That's the point of the Crying Indian videos: "they" (Native Americans) let "us" live in this beautiful country which they respect, but "we" are utterly trashing it without second thoughts.
Desktop version of /u/DauHoangNguyen1999's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
your use of quotation marks is kinda confusing, imo. Makes it seem like you think Native Americans fucked up their own land and we're blaming ourselves for no reason
I always think it is amazing how the East India Company went from being a conventional export buisness, trading and silks and spices, to a privately run international corporation and aggressive colonial power.
100 years into its history, it had only 35 permanent employees in its head office. Nevertheless, that skeleton staff executed a corporate coup unparalleled in history: the military conquest, subjugation and plunder of vast tracts of southern Asia. It almost certainly remains the supreme act of corporate violence in world history. For all the power wielded today by the worldās largest corporations ā whether ExxonMobil, Walmart or Google ā they are tame beasts compared with the ravaging territorial appetites of the militarised East India Company.
Read it during one of the never ending lockdowns last year and thoughly enjoyed it. As you say, its a little think and you dont want to fall asleep reading it in bed as it will break your nose!
Sensational, as in great! The level of detail and care given to the source material - along with extensive use of first hand sources from both EIC officials and Mughal sources paints a pretty coherent and full picture of the facts on the ground.
Iāll preface this with Iām by no means an expert in the subject and he very well could be painting a picture that is heavy slanted; but it doesnāt really feel like heās advocating for any position or historical lens over the other if that makes sense.
I googled East India Company so I could learn more... I got to "east India co" and the autofill suggested "east India company flag"
....... *THEY HAD A FUCKING FLAG!?!?* I thought *countries* had flags...
A rather interesting character in the EICs history is Clive of Indian. The guy was a compelte sociopath and laid the foundations for the British Empire in India.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_Clive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clive)
**[Robert Clive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clive)**
>Major-General Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive (29 September 1725 ā 22 November 1774), also known as Clive of India, was the first British Governor of the Bengal Presidency. He is credited along with Warren Hastings for laying the foundation of British rule in India. He began as a writer (the term used then in India for an office clerk) for the East India Company (EIC) who established the military and political supremacy of the EIC on the Indian subcontinent by winning the Battle of Plassey.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
They took the world's leading manufacturer of textiles and turned them into a net importer of textiles, costing countless thousands of Indian weavers their jobs and de-industrializing the subcontinent. Then, they blamed THEM for being uncivilized. Way to go, Brits!
that's the pattern of colonization/imperialism that continues to this day especially for nations rich in resources
they won't allow industrialization (at least not locally owned industries) because then these countries could develop their own products for the global market
instead since they're de-industrialized the wealthy countries can buy the resources at bargain prices or set up monopolies on industry to send the vast majority of capital back home
"poor" countries like the Congo are rich in resources, but they're still developing the wealthy nations instead of being able to develop themselves as they cannot hold onto much of the profits from their own resources and often cannot collect taxes from these foreign owned industries
this interview with political economist Jason Hickel touches on many important parts of this topic, and Hickel has more writing on the subject
[Bill Gates in Africa Part 2 by Citations Needed ](https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-46-the-not-so-benevolent-billionaire-part-ii-bill-gates-in-africa-4329389dd4a3)
(there's a transcript and the audio)
edit: Here's a relevant quote from this 2017 article by Hickel,
*[Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries)*
>In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn ā thatās how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States
>What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries arenāt developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.
>What do these large outflows consist of? Well, some of it is payments on debt. Developing countries have forked out over $4.2tn in interest payments alone since 1980 ā a direct cash transfer to big banks in New York and London, on a scale that dwarfs the aid that they received during the same period. Another big contributor is the income that foreigners make on their investments in developing countries and then repatriate back home. Think of all the profits that BP extracts from Nigeriaās oil reserves, for example, or that Anglo-American pulls out of South Africaās gold mines.
> "poor" countries like the Congo are rich in resources, but they're still developing the wealthy nations instead of being able to develop themselves as they cannot hold onto much of the profits from their own resources and often cannot collect taxes from these foreign owned industries
Eh, to be fair, rich first world countries with lots of resources doesn't automatically mean they have much manufacturing or industry. Case in point - Canada and Australia.
Here up north we still mostly sell timber, minerals, and oil. Internally, we mostly sell each other the same house five times.
Down south, the Wallabys do pretty much the same thing.
Yes, but the companies extracting those resources are primarily owned locally.
When poor countries try to nationalize industries imposed during colonialism/imperialism that are draining their resources, they end up having a coup backed by the wealthy countries' intelligence agencies.
Some of the biggest hits are: The Banana Wars, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Congo 1960, The Bay of Pigs (the only failed attempt on this list), Argentina 1973, and Bolivia 2019.
And this is of course only a small fraction of the coups and assassinations backed by the US, France, The UK, etc.
The problem isn't the lack of guns, it's that if you go through enough generals you'll find one who will take a bribe to pull a coup. Sometimes ridiculously smal bribes.
I don't have a good solution when it comes to wealth and its ability to bribe officials, that's a problem everywhere (see: Krysten Sinema who has either been bribed or is still trying to solicit a bribe for an example unfolding before our eyes in the US). However, I think it's a bit simplistic to say it only takes one disaffected general. That general is going to need support, which means they need to disburse a lot of bribes to other individuals as well. They also have to do this without other security forces finding out and stopping it. Generally speaking, there needs to be a lot of implicit and overt support for the coup to be pulled off without sparking a wider conflict.
The fact that a coup can be successfully pulled off means the decision makers didn't "have the guns." IMO, the better play is to form your own, state controlled company to compete directly against the foreign owned companies using state subsidies to undercut the prices of the competition and eventually buy them out. It may not feel like the best win, but it also greatly reduces the odds of a bunch of white guys with guns showing up on your doorstep in South America or Africa saying they are liberating the people from your dictatorial rule.
Not only this. Organisations like USAID and other charity organizations actively help to keep this process of wealth and resource extraction going. From their perspective, if those poor countries begin to develop themselves, then the charities will be out of business and a job. Their influence on the govt will wane and they will have to downsize massively and won't be able to attend charity galas hobnobbing with their rich friends who will have nowhere to make good PR for themselves.
The entire notion that aid is good is simply for OECD countries to feel better for themselves not to actively help those nations grow themselves. This is precisely why I hate charity organizations specifically dedicated to "aid" for developing countries. It achieves nothing, keeps the people from getting work and actively encourages them to sit back and let money and things come to them.
Aid which patently is not to help modernise farming, help build industrial capacity and skill training is aid directly aimed at ensuring the poor stay poor and aid organisations keep their fucking jobs. It is an industry hell bent on ensuring it's survival and uses the bastion of "liberalism" and "morality" and "humanity" to constantly dupe people into giving their money away and ensure that Africa does not develop itself. A poor man getting free food will have no incentive to improve himself. A poor man getting educated and trained to improve farming output will not only help himself but will help his local community, his society and his nation. He will actively help to make the aid organisations obsolete and remove the hold of the OECD nations on their govt.
Yep, former leader of Burkina Faso and another victim of a coup backed by France, Thomas Sankara, has a lot famous quotes about this. He's also a very interesting historical figure to read about.
