The changes in britains empire from 1750 to 1900 Essay Example for Free

The assortments in britains conglomerate from 1750 to 1900 EssayAnd were they all last(predicate) for the better?There were many changes during 1750 to 1900, the majority of which were industrial and economic and not always for the better of hence or the better of now.In this essay I will list devil changes that I thought significant then I will list the proscribe before long bourne set up, the negative long status force plays, the positive succinct marches effects and the positive long term effects. At the end of each change I will decide whether it was an overall positive or negative change. My prototypical change will be the development of factories as it led to nearly every(prenominal) other significant change from 1750 to 1900, and the cause of this wear outicular change was one Richard Arkwright who is thought to necessitate started the first proper manufacturing plant the Cromford mill in 1771 (ref 1)As previous factories had only been gatherings of work ers (this had largely been for the textiles diligence), and Arkwrights factory was built specifically for housing machinery, as the spinning frame was too large and fast for human hands, Arkwright did first of all try having it powered by horses exactly then he thought about using piss and so invented the water frame, and with it the first factory.Now even though Arkwright upheld a few rules of decency, his successors did not. The future factory owners exploited workers shamelessly while Arkwright would give housing for all the family, a weeks holiday a course of study and would not allow any one under 6 to work in his factories.This is one of the short(p) term negative impacts of the development of factories as it led to the exploitation of workers. Another short term negative effect is that coal was needed to power the new machines which first led to worse conditions in the mines and randomness added largely to global warming, which is also a long term negative consequence. Another long term negative outcome is that it gave some of the workers long term genetic diseases that project been passed from then to now and til now affect some people with respiratory diseases.A long term positive resultant role though is that it brought industry to maximum progress and allowed us to live in the leisure we do to day and other long term advantage is that they brought families in from the native country to live together and that developed the process of various host cities. This is a negative short term effect as the living conditions of the migrants were appalling, but that wasnt directly because of the migrants, if the cities had made better arrangements for their migrant workers, the living conditions would have been a great deal better, so that might not count as a short term negative.One of the positive short term effects is also the migration of people to cities as it established social relationships and made the country stronger and another positive s hort term effect were the skills of trade people learned in the various factories.In conclusion, from my point of view, this change was for the better, but this is my opinion and it could well be different if I was one of the factory workers who probably would have thought this was the way people were going to live for the roost of time. So this change was better for us as of now but not better for them as of then. everywhereall it was a good change.My piece topic is on the colonisation of various countries by Britain. The first proper British colony was Ireland in the Norman period (ref 2) but that goes before 1750 so Ill focus on the 18th deoxycytidine monophosphate colonies of Britain.The 18th century for Britain was full of change as America had just officially declared their license on July the second, 1776 after the American Revolution (1763-1776), and so the British Empire turned its attention to the East, India, chinaware and after Africa. It also helped that in India the Mughal power was declining, as Britain was no match in that region against the antecedently mighty Mughal Empire (ref 3) The conglomerate had granted trading rights to Britain in the 16th century.This brought most of the East under British rule and gave Britain access toIndias spices and textile industry from which it profited handsomely, until the accession of William of Orange in 1689 bringing tranquility amidst the Netherlands and England.A deal between the two nations left the spice trade of the Indonesian Archipelago to the Netherlands and the textiles industry of India to England, but textiles soon overtook spices in terms of profitability, and by seventeen twenty, in terms of sales, the English family had over chairn the Dutch (ref 4).The English East India Company shifted its focus from Surat-a hub of the spice trade network-to Fort St George (later to become Madras), Bombay (ceded by the Portuguese to Charles II of England in 1661 as dowry for Catherine de Braganza) and Sutanuti (which would merge with two other villages to form Calcutta).This was a big change for the instauration as it imparted Britains mark on more than a quarter of the instauration (it was said that in the peak of its power the sun was always shining on the British empire, as the spread of the British colonies was so vast that it circled the entire globe) and it left many benefits as well as manydrawbacks. Here are a few one of the short term consequences were the amount of lives lost in obtaining colonies and more often than not, colonies were obtained by war and an obvious direct consequence of that is loss of lives, as part and parcel of a armed conflict when countries were taken over the native civilians were treated as dishonor species and second class citizens. Britain started throwing people out of their own homes and taking over them and giving them to British aristocrats as slaves.This was all done because the natives were of a different skin colour and being do minated. These are two short term negative outcomes and also a long term negative affect as this was racial discrimination and it became almost fashionable to be racist at that time. A long term negative effect would be that when as aftermaths of world war two (which in itself was a result of Britains large empire as Germany wanted to compete with Britain to be a large empire itself and so tried to take over Europe) Britain was left virtually bankrupt, with insolvency only averted in 1946 after thenegotiation of a $3.5 billion loanword from the United States,(ref 5), the last installment of which was repaid in 2006,(ref 6) and so had to withdraw from its various colonies and many countries fell into upheaval and without Britain to administer order the turmoil led to pillaging and many previously famous and rich countries ca-ca rock bottom like Sierra Leone.Also some countries for a short time suffered natural changes and deaths like the separation of India into India, Pakistan, Bhutan and Nepal (later these split up into Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) but during that change there erupted massive religious battles between Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus as the country was being split. These were two long term negatives impacts. Two long term positives outcomes would be that it established English as a common language between most of the world and brought the world together while it was breaking geographical boundaries so there was less friction between cultures for the later years of human history in 20th century.A short term positive result would be that England brought the rest of the world up to speed with technology and armed them with powerful faster guns and showed the rest of the world the steam train and suddenly people could travel everywhere a lot faster. Over all I think that the colonisations of other countries was excellent move and the turmoil countries were left in afterwards was not Britains fault as Germany made the first move and they had to be subdued , the war was unavoidable and for every progress there has to be a little sacrifice also the racism was one deleterious factor against many good ones so I think it was worth it.In conclusion from then two changes Ive chosen it seems the changes were for the better but for now rather than then. It seems that changes are balanced out they have sacrifices first but in the end it pays of and if I think of the other changes that Ive not mentioned it seems to be the same case. I think this is my view because Im reaping the benefits of what people worked hard to sow long ago, and the drawbacks that seem too much could not have been helped as they were unpredictable factors. But I might not have been so bearing if Id have lived then myself. Its all down to what situation you live inSo over all yes I believe that the changes were for the better.bibliographywikipedia factories history western world .para twoNicholas, Canny (1998). The Origins of Empire, the Oxford taradiddle of the British Empire. Oxford University Press, pg 7Anthony, Pagden (1998). The Origins of Empire, the Oxford History of the British Empire. Oxford University Press, pg 93.Niall, Ferguson (2004). Empire. Penguin, pg 19Louis, Roger (1999). The Oxford History of the British Empire, Vol. IV, the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press, pg 331BBC NEWS UK Magazine whats a little debt between friends?