Which country/culture in history has had the most influential/powerful empire?

[marquis2]

In reality, is the British system of using the Indians and Chinese as "economic slaves" in South America and the Carribean colonies better than the slaves from west Africa in the America ?

True, it is better and the difference is British has a way "how to manage people" without using excessive forces than the Southerners in America to use slave-hunters to hunt slaves in west Africa.


British "encouraged" poor Indians to migrate to Africa, to Guyana, to Jamaica to the rest of British Commonwealth to do "slavery work". But most are allowed to bring their families and most of the Asian Indians do settled down and couple hundred years later, those Indian descendents become Prime Ministers (but in rare occasions do clashed with the local black natives in the Pacific Islands British colonies).

It is that "special touch" the British can do when dealing with slavery issues.

However, the American back in 1800's did not have the "pool" of Asian workers in India or Southern China to draw from and the territories were controlled by the British Empire. So the Southerners had to get the slaves from the western Africa.

With this as the background, I do not faultered the American back in the 1800's using slavery to do the cotton work.

The American are still using the Chinese to do most of the work and paid them less than 10 cents an hours back in the early 1982 !

So it is still "economic slaves" but the Chinese are willing and capable of making shoes, clothings and now become the "world factories" for the developed world.

I was meaning that slavery was never around in Britain itself.The colonies were a different matter.
Regarding slavery , apparently it was a lucrative business for the Africans themselves.Slavers placed an order with a local chief (many of whom lived in fine houses in London!) and simply collected them later.The Africans found it a useful way to get rid of their criminals and people from other tribes and of course it paid well.

 

[Member2019]

Imperial v. Domestic ...

I was meaning that slavery was never around in Britain itself.The colonies were a different matter.

So what you're saying is Imperial Slavery was "better" than Domestic? :dunno: It's more like, "I'm not bothered by what I cannot see."

 

[Gordar]

Marching sandals trudging through large tracts of land because men are following a leader even though they have a wife and children at home do not greatness make.

It simply means that the men were promised rape, pillaging, killing and slaughter for payment. A role that suits even so called 'modern' man perfectly. One just needs to spend five minutes on a forum to see how much a bombardment of violence is embraced and how much hatred is regarded as entertainment.

The only thing that stops men from degenerating into a pack of rabid wolves is common law.

This law is inherited from Rome, which adapted some of it from Greece. The Roman nobility did hire Greeks after all to educate their brats.

These same Romans enforced their rule wherever they conquered. The period after the fall of Rome is not called the 'Dark Ages' for nothing.

In fact, as I recall, Britons were running around naked, painted blue when the Italians arrived to enslave them.

As for the States. Well, I have only been back a year and a half, but I already can see a strong German influence here. Lets see, hmmm, the use of streetcars. Americans very polite, punctual to a fault, orderly, not the most humorous bunch I have ever met, neatly laid out streets, good city design, most everything running like clockwork.

The only thing missing here is the Opel motorcar. Pity about that. The Saturn is not a very good copy imo.

Sure America has spread McDonalds. South Africa used to be called the country of sunnyskies, braaivleis and Chevrolet. (Check what happens when you type sunny skies).

However, it it the law that influences every decision we make.

For that we can thank the Romans. Unless of course you is a gangsta.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but written law is an invention of Hammurabi, a Babylonian king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi

Having said that, I think we owe something very important to Egypt & the Mesopotamian civilizations... Civilization itself, agriculture, law, the first alphabets, organised military, trade, organised religion, etc.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

So what you're saying is Imperial Slavery was "better" than Domestic? :dunno: It's more like, "I'm not bothered by what I cannot see."

It may have been better for the people transferred from Africa to North America, I can't say the same thing for those born in America. Seeing that these folks were predominantly taken from defeated and low-caste tribes and villages, their quality of life is probably better in Southern U.S. colonies than in Africa.

 

[wingman00]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

So what you're saying is Imperial Slavery was "better" than Domestic? :dunno: It's more like, "I'm not bothered by what I cannot see."

Note that at the time the 13 colonies broke away from Britain, Britain turned its back on slavery, while slavery in America lasted for almos a century more.

 

[JayJohn85]

Historically Greek and Roman empires not at same time naturally. Greeks pratically invented a ton of philosophical ideals and I aint so sure but likely toyed around with the whole democracy ideal. Romans invented roads and further expanded on policies relevant in creating a major civilization. Currency and what not.

Most influential in 20th century is the United States and I aint even pro american or anti before someone flips lol. (hey got my right many nations in the west could claim a certain level of cultural impoverishment due to American ideals being bombarded onto the west during the cold war etc....From television, franchises and many other things...I aint really complaining though) I would have included the british empire only that in my opinion there only contribution was a common language and alot of messes for itself causing headaches to this day.

China though will likely come to the forefront in the 21st century if the United States allow it to happen. By that I dont mean force but by will, technological advances and economical advances. Hopefully this wont be a case but rather a case of healthy competition and a good counter balance because dominance by one nation is not healthy in my opinion.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

Note that at the time the 13 colonies broke away from Britain, Britain turned its back on slavery, while slavery in America lasted for almos a century more.