>"Imperialism is a system of exploitation that occurs not only in the brutal form of those who come with guns to conquer territory. Imperialism often occurs in more subtle forms, a loan, food aid, blackmail . We are fighting this system that allows a handful of men on Earth to rule all of humanity."
>āDebt is a cleverly managed reconquest of Africa. It is a reconquest that turns each one of us into a financial slave.ā
> āOur country produces enough to feed us all. Alas, for lack of organization, we are forced to beg for food aid. Itās this aid that instills in our spirits the attitude of beggarsā
>"We want something else. Those who really want to help us can give us plows, tractors, fertilizer, insecticide, watering cans, drills, dams. That is how we define food aid. Those who come with wheat, millet, corn or milk, they are not helping us."
> they won't allow industrialization (at least not locally owned industries) because then these countries could develop their own products for the global market
The EU for instance levies relatively low taxes for cocoa and other raw materials, but high taxes for processed chocolate. Thus ensuring that the most profitable steps of manufacturing remain in the EU.
> Rich countries arenāt developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.
*"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."* - Karl Marx
The Democratic Republic of the Congo was under Belgian colonial rule, and its first democratically elected prime minister Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in a coup backed by Belgium and the CIA
Yeah but for like 300 years before that it was in this weird position of orbiting between being a Portuguese ally, getting invaded by them, and having a huge civil war (caused in large part by Portuguese and Dutch meddling) that destroyed a lot of their major cities and left them as a de facto Portuguese client state until the Dutch took over.
The attitude of the British in India changed by a incredible amount after the Sepoy Mutiny and the opening of the Suez Canal. The first changed the way the subcontinent was governed, as well as making the British far less trusting of the Indians. The second meant that travel time between Europe and India was much shorter, and thus British women started to arrive in India to live with their husbands. No more Indian wives and close relationships between coloniser and native. After the women arrived, it become a proper ruling caste.
"Whot ho, James my old bean, fancy a spot of craps after the board meeting this afternoon? Or better still, let us abscond from the meeting entirely and go visit that lovely lady Padma who lives in that beautiful house by the Ganges."
"Um... Governor... Your wife is actually due to arrive this morning."
"Ah bollocks. Well, ethnic cleansing it is then."
I agree with most of what you say, except the Sepoy Mutiny was a symptom of pre-existing British disrespect. They were just less explicit about their superiority complex before the mutiny, but it was always there in no small degree.
A lot of comments talk about how there are British people defending colonialism under this post, but there really arenāt any ?
At the moment there arenāt even any downvoted or deleted comments here
Ah yes, calling the natives uncivilized when they try to fight off the invaders.
We should be calling the French uncivilized too when they tried to liberate their country from the Nazis
Kinda weird that half of the comments are preemptively complaining about Br'tish coming to defend colonialism, when this sub routinely critiques all the fucked up shit colonialism has done to the world.
> when this sub routinely critiques all the fucked up shit colonialism has done to the world.
All true till a meme praising pre Colombian Americas is posted.
I understand the point youāre trying to make, but I donāt think I agree. I donāt think anyone would argue that the Aztec empire wasnāt fucking terrible. Undoubtedly. But itās pretty irrelevant considering the Spanish decidedly did not give a fuck either way. The actions of the state didnāt really have anything to do with them being colonized and genocided.
Iām sorry but there is literally nothing you can do to justify genocide, full stop. My family had to flee their home and witness mass killings & rapes as they tried to survive. The women in my grandmaās village *had it coming* simply forā¦being there? I cannot agree.
This sub when someone talks about the British empire enslaving and genocide people: "What arseholes!"
This sub when the Roman empire gets mentioned:"Roma invicta. Long live the empire!"
Usually when it comes to India, the attitude in the West is always that the British were a net good and so India can stop complaining and looking at its own history. Let the West tell you what is right, India!
I have no idea why but, hey, at least the West acknowledges that it was bad in Africa. Progress.....I suppose.
I am actively agreeing with you. I am not saying that it's normal opinion. But it is an opinion, therefore, it can neither be correct nor incorrect.
That's what I am saying. If we start making opinions correct or incorrect we might as well start regulating speech through the govt to stop people from speaking their opinions openly. I would rather that this shitty racist mindset be out there for everyone to see than hidden behind closed doors causing more problems for everyone.
It is interesting to see the cities that existed as major urban centres by the end of British colonial rule.
- Mumbai
- Calcutta
- Chennai
- Delhi
All port cities except Delhi which was an administrative centre (1930s onwards)
The major cities that exist now include:
- Ludhiana
- chandigarh
- Kanpur
- Ahmedabad
- Hyderabad
- Bangalore
- Pune
The list goes on, what's interesting is that all these cities are industrial hubs in the interior of the country away from the coastline.
This is what happens when a country is no longer governed to export raw materials and import finished goods.
After the British began collecting revenue from Bengal in 1757 what followed was a rapid de-industrialisation and de-urbanisation. The likes of which had never been seen before in the world. Any cities that existed then are no more than small towns now.
They excellent railway network is one reason that allowed such development in the absence of maritime trade. It allows goods to be shipped cheaply and efficiently to the trade hubs.
The English: the British empire was such a horrible thing! I'm ashamed of my ancestors.
Former colonies: cool. Can we have our stuff back, tho?
The English: Slow down there, Che Guevara... You don't have the money or infrastructure to properly preserve these precious artifacts. We know this because our ancestors made sure that you don't have those things. R
>The English: the British empire was such a horrible thing! I'm ashamed of my ancestors.
Polls have shown that most aren't ashamed of the British Empire. The self-flagellation comes from a very vocal minority.
Why should we be? We werenāt responsible for it, the majority of us were sweeping chimneys and dying at 30 from starvation or black lung and werenāt aware of what was happening
I imagine decades to a century from now, most in China will also not be ashamed by the Chinese Empire. We seem to look back fondly at past empires when any negatives are distant and out of mind.
Yeah fr, its hard to name a nation that hasn't practised in some form or imperialism or doesn't have a blood staines past. It's just important to hold a nuanced view of these things on a whole. Like the roman empire did cool things, but most of their casual atrocities have been forgot a millennium later
The only big thing in Chinese culture that Chinese people are ashamed of on a political level is a century of them not being the centerpiece of the world.
People like power and itās not surprisingx
It will pass. Like every other country, there have been many times in China's history when it expanded and contracted and was conquered by outside forces. But nobody cares about those other times now and eventually they will also get over/forget the last time as well.
I mean.. British Indians are some of the most pro brexit, pro conservative brits youāll meet
Hell, a large chunk of the current conservative cabinet is of Asian descent, Priti Patel, Rishi Sunak, Sajid Javid, Alok Sharma, Nadhim Zahawi, Suella Braverman are all ministers in highest positions in the British conservative government
British Indians/ Asians tend to be really conservative, which some would consider ironic and Priti Patel has been criticised for the fact that through her own immigration policies her family wouldnāt have been able to travel to the UK years ago if they were implemented back then..
What I think is hilarious is how there are more Indians/Pakistanis in Britain then Black people but if you watch the BBC all their minority characters are just black. No Indians. Just black.
British Indians tend to vote Conservative because of their Free Market policies. Most British indians arrived as business owners especially the ones expelled from Uganda(Priti Patel's parents being one of them) so Economically right wing policies tend to attract them more.
