You might say screw china, but since they have around 1.5 BILLION people, that's a lot of cultural bias to ignore. And the ME has its problems in no small part to how Britain decided to divide it up. Same with Africa, though it's not just the British who fucked that up. And you kinda ignored all of Europe.
Relations between the British and the Native Americans were less good. Most of the land east of the great lakes was taken from the local peoples by about 1830. By 1870 they had lost most of the open prairies of the Midwestern USA and Canada. However, Native Americans generally preferred British rule to rule by the USA or by the settlers in British North America. Throughout the 19th century there was a steady stream of native Americans out of the USA and into British North America. The Native Americans even fought on the British side against the settlers in Canada when they rebelled against British rule in 1837. Native Americans also developed new skills and played important roles in the economic development of Canada. They had a franchise from the British government to run certain types of trade on the mighty Saint Lawrence River. They developed a special skill in rigging the high masts and moorings for the bridges that crossed the Saint Lawrence. They helped to develop the growing tourist trade in the later 1800s. All of this, however, could not disguise the fact that many had lost their traditional lands and way of life. Native Americans were probably treated better under British rule than in the USA or by the settlers after the British left Canada. This is not the same thing as saying that they were treated fairly and equally by the British.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/empire/g2/cs5/background.htm
That's a good point but I"m not talking about those. I'm talking about the British relationship with Native Americans. You're analogy would probably have been better if you had used those as an example and not Native Americans cause British relations with Native Americans is hardly something the British can be proud of. It was manipulative, exploitative, disengenous and mostly dishonest. It always seemed, no matter how well intentioned the Brits were in their dealings with the Native Americans, the Native Americans got the shit end of the stick. Often Native Americans suffered tragic consequences at the hands of the Americans due to British manipulation. This was particularly true during the period of the 7 years war (AKA, French and Indian War), the American Revolution and the War of 1812. In fact it was a direct result of the British provoking the Iroquois to make war with the Americans during the revolutionary war that resulted in George Washington implementing (and therefore establishing a long standing policy) of genocide against the Native Americans. Not exactly something the Brits should be proud of or, obviously, us Americans. As I said, it was a poor analogy.
I'd say France and Greece have contributed just as much to the western political philosophy as England.
A slight disconnect, yes.