[javert]

Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire

Specifically, how they broke things up when they left. In general, wherever they left, things fell apart somewhat. I have talked to several people who believe their country took a turn for the worse when the British left.

[MetaMan]

The standard operating procedure of the British Empire was "divide and conquer". In order to rule a minority was usually put in a privileged position. It should be no surprise to anyone that when the British left things often become a mess as the minority tries to hold onto power and those previously excluded fight to gain power.

[javert]

But I would guarantee you that in every single case, the standard of living of the people improved substantially in the medium and long term under British rule.

[MetaMan]

The standard of living might have improved for the descendants of those that survived but what about those who had to undergo generations of subjugation or slavery or worse? What about those wiped out? In other words at what cost was this long term improvement gained?

Are the Aborigines or US native indians actually better off?

For me the benefits of British rule are very mixed and to argue that the conquered are better off ignores the costs borne in the past. Additionally, we cannot say how things might have been if people had been allowed to develop naturally and trade under normal circumstances.

[gaius]

This was also how the Romans did it, and a thousand years later, everyone agrees that the Roman legacy was a net good. Same is true, and will be said, of the British empire.

[MetaMan]

Our judgement of the Roman / british legacy is subject to "Survivor Bias". If you can't see the cost paid by those who did not survive then things will look much better !