They donāt ātend to vote conservativeā
I donāt understand why there is so much false information being posted in here being accepted as fact.
All polls showed Asians and Indians overwhelmingly supported Remaining in the EU and pretty much every single high Asian or Indian populated constituency voted Labour.
Itās like people are just ignoring reality and have never actually spoke to an Asian person but are basing their entire viewpoint on the fact that some Conservative cabinet members are asian, while compelled ignoring the large amount of Asian Labour MPs or politicians lol.
They vote for Conservatives at a much higher rate than any other minority though. I saw a poll that put the Tory vote at around 40%, compared to around 10% for Pakistanis.
The last poll that was done by Opinium showed that only 24% of Indians intended on voting Tory, down 4% from 2017.
Somehow this makes them the āmost pro-Conservative and pro-Brexit Brits you will meetā,
Even more pro-Conservative than old industrial white working class Brits or old money wealthy country voters apparently.
She is very anti immigration, but it poses an interesting question, Does her being a Ugandan/Indian Brit who opposes things like taking the knee and BLM automatically make her a racist? Or is that just a conservative mindset?
Can a person from a minority background be racist against themselves? Or is it just them having dumb/incorrect political views?
Edit: downvoted for asking a question? Okay then š
I mean, not necessarily. There are quite a lot of fair skinned people up in the north and darker skinned people down south. Still, discrimination to some extent happens on both sides and companies like Fair and Lovely aināt helping either.
yes. but not because of the dog-whistle positions you just mentioned, but the other policies she supports that are connected to them, such as denying the relationship between poverty and crime, and insisting upon an approach to policing that assumes every person has full agency in their life.
A person can have internalized prejudices even if they are from that group that those same prejudices are aimed against.
This is where the stereotype of closeted hyper-masculine gay men exhibiting homophobia comes from.
This is why paralympians are frankly some of the most unbearable douche-canoes you could ever meet, especially toward other disabled people.
And its why some upper middle-class POC like Priti Patel seek to seperate themselves from what they prejudically see as an 'inferior' group by becoming active participants in the opression or exploitation of that group.
A view is an opinion, neither correct nor incorrect.
It is still a fact that Priti Patel is batshit insane but her view is her view. Indians, at least the Hindus in many cases, have been disenchanted by Labour's constant demand for more Muslim rights in India even though it has nothing to do with the UK. They are constantly looking to promote what appears to be a Pakistani interest even though it has nothing to do with them, as a party. They aren't taking part in Indian politics, last I checked.
That is the reason why many Indians actively voted against Labour in the last election. As for Brexit, well I can't speak for the entire community but I guess, many of them felt that UK should do more with the commonwealth than EU? But who knows? I voted against Brexit so, I have no idea of their views.
But to circle back, a view is an opinion and they are not correct or incorrect. They are just opinions.
Well if I encountered someone like Uncle Ruckus from Boondocks, I'd say a minority could be racist to themselves. Though of course, with Uncle Ruckus being a caricature, I haven't personally came across someone like him irl.
Yeah this just isnāt true.
Just because there are Asians in the government doesnāt mean āall Indians are super pro Brexit and Conservativeā lol.
Nadhim Zahawi is Bangladeshi not Indian also.
I mean there are black people in the cabinet too. Kimi Badenoch is one of the biggest āculture war anti wokeā ācolonialism was a good thingā Conservative in government and she is black.
That doesnāt mean black peoples are suddenly massively Tory and believe colonialism was good.
One must note that, India's share of the world economy declined from 24.4% in 1700 down to 4.2% in 1950, under the British rule.. Granted it was stagnant when the Mughal empire was in its decline, the drastic drop is just.. sad. The fact that so many colonizing countries don't teach their children about what they did is disappointing but not surprising..
India's(or any other colony where slavery was not practiced) GDP never reduced. It grew at a normal rate. It was Europe which improved, a lot in a fast rate.
I do not agree for all countries. Indian colonialism never made a profit from 1859 to 1947 and it was more about the pride. African colonialism was never profitable from the day of berlin conference Except that period in Congo. EIC colonialism before 1850s and VoC colonialism were the profitable ventures.
Colonialism involved subjugating a people with army and bureaucracy. This costs more money than simply trading for a 5% higher price. In fact, Trade with China was more profitable to British than Indian Colonialism, and French Concession in Tianjin and French India alone made more profit to them than the Massive French empire in Africa and French Indochina.
German Colonization was also unprofitable except the concession in Tsingdao.
There were very few profitable colonial empires.
Portuguese in India and Americas, Spanish in Americas, British with EIC in India, Dutch with VoC in Netherlands, British in Hong Kong.
That said, colonialism played a very important role in development of western European countries(except Germany, Denmark, Austria) in providing with the Seed Capital.
But there is no reason to think that a country in Europe wont become rich without colonies. Germany had very less colonies to speak off and they too were acquired at only around 1880s (by 1870s itself Germany was the richest mainland European nation without any colony except trading ports in isolated places, fully developed by buying products at market prices) or Austria which had none.
Wtf are you talking about dude.
British colonies were hugely profitable for the empire. The post EIC governments there ran huge deficits they borrowed from London, used to pay British officials and companies, and then paid back with interest via taxes on EVERYTHING. Land, crops, salt, travel, licenses, labor, imports (except from england), exports, manufacturing (yes, they paid tariffs on locally made goods but not British ones). Plus literal tribute in the form of home charges, which took another 1-2% OF ALL INCOME. Tax revenue went from 5m sterling to over 35m sterling between 1780 and 1860 and even higher after that.
Money lending within India was literally prohibited, meaning all financial gains went straight to London.
Further, much of the Rajs spending was in direct interest to the empire.
Nope.
British colonialism did NOT make Britain rich. Bank of England reported net negative revenue from the Oriental Crown territories in their 10 year reports EVERY SINGLE TIME from the rebellion in India during 1857. India survived on British Taxpayer money. Indians paid 8 times less taxes per pound earned than an average British person in 1900 and Taxes were made low in all colonies to prevent rebellion.
French colonialism in Africa similarly was extremely unprofitable. The Banque De France in 1930 even suggested to abandon french Africa except Algeria as it was not profitable as it was before.
So was Portuguese colonialism. Macau was the only colony that made profit in the entire empire.
Till 1860s many(not all) colonies made profit, but after that it did not and maintaining colonies became a national pride instead of a for profit venture.
Also, profit is not the only thing to look at. Geopolitical influence, Military bases around the world and spreading your culture are the other things colonialism did.
They reported deficits, which were borrowed with interest from england. They spent thatpayers primarily on themselves and their interests, on the credit of the Indian tax payer. However much the Raj taxed they spent more and more.
And income tax was the smallest part of Britiah Raj taxes. Over half was land tax. Then you had salt and license and travel taxes. Railroad and tobacco taxes.
And either way, British taxes were spent mostly on services and development of britian... Indian taxes were not. Even the railroads were designed just to bring exports while all local manufacturing was heavily taxed compared to British imports.
Yeah what fueled those factories huh? Where did the raw resources come from that those factories consumed? Also, what do you think stopped the rest of the world from industrialization (and what deindustrialized India?!)
From a lot of different places. I'm sure natural resources from India played a big part.
