Likewise there is also evidence to support Rhodes view that the British Empire had beneficial effects on the colonies. The empire revolutionized the judicial system for example in India the notorious gangs were opposed strongly by British rule, and were almost completely wiped out. The empire also abolished savage rituals and traditions that would have been frowned upon by the modern world, such as binding feet & infanticide ( in china ) in India the practice of suttee when a wives threw themselves on their husbands funeral pyre to die with them; Ended the salve trade in western Africa. The empire also helped advance the countries they conquered, by improving the transport facilities; this made the lives of the native people of those countries much easier. Social improvement were also made, the empire built schools, hospitals banks. The colonies also learnt from the British Empire, they used what they learnt to further change and advance their countries customs in views, on laws such as freedom and so on.
However, Cecil Rhode gave this interpretation that the British Empire had positive effects on both sides because during the 19 centaury the empire was stressing that benefits of the empire help both Britain and the colonies, Cecil Rhode was benefiting from the empire therefore creating his interpretation that the empire was beneficial to all. Cecil Rhode was an English businessmen that wanted to see the empire grow as it would bring in him fortune, due to the empire Cecil Rhode business in diamond mining became increasingly successful, so successful that the empire named a country after him, Rhodesia ( Zimbabwe) . Cecil Rhode was a dedicated believer of colonialism and imperialism, he was keen to make other believers too, Cecil Rhode believed that the English race was the first and best race there was. Therefore Cecil Rhode interpretation is unreliable as he is clearly basis as not only was he a strong believer of colonialism and imperialism, he also gained multiple benefits from having his view. This interpretation on the empire is highly unreliable as one the views are basis and two it hasn’t stated the benefits for other, Cecil Rhode merely believes that because he is gaining benefits that others are too.
By contrast hill and Gotts gave negative interpretation of the British Empire. Cp hill believed that the British Empire was only favorable to the only British ruling class. Likewise Richard gotts had a very similar interpretation too but he also believed that Britain suffered due to the empire. There are numerous of reasons why these interpretations have emerged. Both cp hill and Richard gotts were historians so it was their job’s to re-examine past historical events to create an accurate recall of event that took place in the past. Cp hill had reached his interpretation that the British Empire was only beneficial for the British, as post war historians started to re-examine history writing since the collapses of the empire. It would have seemed that the British Empire misrepresented past events. Cp hill was a historian that wanted to find out the truth about the British Empire. He wrote a book that stated, that profits from the investments in the British Empire to a small amount of British workers, but the resent rise in revenue was due to the cheap native labor from the colonies. Cp hill wanted people to understand that only rich and powerful Englishmen /women benefited from the Empire. Cp hill interpretation is more valued then that of Cecil Rhode’s as cp hill is a historian which means his interpretation is non basis and clearly explained and back up with evidence.
Richard Gotts had reached his interpretation that the British Empire was not only negative towards the colonies but to the British as well. Richard Gotts had reached this interpretation, as modern historians in wanting to find out the truth once again decided to re-examine the history of the empire, it would seem that evidence linked to racism and forced labor were left out from record. It would seem that the British Empire was built on the same principals as that of Hitler and the Nazis, with such view such as dictatorship. Richard Gotts sees it unfair that it was wrong to mantle the British Empire but there was nothing wrong with stopping Hitler. As both groups created communities that have rules that were unfair to certain groups or races of people.
There is a lot of evidence to support the view that the British Empire had negative impacts on the colonies for example the empire was a major contributor to the slave trade. Mistreating black Africans and effectively wiped out a whole generation of men and women. In addition to that the empire also fought a number of wars and made some very bad decisions for instance in India when many were killed whilst partaking in a holy festival without even a chance to explain they were killed. The empire also taxed the colonies heavily decrease there income and their countries GDP rates.
There is a lot of evidence to support the view that the British Empire had negative effects on Britain for example because the empire wasn’t ruling the colonies as they would have this caused Britain problems as the colonies started to dislike Britain this would have made Britain look bad. Because Britain was creating and introducing new machinery to the colonies, it meant that opposing countries like Germany and U.S.A could have advanced there warships and weaponry to take down the empire.
In conclusion we have three different interpretations on the British Empire Cecil Rhodes said that the empire was beneficial to all, cp hill said that it was only beneficial for Britain and Richard Gotts said it had negative impacts on both sides. Three completely different views on the same subject, there view have been altered in relation to the time period there from different interpretations on the same issue as people from different eras having different ways of expressing there views. For example Cecil Rhodes could have thought different about the empire but was scared and ashamed to be different and stand out from the crowd, as people would have judged him form his action, whilst cp hill and Richard got wouldn’t have had such problems. I think that cp hill interpretation on the empire is the most convincing as he is clearly non basis unlike that of Cecil Rhodes he published a book meaning he is an expert and has a clear understanding and insight on the matter. Although Richard Gotts was also non basis I feel that he being a bit unprofessional as he exaggerated the event he compared Hitler to the British Empire although it is arguable that they were similar Hitler was much worst as he almost wiped out an entire race , whilst in contrast the British empire killed one generation of people. I do not agree with Cecil Rhodes view on the empire at all, I side with the interpretations of cp hill that the empire was only beneficial to Britain.
Here's what a teacher thought of this essay
This is a thorough response which demonstrates strong understanding of the historiography and engages well with it. Good use has been made of examples, although it would have been beneficial to include these in the conclusion. 5 out of 5 stars.