The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions

Did the British Empire commit a heinous sin by slaughtering untold numbers of 'savages' in an earnest attempt to civilize the world?

Definitely.

Did the British Empire commit a heinous sin by seeking to better the standard of living in disease ridden lands plagued by social unrest and poverty?

Of that, I'm not so sure.

I hesitate to cast any judgment because I feel that I am completely outside the context of the situation and will never truly understand what it was to be A) an ambitious British entrepreneur or diplomat B) a citizen of any society targeted by the empirical powers of the time.

However, a logical process may be employed to begin passing judgment (if you're into that kind of thing).

I suppose the biggest question is: 1) Were the good intentions, allegedly the main reason for occupying areas like Australia and Africa, justifiable enough to pursue their ends?

2)If so, what means are acceptable? In hindsight (20/20 as it is), genocide and making a quick buck while we're at it - totally NOT acceptable methods.

3)Is it just and noble to pursue a 'greater good' type of goal, like aiding those 'savages' who need our help by #1, while furthering other goals? That is to say, is it acceptable that hegemony of these philanthropic projects be given to businesses who will also look to increase their profits? (eg West Indies Trading Company, Kurtz's company).

Conclusively, my opinion is that their intentions, while noble, seem to have been lost in the passion of the moment.



In passing, I think the pinnacle of naivete is reached by fighting spin with spin.