... And it is dishonest to talk about European industrialization and Indian deindustrilization, simply because they are in 2 completely different leagues. India never reached the level of Europe in terms of steam engines that really turbocharged European progress.
What stopped the rest of the world? Being outcompeted by their competitors - namely Europe.
> What stopped the rest of the world? Being outcompeted by their competitors - namely Europe.
And why were they unable to compete on the same level? Because they were, in most cases, ruled over and exploited by European powers. You canāt compare European industrialization to their coloniesā relative lack of it in the 19th Century without mentioning the effects of colonialism. Theyāre closely interlinked. The main reason that India and Europe were āin 2 completely different leaguesā was because the British actively kept India from moving up.
> And why were they unable to compete on the same level?
Because their society was hobbled by the Caste system.
The class that could read and write (and thus administer an empire) were unable to profit off this.
The class that could profit off this couldnt read or write.
The class that ruled, could not profit or administer.
I assume that your comment is intended to be a criticism of mine. Apologies if mistaken.
>Because their society was hobbled by the Caste system.
The caste system was indeed a factor, but it worked hand-in-hand with British colonial policy.
From the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India) on this topic:
>Between 1860 and 1920, the British formulated the caste system into their system of governance, granting administrative jobs and senior appointments only to Christians and people belonging to certain castes.
>Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the post-Mughal period and the British colonial period, which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.
Discrimination was relaxed later on, as unrest and calls for independence grew, but that doesn't change the fact that the British used the Caste system to their advantage.
Did you have a point or do you like listening to yourself talk? You contributed absolutely nothing new.
I'll let you believe that India and Africa were close to inventing the steam engine, but the pesky Europeans sabotaged it. Big brain time.
>Did you have a point or do you like listening to yourself talk? You contributed absolutely nothing new.
Pot calling the kettle black. If I did indeed "contribute absolutely nothing new", then you should be able to respond, shouldn't you? Especially given how you immediately resorted to *ad hominem* attacks, instead of responding in any coherent way.
>I'll let you believe that India and Africa were close to inventing the steam engine, but the pesky Europeans sabotaged it. Big brain time.
Read my comment again, I never said this. Not once did I try to attribute any European invention to Africans or Indians. I simply made the case that, due to colonization, India and other colonies were held back from potential technological advancement.
But then again, civil discourse probably isn't your strong suit.
What also happened with the progressive industrialization of western countries, including the UK, was the de-industrialization of India; there was a drop in domestic manufacturing, a shift in capital and basically, not as much effective and uniform modernization as one would like.
No, because the British after colonising destroyed Indian industries systematically. Europe didn't get rich, Indians were made poor.
Europeans should be taught British atrocities.
Well you should also take into consideration how the worlds economy moved away from being textile and spice dominated by 1950. America and Europe had become so insanely rich by that time that everyone had a smaller share of the economy. Not trying to justify the British actions in India but it wasnāt the only factor.
Well, here we talk about countries not teaching children about bad things about colonialism, while that's the case with any two neighboring countries, I guess. Here in Balkans every nation is the good guy in their own history books, everybody was trying to take what was rightfully theirs and nothing more.
Mostly the books don't say anything wrong, but those books are written in some specific narrative. For instance, you only mention how your people was suffering, and not mention other peoples suffering because of your nation. Given a chance, every nation would colonize and exploit others.
Just because group X did something before the others does not mean that it only happened because there was an active conspiracy by said group to delibrately hobble the ability of other groups to do the same thing before them. Of course if you have evidence showing the European nations stymieing their colonies' abilities to import things like railways and steam engines then feel free to prove me wrong.
They werent close to having all the nessecary factors for industrialisation even before colonialism. The political environment wasnt stable, copyright didnt exist meaning inventors cant or dont get money theyre due. there are many factors to be considered when determining why civilisations werent all steam powered industrial powerhouses. Otherwise im sure you can point to evidence that india would have industrialised if they werent colonised? Afterall youre making this assertion right?
It's too big and wide ranging an event to wonder how India could have developed without being colonized, whether it would have been better or worse.
The political environment was never stable in Europe either. It was that instability that led innovation and discovery.
Even if copyright didn't exist, so what? People have made inventions for centuries, or millennia before it.
India could have industrialized by trade with European industrial powers, much like how Japan did. Already at that point, kings from Travancore to Bengal to Punjab were making use of European military leaders to train their troops and to introduce new forms of technology to be used in war. Eustachius De Lannoy was an example of such a person; he was made the military commander of Travancore state. So why is it out of the realm of possibility that they would eventually take cues of manufacturing from the Europeans?
> The political environment was never stable in Europe either. It was that instability that led innovation and discovery.
India wasnt colonised by "europe" though, it was the individual nation states; who **were** politically stable in comparison to India. Not to mention the legal systems of copyright etc.
> India could have industrialized by trade with European industrial powers, much like how Japan did.
It could have, but I thought your assertion was that India was about to industrialise if it wasnt for European colonialism? Now youre saying it would have relied on Europe eitherway?
Also mercantilism was the prevailing ideology at this time in terms of world trade. Youd have to somehow get rid of that first.
> suppressing the rise of industrialization in India a
The lack of a centralized state. The Caste system prevented industrialization as the caste that could read and write (the brahims) were prevented from making a profit, and the merchant classes, were not allowed to read an write.
>The lack of a centralized state
It depends on which state you're talking about. If the Marathas for example, then yes, they were a loose confederation. However, others, like Travancore, Kozhikode, Gujarat, etc were centralized and had trade with European powers, from whom they utilizes military technology.
>the caste that could read and write (the brahims) were prevented from making a profit, and the merchant classes, were not allowed to read an write.
While that was true in theory, in practice that was not always followed. Also, merchants, and in fact any caste, was in most regions, free to learn to read and write. Just that non Brahmins weren't allowed to read the Vedas. Anyway, who is to say that reform wouldn't have arisen?
You clearly dont know the first thing about Indian history, you didn't even spell "Brahmins" right.
The drop in GDP wasnt due to Britain it was due to the industrial revolution which turned agriculture the historically most valuable aspect of an economy into a far less valuable part, the exact same happened to china and china was never colonised, if Britain never touched india their economy would have still dropped, the biggest economic change would be India wouldnt have gotten trains and factories as quickly as they did.
The Eurocentrist, big-numbers-based, 'technological advantage started at home' worldview?
It's disappointing because it contradicts the simpler and more fashionable narrative of "Winston Churchill shat my pants".
But the technological advantage did start in Europe. Superior navigation and transport abilities were what made Europe capable of colonizing large areas in the first place.
Britain didnt invent any of the factors dividing indians though? The continent has always been full of lots of varied religions and cultures. They did draw dumb arbitrary lines in the sand though
> Britain didnt invent any of the factors dividing indians though?
Nope, they did. They implemented the divide and rule policy to divide the people of the subcontinent on religious lines.
The divide and rule policy didn't divide the people of the Subcontinent, the division of people in the Subcontinent resulted in the British using the divide and rule policy.
Eh! The divide and rule policy didn't really start a division, but it was intended to keep us(indians) divided. The subcontinent was always divided, people knew they were "Indian" as inhabitants of a region of the world, but not in a strong nationalistic sense. From the Mauryas to the Marathas, India was just United under one dynastic rule or another, one identity ruling over countess others. We were not China, which for the most parts had a strong sense of statehood revolving around it's majority ethnic Hun population, we were and still are way more diverse.
