Err if you see what happened in France or Russia I would say it was much more competently managed.
Or one could see what happened in the revolutions of 1848 in Europe for example.
The English had blown themselves up in the English civil war in the 1640s and had settled on a relatively stable form of government for Europe by 1688.
Most European elites dug their heels in much harder.
England was more stable but I would point out in 1848 England was creating the worst famine in 19th century Europe out of malice, greed and incompetence.
Again the UK got more of there own citizens killed than any other European power till WW1.
I agree with Ireland being a colony. I only point out that legally Ireland was a part of the UK and were legally citizens of the UK not subjects so.the famine is even more horrific.
Whiles in India you had a layer of distance in Ireland the British had to look MPs in the eye, look at Irish soldiers which were 30% of the army and 40% of the navy, people who I see the law were legal citizens with full rights and say "it's better for me if you starve."
I get what you’re saying but my argument wasn’t that Britains government was morally good but that compared to the continent it was relatively stable.
And more competent as well. In some ways this meant it was also more competent at evil to those it considered out groups. Any technicalities aside the Catholic Irish were never treated as properly belonging to the state.
For the people in the Britain or the Protestants in Ireland though I think it was a better than mainland Europe.
Britain*, not just England. And the ‘greed’ was in regards to the British and Irish landlords, the main factor was unquestionably incompetence/negligence over malice. The vast vast majority of Britain didn’t actively want Irish people to starve. Their donations to Ireland during that time reflects that. I say this as an Irishman.
The people and their voted for constituents that pressured the british conservatives to reform.
and responsible for the empire?
Oligarchs who, instead of acting out of their own competence, had to be pressured to enact democratic reforms to prevent revolution. If we left the oligarchs to their own devices britain would have had an extra revolution atleast.
I guess it was "competent" to practically admit defeat... but I for sure wouldn't put the bulk of that competence in their hands for doing that. They didn't capitulate to noone after all.
That was more private colonizers who after setting up turned back to the wider british empire. Colonization was done more by private individuals then the wider state itself.
35
u/morzikei 5d ago
As limited as suffrage was in 1800s Britain... wasn't it still better than most of the world?