Do you think the Empire was very limited in creating Britain's wealth? Are we really built on the back of colonialism? Let us know your thoughts below!
Didn't Empire create wealth for the elite? Certain figures, many of whom had statues built, acquired wealth equivalent today of hundreds of millions of pounds. Palmer being one. Of course the Colonial Empire and Slavery are not the same. The elite as well, received reparations when Salvery ended. The elite got rich and their descendants benefitted.
There is in fact a proof that what Reem Ibrahim says is true. Germany managed to surpass Britain economically in the 1870s yet it possessed almost no empire. If Britain had attempted to stop other countries trading, then it would have been different.
This is not controversial. This was known when we still had an Empire. This argument was being made in the 1870s. It''s black and white, the numbers don't lie.
Many colonized countries were better off from colonization. They often kept the new economic, educational, and legal systems that were introduced and benefitted from getting connected to a broader system.
The bigger question is the UK's impact on the world lifting much of it out of serious poverty and the ingratitude shown towards the UK for doing that. Lets discuss that shall we.
Very odd... that a people can make a country like the UK wealthy (creating more wealth than it consumes), but those people could not do the same for other possessions in the Empire... What is magic about British and European soil? However if the Europeans could not make ends meet in these foreign places, I guess it is hardy surprising that following independence their natives haven't been able to either.
Well I haven't researched what happened in colonies..... But to give this conclusion that Britain kept it's colonies and fought for the same....even when they were not gaining anything.... This is 😂 to say the least.
I'd be interested in someone questioning them on what they mean by "free trade" as i think they might just be hiding the benefits from colonialism within it. For example, are they arguing that trade in sugar from the Caribbean or spices from the east werent affected by slavery or colonialism? That the forceful capture and movement of people to plantations, which clearly made the owners of the plantations very wealthy, had no impact on cost or availablity of goods? That seems farfetched. Would Ireland still trade cheap food with britain during a famine?
How did India help Britain to produce glass manufacturing industries, advanced metallurgy, coal mining, textiles, food processing, agriculture, fisheries, quarrying, chemicals, oil exploration? I could go on.
@@TYRELLSTERN colonialism played a crucial role in the onset of industrialisation. The colonies provided the raw materials, markets, capital, and labour that were essential for the growth of industries. Without colonialism, the pace and scale of industrialisation would have been significantly slower.
Do you think the Empire was very limited in creating Britain's wealth? Are we really built on the back of colonialism? Let us know your thoughts below!
Didn't Empire create wealth for the elite? Certain figures, many of whom had statues built, acquired wealth equivalent today of hundreds of millions of pounds. Palmer being one. Of course the Colonial Empire and Slavery are not the same.
The elite as well, received reparations when Salvery ended.
The elite got rich and their descendants benefitted.
There is in fact a proof that what Reem Ibrahim says is true. Germany managed to surpass Britain economically in the 1870s yet it possessed almost no empire. If Britain had attempted to stop other countries trading, then it would have been different.
Was this guy specifically chosen to make his female opponent seem like Einstein?
He was clueless and hopelessly unprepared.
This is not controversial. This was known when we still had an Empire. This argument was being made in the 1870s. It''s black and white, the numbers don't lie.
Ken Haynes is thick, but thinks he is intelligent.
Well done! The black guy was hopeless and a good example of the incoherent narrative that needs to be pushed back on
Many colonized countries were better off from colonization. They often kept the new economic, educational, and legal systems that were introduced and benefitted from getting connected to a broader system.
Like what country for example? And how do you know what their situation would have been without being colonised?
Unfortunately someone in this debate was well out of their depth and desperately lacking in facts
Which is probably why GB news invited him on.
@@matthewdsouza8891What made you think it was the man?
The bigger question is the UK's impact on the world lifting much of it out of serious poverty and the ingratitude shown towards the UK for doing that. Lets discuss that shall we.
it was 100 of years' before I was born I DO NOT CARE
u will care soon. There is something called Karma. J!hadis r doing what u did to others. Wait and watch
If slavery didn't make England rich, then why can't they pay reparations.
if you don't owe me money, then why can't you give me money
Didn't make me rich.
Very odd... that a people can make a country like the UK wealthy (creating more wealth than it consumes), but those people could not do the same for other possessions in the Empire... What is magic about British and European soil?
However if the Europeans could not make ends meet in these foreign places, I guess it is hardy surprising that following independence their natives haven't been able to either.
Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore...
Why u delete my comments? u dont have guts to face truth.
Just look into Tate & Lyle. For example.
They are talking about net gain not no gain.
Well I haven't researched what happened in colonies..... But to give this conclusion that Britain kept it's colonies and fought for the same....even when they were not gaining anything.... This is 😂 to say the least.
I'd be interested in someone questioning them on what they mean by "free trade" as i think they might just be hiding the benefits from colonialism within it. For example, are they arguing that trade in sugar from the Caribbean or spices from the east werent affected by slavery or colonialism? That the forceful capture and movement of people to plantations, which clearly made the owners of the plantations very wealthy, had no impact on cost or availablity of goods? That seems farfetched. Would Ireland still trade cheap food with britain during a famine?
How did 50 Trillion go missing from modern day Pakistan/India/Bangladesh etc 😂😂😂 🇵🇰 🇵🇰 🇵🇰 ❤❤❤
No!
If west african slaves were so amazing at making wealth west africa should be the richest place on earth.
It was richest place before ur ancestors showed up and looted and made them sl@ave.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😊😅😅😅😅😅😅
Britains wealth is 90% because of the British raj (India).
How did India help Britain to produce glass manufacturing industries, advanced metallurgy, coal mining, textiles, food processing, agriculture, fisheries, quarrying, chemicals, oil exploration? I could go on.
No it's because of the industrial revolution
@@28pbtkh23 talking about textiles - most of the cotton was shipped from India .
@@nilavabiswas7846 bought from India
@@TYRELLSTERN colonialism played a crucial role in the onset of industrialisation. The colonies provided the raw materials, markets, capital, and labour that were essential for the growth of industries. Without colonialism, the pace and scale of industrialisation would have been significantly slower.
Wtf 😂 defending colonialism 😂 don’t complaint about Israel, China and Russia then
Colonalising
I love how they got a slow black man to argue the other point.😂