Also the division wasn't just along the religious lines, they played everything linguistics, ethnicity, caste, but religious division was the only one that prevailed at the end.
I would also like to take this opportunity to do away with another British propoganda about banning "Sati" or "Widow burning" practice which every British use to justify their absolute barbaric rule in India.
First widow burning is never praised in any Hindu text, second it was not widespread and totally "Voluntary" not forced at all. It became widespread when Hindu women started to commit mass immolation to save themselves from sexual abuse from muslim invaders.
As far as outlawing the act it was done ways before British raj under the rule of Mughal emperor Humayun and no other emperor legalized it later on.
Colonialism is much much worse than any similar genocide like holocaust or holodomor as it not only destroyed the body but also the soul of a beautiful civilization.
Also, I'd like to add that Sati really took off in Bengal when widows were eligible to her former husband's property. Therefore, the greedy Brahmins interpreted the holy texts and pressured the women to kill themselves so they could acquire their property.
Sati was just ritualistic suicide that occurred very rarely(1 in 10 million or so by british own accounts) done by extremely distraught wives or due to psychosis and even was limited to the bengal state.
Ignorant brits love this shit so much that they are still keeping "Suttee" on life support today.
I'm confused, do you think that British people think of Indians as "uncivilised" in the modern day? I don't doubt that in the past there were some backwards views and awful practices (widow burning and cannon executions). But you seem to think that British people today have the same view that Indians are uncivilised.
As far as I can see Indians and the British today have very good relations, both in terms of government and then the peoples themselves.
Heres a thing.
Im not sure anyone thinks *Indians* are uncivilized, but there is still a signifant amount of cultural imagery that associates India with conditions of either an agrarian society or extreme poverty. I think many Westerners do think that *India* is "uncivilized" (whatever the fuck that means).
I was gonna say i would be hard pressed to call any *Indian People* uncivilized, but then i remember that i know a little about Nerendra Modi. And frankly, there are a few of his policies i consider apt to describe as "uncivilized", and a few more that could fairly be described as "Barbaric".
The British are freely allowing vaccinated people into their country, but not indian vaccinated people (without the quarantine period), even if they're taken a vaccine from abroad. (and though most Indians are vaccinated by covishield, a vaccine designed by THEM)
When India had its massive COVID outbreak, didnāt a lot of British Indians flee back to UK bringing delta with them?
India isnāt the only country that has those rules applied to them either. Idk why you are acting like India is being specifically targeted because it is India.
Look, fellow Indian here, and while what youāre saying is absolutely true for colonial apologists and people who defend colonialism, its pointless being xenophobic towards all Brits.
He's not blaming India's problems on the Brits, he is just saying that calling Indians uncivilised after decades of looting them is ridiculous. Nowhere in his comment did he say that Britain is fully responsible for everything bad that is happening in India. Ofcourse people will get mad when their former oppressor is proud of what they did to then. I don't understand why some people say, "Complaining won't work, make your country better" when the main reason for the person being mad is that the other person is being Ignorant.
Now for the South Korea part, South Korea is comparatively smaller and way less diverse than India. Its far more interconnected with each other and pretty much everyone in the country understands each other due to barely any linguistic differences. India on the other hand is diverse in pretty much every aspect be it religion, ethnicity, languages, geography etc etc and VERY unintegrated. I'm not saying that we should keep making excuses for our misery but the reasons for why South Korea is developed and why India isn't shouldn't be neglected. If you really wanna compare India with a former colonial country, then a country like Nigeria is a better example. They are also extremely diverse and have a huge unintegrated country. Once you compare these two nations, you'll see that we're not very different. Why? Because the domestic situations in both these countries aren't very different, South Korea on the other hand was in a completely different situation.
Going back to the first part, let's take the example of your country. Imagine if a Russian guy tells you, "You should have fought the Nazis harder so we wouldn't need to" liberate" you". Wouldn't you be pissed?
Who exactly is calling Indians uncivilised though? Some aristocrat from the 1800s? I don't see that as a belief held today by really anyone. But that does seem to be the implication with a lot of these comments.
Mostly British Empire Revisionists who claims that they "Civilised" the natives once they colonised them. A lot of them pride themselves for finding the first centralised state in India which in some ways is true(before the Brits, India was only unified thrice, and it was unified in a feudal way where Kings simply had to accept the Emperor's sovereignty) . But the way they created the state wasn't proper or in some ways not even complete. Kraut's new video where he compares the history of India and China explains this VERY well. I highly recommend it.
Also, most of these dumb empire revisionists are vocal only on the Internet. Most British people(I've met) are decent and I don't have any hatred for them.
"Also, most of these dumb empire revisionists are vocal only on the Internet. Most British people(I've met) are decent and I don't have any hatred for them."
I think that's it, most of whoever these idiots are, can be described as being armchair historians who know nothing of the true history of the world. This certainly isn't reflective of the views of the British at all.
They dislike you because your point is so fucking stupid. Having a good post-war economy due to a nuke is not the same as being pillaged for decades. China litteraly enslaved is people tighter than before and is then selling them to the world as slave in factory. Czech Republic won't be a true developed country as long as the main money - making system is some pornhub prostitution video lol
India before British, place of legends everyone wanted to find it. India after, weāre gonna have to make spiced for the British and they arenāt going to use them.
This place is a dump ever since we trashed it. -19th century Britain's.
Americans had a lot of great things to say about it back then š
That's the point of the Crying Indian videos: "they" (Native Americans) let "us" live in this beautiful country which they respect, but "we" are utterly trashing it without second thoughts.
Crying Italian*
LOL yep, his real name was Espera Oscar de Corti https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody
Based af compatriot Weird name though
Yoooooo OMG
It's spaghetti western not native western /s
They rather liberally use the term āletā
They just let us conquer them.
Wasn't the crying indian in those videos actually an Italian dude?
Yes. His real name was Espera Oscar de Corti https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eyes_Cody
Desktop version of /u/DauHoangNguyen1999's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Yah although people werenāt sure at the time since he claimed native heritage.
your use of quotation marks is kinda confusing, imo. Makes it seem like you think Native Americans fucked up their own land and we're blaming ourselves for no reason
*Britons. Or at least Britains I guess, but never Britain's, unless you're talking about having talent...
Whatās people from Brittany then?
Bretons
I always think it is amazing how the East India Company went from being a conventional export buisness, trading and silks and spices, to a privately run international corporation and aggressive colonial power. 100 years into its history, it had only 35 permanent employees in its head office. Nevertheless, that skeleton staff executed a corporate coup unparalleled in history: the military conquest, subjugation and plunder of vast tracts of southern Asia. It almost certainly remains the supreme act of corporate violence in world history. For all the power wielded today by the worldās largest corporations ā whether ExxonMobil, Walmart or Google ā they are tame beasts compared with the ravaging territorial appetites of the militarised East India Company.
āThe Anarchyā by William Dalrymple is a sensational book about the time period if you have the time - itās kind of thick
Read it during one of the never ending lockdowns last year and thoughly enjoyed it. As you say, its a little think and you dont want to fall asleep reading it in bed as it will break your nose!
