>...
>>>So... let's say Canada has the right to colonize the US for the same reason :).
>>
>><s> No, societies are only colonized by more dynamic cultures. I think we're safe <g>
>
>Interesting that of all the nations/cultures that have achieved empire, America is the only one that hasn't yet ceded it back to the natives. I've not yet seen a US flag going down and being replaced by a Sioux, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Black Feet, Algonquin, Navahoe, Apache, Pince Nez, .... flag or totem.
>
>Not having a pop at you, Charles but, the Opium Trade mayn't have been Britain's finest hour but ... Wounded Knee - Nuff said. I know Dragan is criticising colonists in general, and maybe rightly so, but evrywhere there are "first stones" to be cast.
>
>Just an observation.

Actually, killing the Indians started before 1776 <s> And as I said in the discussion of Rhodesia, Americans can't very well be overly critical about killing native populations to take natural resources.

But re the Opium Wars : it wasn't the most sterling use of British imperial power from a moral point of view, but made a whole lot of sense from the 'sterling' point of view. The Qing were definitely not an enlightened regime with the best interests of its own people at heart but there isn't much doubt the opium trade was about as blatant an exercise of flexing military muscle in pursuit of economic gain as could be imagined. That said, it was, by 19th century standards ( and everything that had come before ) pretty much within the rules of the game and did yield Hong Kong and the opening of the Chinese market through the Unequal Treaties.

I don't think taking Hong Kong was as much of a bad thing as giving it back <s> but in the long run, Hong Kong may be the poison pill for Mao's madness.



>
>>
>>>
>>>>and in most cases were even less responsive to ( or in some case representative of ) the general population than the colonial administrations that co-opted or replaced them. And legacy of law, technology, education and language they left behind gave most former British colonies a decided edge in the post-colonial period.
>>>
>>>That helped them in the situation in which they were pushed by colonization - by borders drawn by foreign forces, by having skipped a couple of centuries when they may have built those institutions themselves, and maybe would not even get into wars with their neighbors. How do we know whether they would need that military edge? I always suspect that wars between former colonies are influenced by former masters in some way.
>>
>>Drawing borders was another weak spot - but only became a weak spot after the colonial period. And where a legacy of an educated upper and middle class and a code of laws survived ( India, the US, Canada ) amazing things were achieved that were a credit to the mother country. I think it is very very very safe to say that without the Raj India would not today be a united and democratic country and you would be getting tech support and customer service calls in a completely different way.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>French, Belgian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and briefly German colonialism seemed to run on a slightly different model - and was certainly less constrained by 'do-gooders' in the home country. Napier in India and King Leopold in the Congo were quite different in both purpose and method. There were some heartbreakers, of course - Burma and Uganda come immediately to mind - but for the most part that was despite rather than because of British colonial influence.
>
>Seems to me the Belgians and the Germans (SW Africa - Namibia) were the worst.
>
>>>
>>>The UK being a less bad colonial master doesn't make it a good one per se. There can't be one, IMO.
>>
>>In a perfect world created from scratch, no. But as a believer in evolution over 'intelligent design' I think history unfolds in a complex and often haphazard fashion. I am encouraged and inspired by the parts that work and seldom surprised by those that don't <bg>