They didn't need slavery in the UK because they treated their own people and the Irish worse than slaves. A slave gets fed at the end of the day too.

 

[JayJohn85]

Well thats if you dont take into account the famine. Nope good old wait and see approach which I wish I remember the exact french name for the policy. Kinda weird that it had a french name maybe a insult perhaps? But yea that policy is another good reason you cant exactly depict them as influential didnt do very much really lol.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

Note that at the time the 13 colonies broke away from Britain, Britain turned its back on slavery, while slavery in America lasted for almos a century more.

Again, as someone pointed out, you're ignoring some other aspects of the British Empire. Granted, it wasn't as bad as the French Empire (let alone the French re-assertion post-WWII), but still, it's playing on words while ignoring what was going on in various colonies.

 

[sproing99]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

They didn't need slavery in the UK because they treated their own people and the Irish worse than slaves. A slave gets fed at the end of the day too.

Bollocks and double bollocks, show some evidence for English lower classes being treated any worse than the lower classes of any contemporary country.

 

[marquis2]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

Bollocks and double bollocks, show some evidence for English lower classes being treated any worse than the lower classes of any contemporary country.

Agreed. We can't judge past eras with present day attitudes.The 18th century was not the age of the common man anywhere.Technology had not yet reached the point where there could be plenty for everybody.Life was hard and often short.
The British had struggled for freedom over a long time-Magna Carta limited the powers of the King in 1215 and we had the Bill of Rights in 1689 which among other things guaranteed no punishment without conviction.The concept of Habeas Corpus was long present.
It was possible though in Britain to move through society (Nelson's mistress Lady Hamilton was once a prostitute and many prominent people were self made) whereas in other countries the social structure was rigid.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

Agreed. We can't judge past eras with present day attitudes.The 18th century was not the age of the common man anywhere.Technology had not yet reached the point where there could be plenty for everybody.Life was hard and often short.
The British had struggled for freedom over a long time-Magna Carta limited the powers of the King in 1215 and we had the Bill of Rights in 1689 which among other things guaranteed no punishment without conviction.The concept of Habeas Corpus was long present.
It was possible though in Britain to move through society (Nelson's mistress Lady Hamilton was once a prostitute and many prominent people were self made) whereas in other countries the social structure was rigid.

I'll agree here. The US considers the Magna Carta to be an important, historical document in its own history as well.

The US Bill of Rights would later address various issues under British rule the states did not want the new, federal US government to ever repeat. We argue about those today, with far too many Americans not realizing (or just ignoring) how the Bill of Rights came about. They were not written by legislators in Philadelphia -- or more to the point -- were written by the people because most of the nation refused to sign what those legislators came up with in Philadelphia.

Which brings me back to my prior point, which someone else originally stated. The UK did have an "unleveled" application of various "rights" for those non-citizens of their colonies at times, compared to British citizens.

I think people forget that the late 19th century and even early 20th century saw a renewed focus by all, major European powers to re-exert their alleged "natural born rights to rule the world" on various people. As I always say, if the 2003 war in Iraq is the "10th Crusade," what do you call these "new expeditions" and imperial actions taken in the middle east (among elsewhere) just a century earlier? They don't count?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

Bollocks and double bollocks, show some evidence for English lower classes being treated any worse than the lower classes of any contemporary country.

The enclosure of the commons?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

Bollocks and double bollocks, show some evidence for English lower classes being treated any worse than the lower classes of any contemporary country.

I would also venture to guess that the German lower classes, even benighted by war, had more control over their day to day lives than the English lower classes of the time period. Swiss, check. Perhaps the Scandinavian areas not under control of the Russians too. What about the Dutch?

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Re: Imperial v. Domestic ...

Agreed. We can't judge past eras with present day attitudes.The 18th century was not the age of the common man anywhere.Technology had not yet reached the point where there could be plenty for everybody.Life was hard and often short.
The British had struggled for freedom over a long time-Magna Carta limited the powers of the King in 1215 and we had the Bill of Rights in 1689 which among other things guaranteed no punishment without conviction.The concept of Habeas Corpus was long present.
It was possible though in Britain to move through society (Nelson's mistress Lady Hamilton was once a prostitute and many prominent people were self made) whereas in other countries the social structure was rigid.

I had a real point in saying that they didn't need slaves... They really didn't because the supply of labor was cheap and at hand. It would have made no sense to employ captive Africans in Europe (who come at a steep up front cost) when you can literally force a peasant to work for you, work them to death even, and the next one will be there waiting when he's gone.

To recoup his upfront expenses, the American slave owner had to provide for decent shelter, basic nourishment and protection from outside attacks in order to protect his investment. On top of that, because the slaveowner was often without a very large military force to protect him in the case of a revolt, he couldn't treat them to the same deprivations as a serf or low class person in Europe. In the very far South you'd have places where people were "worked to death" but that was the rare exception and not the norm.