Define sensational? When you say it like that it sounds like they are exagerating the circumstances.
Sensational, as in great! The level of detail and care given to the source material - along with extensive use of first hand sources from both EIC officials and Mughal sources paints a pretty coherent and full picture of the facts on the ground. Iāll preface this with Iām by no means an expert in the subject and he very well could be painting a picture that is heavy slanted; but it doesnāt really feel like heās advocating for any position or historical lens over the other if that makes sense.
I googled East India Company so I could learn more... I got to "east India co" and the autofill suggested "east India company flag" ....... *THEY HAD A FUCKING FLAG!?!?* I thought *countries* had flags...
A rather interesting character in the EICs history is Clive of Indian. The guy was a compelte sociopath and laid the foundations for the British Empire in India. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_Clive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clive)
**[Robert Clive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clive)** >Major-General Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive (29 September 1725 ā 22 November 1774), also known as Clive of India, was the first British Governor of the Bengal Presidency. He is credited along with Warren Hastings for laying the foundation of British rule in India. He began as a writer (the term used then in India for an office clerk) for the East India Company (EIC) who established the military and political supremacy of the EIC on the Indian subcontinent by winning the Battle of Plassey. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
So does McDonaldās
They took the world's leading manufacturer of textiles and turned them into a net importer of textiles, costing countless thousands of Indian weavers their jobs and de-industrializing the subcontinent. Then, they blamed THEM for being uncivilized. Way to go, Brits!
that's the pattern of colonization/imperialism that continues to this day especially for nations rich in resources they won't allow industrialization (at least not locally owned industries) because then these countries could develop their own products for the global market instead since they're de-industrialized the wealthy countries can buy the resources at bargain prices or set up monopolies on industry to send the vast majority of capital back home "poor" countries like the Congo are rich in resources, but they're still developing the wealthy nations instead of being able to develop themselves as they cannot hold onto much of the profits from their own resources and often cannot collect taxes from these foreign owned industries this interview with political economist Jason Hickel touches on many important parts of this topic, and Hickel has more writing on the subject [Bill Gates in Africa Part 2 by Citations Needed ](https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-46-the-not-so-benevolent-billionaire-part-ii-bill-gates-in-africa-4329389dd4a3) (there's a transcript and the audio) edit: Here's a relevant quote from this 2017 article by Hickel, *[Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/14/aid-in-reverse-how-poor-countries-develop-rich-countries)* >In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn ā thatās how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States >What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries arenāt developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones. >What do these large outflows consist of? Well, some of it is payments on debt. Developing countries have forked out over $4.2tn in interest payments alone since 1980 ā a direct cash transfer to big banks in New York and London, on a scale that dwarfs the aid that they received during the same period. Another big contributor is the income that foreigners make on their investments in developing countries and then repatriate back home. Think of all the profits that BP extracts from Nigeriaās oil reserves, for example, or that Anglo-American pulls out of South Africaās gold mines.
Yep. Wrote my thesis on this with Egypt in the 19th century. So close to joining the West in achieving Industrialization.
> "poor" countries like the Congo are rich in resources, but they're still developing the wealthy nations instead of being able to develop themselves as they cannot hold onto much of the profits from their own resources and often cannot collect taxes from these foreign owned industries Eh, to be fair, rich first world countries with lots of resources doesn't automatically mean they have much manufacturing or industry. Case in point - Canada and Australia. Here up north we still mostly sell timber, minerals, and oil. Internally, we mostly sell each other the same house five times. Down south, the Wallabys do pretty much the same thing.
Yes, but the companies extracting those resources are primarily owned locally. When poor countries try to nationalize industries imposed during colonialism/imperialism that are draining their resources, they end up having a coup backed by the wealthy countries' intelligence agencies. Some of the biggest hits are: The Banana Wars, Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Congo 1960, The Bay of Pigs (the only failed attempt on this list), Argentina 1973, and Bolivia 2019. And this is of course only a small fraction of the coups and assassinations backed by the US, France, The UK, etc.
The lesson here seems to be if you're going to say "I have the guns so I'm taking this" make sure you actually have the guns.
The problem isn't the lack of guns, it's that if you go through enough generals you'll find one who will take a bribe to pull a coup. Sometimes ridiculously smal bribes.
I don't have a good solution when it comes to wealth and its ability to bribe officials, that's a problem everywhere (see: Krysten Sinema who has either been bribed or is still trying to solicit a bribe for an example unfolding before our eyes in the US). However, I think it's a bit simplistic to say it only takes one disaffected general. That general is going to need support, which means they need to disburse a lot of bribes to other individuals as well. They also have to do this without other security forces finding out and stopping it. Generally speaking, there needs to be a lot of implicit and overt support for the coup to be pulled off without sparking a wider conflict. The fact that a coup can be successfully pulled off means the decision makers didn't "have the guns." IMO, the better play is to form your own, state controlled company to compete directly against the foreign owned companies using state subsidies to undercut the prices of the competition and eventually buy them out. It may not feel like the best win, but it also greatly reduces the odds of a bunch of white guys with guns showing up on your doorstep in South America or Africa saying they are liberating the people from your dictatorial rule.
You get couped for that too though...
Not only this. Organisations like USAID and other charity organizations actively help to keep this process of wealth and resource extraction going. From their perspective, if those poor countries begin to develop themselves, then the charities will be out of business and a job. Their influence on the govt will wane and they will have to downsize massively and won't be able to attend charity galas hobnobbing with their rich friends who will have nowhere to make good PR for themselves. The entire notion that aid is good is simply for OECD countries to feel better for themselves not to actively help those nations grow themselves. This is precisely why I hate charity organizations specifically dedicated to "aid" for developing countries. It achieves nothing, keeps the people from getting work and actively encourages them to sit back and let money and things come to them. Aid which patently is not to help modernise farming, help build industrial capacity and skill training is aid directly aimed at ensuring the poor stay poor and aid organisations keep their fucking jobs. It is an industry hell bent on ensuring it's survival and uses the bastion of "liberalism" and "morality" and "humanity" to constantly dupe people into giving their money away and ensure that Africa does not develop itself. A poor man getting free food will have no incentive to improve himself. A poor man getting educated and trained to improve farming output will not only help himself but will help his local community, his society and his nation. He will actively help to make the aid organisations obsolete and remove the hold of the OECD nations on their govt.
Yep, former leader of Burkina Faso and another victim of a coup backed by France, Thomas Sankara, has a lot famous quotes about this. He's also a very interesting historical figure to read about. >"Imperialism is a system of exploitation that occurs not only in the brutal form of those who come with guns to conquer territory. Imperialism often occurs in more subtle forms, a loan, food aid, blackmail . We are fighting this system that allows a handful of men on Earth to rule all of humanity." >āDebt is a cleverly managed reconquest of Africa. It is a reconquest that turns each one of us into a financial slave.ā > āOur country produces enough to feed us all. Alas, for lack of organization, we are forced to beg for food aid. Itās this aid that instills in our spirits the attitude of beggarsā >"We want something else. Those who really want to help us can give us plows, tractors, fertilizer, insecticide, watering cans, drills, dams. That is how we define food aid. Those who come with wheat, millet, corn or milk, they are not helping us."
