[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well, yes and no.

Unequivocally, we now see it as wrong. We believe in a rules-based world order which respects the right of nations to self determination; we promote economic and social development through trade and cultural exchange.

However, it is problematic to go too far down the road of applying modern understanding of the world on history. Our modern understanding can explain the reasons why things have changed but it doesn't necessarily help us understand the motives of the people who lived at the time. TheDaddy, for example, makes a perfectly valid point when he suggests the British empire might have been better than the alternatives. if you live in a 19th century Europe in which it is accepted, without question, that it is the duty of the white man to civilise the black man, or a 19th century Africa in which you are powerless to challenge that view or to resist it, the reality is that colonisation is going to happen, and thus it's a legitimate line of historical inquiry to ask whether one nation's colonial habits are better than another's.

None of this means we can't be critical, however it does us no good at all to pretend these circumstances didn't exist. To fail to understand history is to risk repeating it.

Agreed but surely you can see the danger in starting to mitigate the colonising process. You run the risk of ending up with the position that we were the better choice of oppressor because we were "nicer". Of course there were countries who were worse than us in certain parts of the world. Belgium's record, for example, in the Congo was atrocious. Understanding of history should focus on what was wrong so we can prevent it repeating. It should not focus on who was the better invader.