Is the British Empire responsible for all of the world's contemporary problems?
Is it all the UK's fault???
There was a book released nearly 20 years ago by an American publisher Steven A. Grasse, citing the British Empire as the cause of the world’s contemporary issues. As the British Empire for more than 150 years (from Napoleon’s defeat to the end of WWII) was the world’s dominant power, it stands to reason it could have caused much strife with this level of power. It also stood as the biggest empire in history in terms of land area. This was attained after it annexed territories formerly held by the Ottoman Empire after WWI, such as current-day Oman, UAE, Israel/Palestine, etc.
Is this claim valid though?
A world power, or superpower, by definition has the capacity to change scenarios via both soft and hard power. So all things from culture, language, social norms/mores, religion, legal/political points, etc. can be influenced in this regard. We see this via Hollywood, fast food, the Internet, etc. from the USA, as all were/are American innovations. In theory then, the claim that the world’s issues are Britain’s fault may seem logical.
I’ll go through what can be deemed the world’s leading matters currently, to see if the British indeed had the hand in causing them:
Global warming/climate change
Few can dispute that the world’s temperature has risen since the Industrial Revolution. The issue is whether humanity is causing this, and whether the changes we’re noting are just one of many natural alterations in the Earth’s climate. The Ice Ages over the past several hundred thousand years were due to shifts in the Earth’s axis, or sun spots, for instance.
Britain started the Industrial Revolution of course. But peoples of the 18th/19th centuries didn’t have the foresight to see how this would affect the environment. But does this mean because Britain pioneered a change in how humanity produces and distributes goods and services, it has some “stain of blood” it needs to correct? The Industrial Revolution has also led to rapid advancements in living standards, communication, transportation, and the dissemination of goods, knowledge, and services that better people’s lives everyday.
So on this point - yes, global warming could be happening due to industrialisation. But few would say we shouldn’t have industrialised or sought to better ourselves. The Industrial Revolution has led to enhanced living standards for all, which cannot evidently be wrong.
Verdict - half-truth
Bigotry
Bigotry has always been an issue in life, and sadly this persists to the current day. Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, etc. are all points that blight present societies.
It’s foolish to say Britain caused bigotry. But the charge here may be contemporary matters of bigotry are due to Britain’s “evil” hand.
Let us take racism. Since the death of George Floyd in the USA in 2020, it’s reminded many of how far the anti-racist message needs to progress.
Floyd was black of course, and descended most likely from slaves. The USA in both colonial and early independence times was a slave country, which evidently ended after the Civil War of 1861-1865. It would have been the British (or English pre-1707) who would have imported slaves to what was to become the United States, hence causing centuries of brutality, and events such as Jim Crow, the emergence of civil rights under Dr. King and Malcolm X, etc.
It is true that in the American context, Britain did establish slavery as a practice and industry there. But Britain didn’t start the slave trade - the Spanish and Portuguese did. Britain did emerge as the leading slave trading country in the 18th century, but it cannot bear sole responsibility for the trade. In terms of total slaves in the entire trans-Atlantic slave trade period, Portugal transported the most from Africa. And its voyages from the time of Prince Henry the Navigator led to centuries of the wicked trade. Britain emerged as the leading trader due to its greater Caribbean holdings, as well as it usurping Spain and Portugal as a leading European power in the 18th century. The growing industrialisation of the country also was a factor - much of this was the formation of large joint-stock companies and factories to process sugar, coffee, cotton, and indigo imports from the Americas. Slavery’s link to the birth of the Industrial Revolution is moot - it may have played a factor though it was one of several in the 18th century.
This argument neglects that Britain was instrumental in ending the slave trade, and slavery overall. It was the first major slave trading country to cease it in 1807, and abolish all slavery in 1838. It used its role as the global hegemon to get other European countries to cease the practice, and by the mid-19th century, slavery had been abolished by most nay all European states.
This argument further neglects that racism isn’t an exclusive issue in English-speaking countries. It’s a major case in Brazil, which was a Portuguese colony, and has the biggest black population in the world outside of Africa. It is a matter of concern in all of South America, as Colombia, Argentina, etc. had slavery as former Spanish colonies. The British cannot be held responsible for something in territories it held no sovereignty over.
To use an analogy - if person A begins a bank-robbing spree, though Person B learns of A’s methods and becomes a bigger bank robber, who is more ethically culpable? Is it person, since s/he robs more banks and steals more money? Or person A since s/he started the process? Does it matter, perhaps? Since both have engaged in the same wrongs? Does the scale matter, if the base act is unethical? Can the UK then be blamed for slavery since at one point they traded the most slaves in a practice they didn’t commence?
Racism also isn’t a white on black matter. It manifests between various different races and peoples. The Yorkshire Country Cricket Club (CCC) case involved white players abusing a Southern Asian man - Azeem Rafiq. Whilst modern Southern Asia - India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh - were British India, southern Asians were not slaves to the degree Africans once where in British colonies. Racism from whites towards southern Asians is just based on the fact the latter are not white and thus not deemed as good - it’s that simple.
To blame the UK for this is ill-advised, as it’s blaming Britain for an unfortunate facet of human nature.
As it stands, Britain is perhaps one of the least bigoted countries in Europe, even as a one time leading slave trader. This isn’t to say it’s some racial paradise. The recent sporting cases of the England EURO 2020 loss racist tweets and the Yorkshire County Cricket Club situation show there are are still societal and systemic points to correct. But the fact it is being examined is key, and there are countries in Europe which are not as proactive in tackling bigotry.
Verdict - harsh billing.
Yes, Britain did transport slaves in a major manner historically. But it did not start the slave trade, and cannot be held accountable for racism in other regions that were not under its sovereignty. To blame Britain for all of contemporary racism, let alone other forms of bigotry, is inane logic to say the least.
Wars
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a prime case cited in this regard.
Yes, Britain has to take the “L” here.
It made false promises to both the Jews and the Arabs, leading evidently to decades of strife, with no clear solution in sight.
However, what other wars or disputes in the current world are the British’s fault?
What about Sudan? Yes, Sudan was once a British colony. But Sudan and South Sudan split due to differing ethnic and religious differences. These have existed for many decades, even centuries, and cannot be blamed solely on colonial rule.
China and Taiwan is still a hot topic. Was the Chinese Civil War Britain’s fault? Should it have helped its former WWII ally Chiang Kai-Shek and stopped Mao Tse-Tung winning?
ISIS was a threat - and yes, it was an effect of the 2003 Iraq War which Britain participated in. OK, so yes, there is culpability here.
But what about the Crimea? Was it Britain’s fault that Putin annexed it? Were the wars in the former Yugoslavia Britain’s fault?
Is drug smuggling in South America, piracy in the Horn of Africa, etc. the UK’s fault? I’d argue that’s more due to longstanding and endemic poverty and cultural matters, which the UK directly didn’t institute.
The COVID pandemic - is this Britain’s fault?
Is the obesity epidemic the UK’s burden? Yes, fish and chips isn’t healthy, and Diageo did own Burger King once, but then that was one of many global fast-food chains out there.
verdict - harsh billing
In summary, then there are some things the UK can take blame for. Though the UK cannot be blamed for most issues, despite its time as once the world’s superpower.
The book mentioned in the opening was part Anglophobia and part flippancy. It was not seriously received at the time, and an examination of the facts show Britain cannot be held accountable for the world’s woes.