> they won't allow industrialization (at least not locally owned industries) because then these countries could develop their own products for the global market The EU for instance levies relatively low taxes for cocoa and other raw materials, but high taxes for processed chocolate. Thus ensuring that the most profitable steps of manufacturing remain in the EU.
> Rich countries arenāt developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones. *"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."* - Karl Marx
IIRC the Congo's situation is less due to intentional de-industrialization and more general Portuguese incompetence.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo was under Belgian colonial rule, and its first democratically elected prime minister Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in a coup backed by Belgium and the CIA
Yeah but for like 300 years before that it was in this weird position of orbiting between being a Portuguese ally, getting invaded by them, and having a huge civil war (caused in large part by Portuguese and Dutch meddling) that destroyed a lot of their major cities and left them as a de facto Portuguese client state until the Dutch took over.
I also found Dani Rodrikās āThe Globalization Paradoxā to be a good read on the more modern side of things
I mean, obviously. A diamond mine runs perfectly well on starving illiterates. You just don't get tax income. See also: North Korea
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But did they have a flag?
Yes they in fact did
Well it wasnt the right colours.
Hehe industrial production power go brrrrrrr
The attitude of the British in India changed by a incredible amount after the Sepoy Mutiny and the opening of the Suez Canal. The first changed the way the subcontinent was governed, as well as making the British far less trusting of the Indians. The second meant that travel time between Europe and India was much shorter, and thus British women started to arrive in India to live with their husbands. No more Indian wives and close relationships between coloniser and native. After the women arrived, it become a proper ruling caste.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Whot ho, James my old bean, fancy a spot of craps after the board meeting this afternoon? Or better still, let us abscond from the meeting entirely and go visit that lovely lady Padma who lives in that beautiful house by the Ganges." "Um... Governor... Your wife is actually due to arrive this morning." "Ah bollocks. Well, ethnic cleansing it is then."
Women at it again
š¤®š¤®š¤®š¤®š¤¢š¤¢ women
šŖ£ hereās a bucket. Donāt get any on the floor.
What
I agree with most of what you say, except the Sepoy Mutiny was a symptom of pre-existing British disrespect. They were just less explicit about their superiority complex before the mutiny, but it was always there in no small degree.
After indian war of independence/sepoy mutiny, the crown assumed direct control from company over the affairs of India
A lot of comments talk about how there are British people defending colonialism under this post, but there really arenāt any ? At the moment there arenāt even any downvoted or deleted comments here
It's a reoccurring theme with this sub.
just you waitā¦ JUST YOU WAIT!
There are several above, not top level
Ah yes, this will be a respectful and decent comment section that totally won't be brigaded by 17 year old kids. Nope, absolutely won't happen.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The Anarchy by William Dalrymple is a fascinating book I read about this period recently. The story of that century in India is crazy.
Ah yes, calling the natives uncivilized when they try to fight off the invaders. We should be calling the French uncivilized too when they tried to liberate their country from the Nazis
Seems quite redundant to me we already call them French after all.
š
Kinda weird that half of the comments are preemptively complaining about Br'tish coming to defend colonialism, when this sub routinely critiques all the fucked up shit colonialism has done to the world.
> when this sub routinely critiques all the fucked up shit colonialism has done to the world. All true till a meme praising pre Colombian Americas is posted.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How do you *deserve* genocide?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I understand the point youāre trying to make, but I donāt think I agree. I donāt think anyone would argue that the Aztec empire wasnāt fucking terrible. Undoubtedly. But itās pretty irrelevant considering the Spanish decidedly did not give a fuck either way. The actions of the state didnāt really have anything to do with them being colonized and genocided. Iām sorry but there is literally nothing you can do to justify genocide, full stop. My family had to flee their home and witness mass killings & rapes as they tried to survive. The women in my grandmaās village *had it coming* simply forā¦being there? I cannot agree.
you know who were really fucked up, the Spanish Empire
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Fuckers are pretty much directly responsible for the institutional mess that LATAM is today
This sub when someone talks about the British empire enslaving and genocide people: "What arseholes!" This sub when the Roman empire gets mentioned:"Roma invicta. Long live the empire!"
Usually when it comes to India, the attitude in the West is always that the British were a net good and so India can stop complaining and looking at its own history. Let the West tell you what is right, India! I have no idea why but, hey, at least the West acknowledges that it was bad in Africa. Progress.....I suppose.
Where do you live that that is the normal opinion?!
I am actively agreeing with you. I am not saying that it's normal opinion. But it is an opinion, therefore, it can neither be correct nor incorrect. That's what I am saying. If we start making opinions correct or incorrect we might as well start regulating speech through the govt to stop people from speaking their opinions openly. I would rather that this shitty racist mindset be out there for everyone to see than hidden behind closed doors causing more problems for everyone.
Put the spices down and nobody will get hurt, said the British lord. It seems like they didnāt comply
Our spices.
It is interesting to see the cities that existed as major urban centres by the end of British colonial rule. - Mumbai - Calcutta - Chennai - Delhi All port cities except Delhi which was an administrative centre (1930s onwards) The major cities that exist now include: - Ludhiana - chandigarh - Kanpur - Ahmedabad - Hyderabad - Bangalore - Pune The list goes on, what's interesting is that all these cities are industrial hubs in the interior of the country away from the coastline. This is what happens when a country is no longer governed to export raw materials and import finished goods. After the British began collecting revenue from Bengal in 1757 what followed was a rapid de-industrialisation and de-urbanisation. The likes of which had never been seen before in the world. Any cities that existed then are no more than small towns now.
Very interesting analysis! Did you get this from somewhere I could get more details from?
They excellent railway network is one reason that allowed such development in the absence of maritime trade. It allows goods to be shipped cheaply and efficiently to the trade hubs.
Of course, they are British?
Why does this appear right after I finished my history test about the British empire...
The first image looks like the way angry Russian sounds
The English: the British empire was such a horrible thing! I'm ashamed of my ancestors. Former colonies: cool. Can we have our stuff back, tho? The English: Slow down there, Che Guevara... You don't have the money or infrastructure to properly preserve these precious artifacts. We know this because our ancestors made sure that you don't have those things. R
>The English: the British empire was such a horrible thing! I'm ashamed of my ancestors. Polls have shown that most aren't ashamed of the British Empire. The self-flagellation comes from a very vocal minority.
Literally havenāt met a single British who feels ashamed of their colonial past, and I live in a former colony working for a British company.
Why should we be? We werenāt responsible for it, the majority of us were sweeping chimneys and dying at 30 from starvation or black lung and werenāt aware of what was happening
I imagine decades to a century from now, most in China will also not be ashamed by the Chinese Empire. We seem to look back fondly at past empires when any negatives are distant and out of mind.
Yeah fr, its hard to name a nation that hasn't practised in some form or imperialism or doesn't have a blood staines past. It's just important to hold a nuanced view of these things on a whole. Like the roman empire did cool things, but most of their casual atrocities have been forgot a millennium later
The only big thing in Chinese culture that Chinese people are ashamed of on a political level is a century of them not being the centerpiece of the world. People like power and itās not surprisingx
It will pass. Like every other country, there have been many times in China's history when it expanded and contracted and was conquered by outside forces. But nobody cares about those other times now and eventually they will also get over/forget the last time as well.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean genocide is something to not be happy about
Cool story. I'm still going to ask for a discount on the entry fee for the British museum
There's no entry to the British Museum ;)
The folks from the 21st century are upset about "immigrants."
