and Kenyans during the Mau Mau Uprising (1951–1960).<ref>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html</ref> When [[PragerU]] defended the British Empire,<ref>https://www.prageru.com/video/if-you-live-in-freedom-thank-the-british-empire/</ref> they were debunked by various other channels, including the "Sham Sharma Show", a conservative YouTube channel.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFMG1vmVkTo</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNLVPxR67U</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HurC8aTsVCE</ref> | | During the time of the British Empire, around $45 trillion was looted from [[India]] alone, over a period of 200 years.<ref>https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/this-economist-says-britain-took-away-usd-45-trillion-from-india-in-173-years/story/292352.html</ref> Additionally, the British perpetrated atrocities against many others such as the Boer people of South Africa during the Second Boer War (1899–1902) and Kenyans during the Mau Mau Uprising (1951–1960).<ref>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a6821756.html</ref> When [[PragerU]] defended the British Empire,<ref>https://www.prageru.com/video/if-you-live-in-freedom-thank-the-british-empire/</ref> they were debunked by various other channels, including the "Sham Sharma Show", a conservative YouTube channel.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFMG1vmVkTo</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNLVPxR67U</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HurC8aTsVCE</ref> |
| | | | |
| | ==History== | | ==History== |
| − | Its origins can be dated to the English discovery of [[Newfoundland]] in 1493, and its voluntary end began in 1947 (when [[India]] was granted independence), and it peaked in the 1960s (when Britain withdrew from most of its remaining colonies). The last stages came as recently as 1997 (when [[Hong Kong]], the last major colony, was returned to [[China|Chinese]] rule). | + | Its origins can be dated to the English discovery of [[Newfoundland]] in 1493; its voluntary end began in 1947 (when [[India]] was granted independence), and the British Empire peaked in the 1960s (when Britain withdrew from most of its remaining colonies). The last stages came as recently as 1997 (when [[Hong Kong]], the last major colony, was returned to [[China|Chinese]] rule). |
| | | | |
| | The European powers after 1500 had national governments with centralized military and navy power, financial resources, religious impulses and military technology. Some of them—Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Netherlands especially, wanted overseas colonies to bolster their economic, religious and political ambitions, and provide an outlet for the energies of ambitious young men. England (later Britain with Scotland after 1703) was the most successful because it resisted the ambitions of Spain and, in a series of wars in the 18th century, defeated France in North America and India. | | The European powers after 1500 had national governments with centralized military and navy power, financial resources, religious impulses and military technology. Some of them—Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Netherlands especially, wanted overseas colonies to bolster their economic, religious and political ambitions, and provide an outlet for the energies of ambitious young men. England (later Britain with Scotland after 1703) was the most successful because it resisted the ambitions of Spain and, in a series of wars in the 18th century, defeated France in North America and India. |
| Line 110: |
Line 110: |
| | ==Historic regions== | | ==Historic regions== |
| | ===United States=== | | ===United States=== |
| − | Although American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, in the early 20th century the "Imperial School,", including [[Herbert L. Osgood]], [[George Louis Beer]], [[Charles M. Andrews]] and [[Lawrence Gipson]] took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.<ref>Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1015-1044 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568604 in JSTOR]</ref> For a good sample of the school see George Louis Beer, ''The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754'' (1913) [https://books.google.com/books?id=2KkJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:george+inauthor:beer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online]. | + | Although American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, in the early 20th century the "Imperial School," including [[Herbert L. Osgood]], [[George Louis Beer]], [[Charles M. Andrews]] and [[Lawrence Gipson]] took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.<ref>Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1015-1044 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568604 in JSTOR]</ref> For a good sample of the school see George Louis Beer, ''The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754'' (1913) [https://books.google.com/books?id=2KkJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:george+inauthor:beer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online]. |
| | ===India=== | | ===India=== |
| | A raging debate continues regarding the economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was raised by conservative leader [[Edmund Burke]] who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of [[India]]. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.<ref>Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765-1818," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 508-29</ref> | | A raging debate continues regarding the economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was raised by conservative leader [[Edmund Burke]] who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of [[India]]. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.<ref>Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765-1818," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 508-29</ref> |