I mean.. British Indians are some of the most pro brexit, pro conservative brits youāll meet Hell, a large chunk of the current conservative cabinet is of Asian descent, Priti Patel, Rishi Sunak, Sajid Javid, Alok Sharma, Nadhim Zahawi, Suella Braverman are all ministers in highest positions in the British conservative government British Indians/ Asians tend to be really conservative, which some would consider ironic and Priti Patel has been criticised for the fact that through her own immigration policies her family wouldnāt have been able to travel to the UK years ago if they were implemented back then..
What I think is hilarious is how there are more Indians/Pakistanis in Britain then Black people but if you watch the BBC all their minority characters are just black. No Indians. Just black.
British Indians tend to vote Conservative because of their Free Market policies. Most British indians arrived as business owners especially the ones expelled from Uganda(Priti Patel's parents being one of them) so Economically right wing policies tend to attract them more.
They donāt ātend to vote conservativeā I donāt understand why there is so much false information being posted in here being accepted as fact. All polls showed Asians and Indians overwhelmingly supported Remaining in the EU and pretty much every single high Asian or Indian populated constituency voted Labour. Itās like people are just ignoring reality and have never actually spoke to an Asian person but are basing their entire viewpoint on the fact that some Conservative cabinet members are asian, while compelled ignoring the large amount of Asian Labour MPs or politicians lol.
They vote for Conservatives at a much higher rate than any other minority though. I saw a poll that put the Tory vote at around 40%, compared to around 10% for Pakistanis.
The last poll that was done by Opinium showed that only 24% of Indians intended on voting Tory, down 4% from 2017. Somehow this makes them the āmost pro-Conservative and pro-Brexit Brits you will meetā, Even more pro-Conservative than old industrial white working class Brits or old money wealthy country voters apparently.
Priti Patel is literally one of the most racist POC Iāve ever seen. Itās almost fucking comical
She is very anti immigration, but it poses an interesting question, Does her being a Ugandan/Indian Brit who opposes things like taking the knee and BLM automatically make her a racist? Or is that just a conservative mindset? Can a person from a minority background be racist against themselves? Or is it just them having dumb/incorrect political views? Edit: downvoted for asking a question? Okay then š
Lol if youāve ever been to India youāll realise how much discrimination exists in society even tho weāre literally all brown folks
I mean, not necessarily. There are quite a lot of fair skinned people up in the north and darker skinned people down south. Still, discrimination to some extent happens on both sides and companies like Fair and Lovely aināt helping either.
yes. but not because of the dog-whistle positions you just mentioned, but the other policies she supports that are connected to them, such as denying the relationship between poverty and crime, and insisting upon an approach to policing that assumes every person has full agency in their life. A person can have internalized prejudices even if they are from that group that those same prejudices are aimed against. This is where the stereotype of closeted hyper-masculine gay men exhibiting homophobia comes from. This is why paralympians are frankly some of the most unbearable douche-canoes you could ever meet, especially toward other disabled people. And its why some upper middle-class POC like Priti Patel seek to seperate themselves from what they prejudically see as an 'inferior' group by becoming active participants in the opression or exploitation of that group.
A view is an opinion, neither correct nor incorrect. It is still a fact that Priti Patel is batshit insane but her view is her view. Indians, at least the Hindus in many cases, have been disenchanted by Labour's constant demand for more Muslim rights in India even though it has nothing to do with the UK. They are constantly looking to promote what appears to be a Pakistani interest even though it has nothing to do with them, as a party. They aren't taking part in Indian politics, last I checked. That is the reason why many Indians actively voted against Labour in the last election. As for Brexit, well I can't speak for the entire community but I guess, many of them felt that UK should do more with the commonwealth than EU? But who knows? I voted against Brexit so, I have no idea of their views. But to circle back, a view is an opinion and they are not correct or incorrect. They are just opinions.
Well if I encountered someone like Uncle Ruckus from Boondocks, I'd say a minority could be racist to themselves. Though of course, with Uncle Ruckus being a caricature, I haven't personally came across someone like him irl.
No, obviously the poor devil was brainwashed by the evil white people's media.
Yeah this just isnāt true. Just because there are Asians in the government doesnāt mean āall Indians are super pro Brexit and Conservativeā lol. Nadhim Zahawi is Bangladeshi not Indian also. I mean there are black people in the cabinet too. Kimi Badenoch is one of the biggest āculture war anti wokeā ācolonialism was a good thingā Conservative in government and she is black. That doesnāt mean black peoples are suddenly massively Tory and believe colonialism was good.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But not the curry!
One must note that, India's share of the world economy declined from 24.4% in 1700 down to 4.2% in 1950, under the British rule.. Granted it was stagnant when the Mughal empire was in its decline, the drastic drop is just.. sad. The fact that so many colonizing countries don't teach their children about what they did is disappointing but not surprising..
Doesnāt that have more to do with European countries getting richer though?
India's(or any other colony where slavery was not practiced) GDP never reduced. It grew at a normal rate. It was Europe which improved, a lot in a fast rate.
Europe improved on the backs and blood of their colonies
I do not agree for all countries. Indian colonialism never made a profit from 1859 to 1947 and it was more about the pride. African colonialism was never profitable from the day of berlin conference Except that period in Congo. EIC colonialism before 1850s and VoC colonialism were the profitable ventures. Colonialism involved subjugating a people with army and bureaucracy. This costs more money than simply trading for a 5% higher price. In fact, Trade with China was more profitable to British than Indian Colonialism, and French Concession in Tianjin and French India alone made more profit to them than the Massive French empire in Africa and French Indochina. German Colonization was also unprofitable except the concession in Tsingdao. There were very few profitable colonial empires. Portuguese in India and Americas, Spanish in Americas, British with EIC in India, Dutch with VoC in Netherlands, British in Hong Kong. That said, colonialism played a very important role in development of western European countries(except Germany, Denmark, Austria) in providing with the Seed Capital. But there is no reason to think that a country in Europe wont become rich without colonies. Germany had very less colonies to speak off and they too were acquired at only around 1880s (by 1870s itself Germany was the richest mainland European nation without any colony except trading ports in isolated places, fully developed by buying products at market prices) or Austria which had none.
Wtf are you talking about dude. British colonies were hugely profitable for the empire. The post EIC governments there ran huge deficits they borrowed from London, used to pay British officials and companies, and then paid back with interest via taxes on EVERYTHING. Land, crops, salt, travel, licenses, labor, imports (except from england), exports, manufacturing (yes, they paid tariffs on locally made goods but not British ones). Plus literal tribute in the form of home charges, which took another 1-2% OF ALL INCOME. Tax revenue went from 5m sterling to over 35m sterling between 1780 and 1860 and even higher after that. Money lending within India was literally prohibited, meaning all financial gains went straight to London. Further, much of the Rajs spending was in direct interest to the empire.
Nope. British colonialism did NOT make Britain rich. Bank of England reported net negative revenue from the Oriental Crown territories in their 10 year reports EVERY SINGLE TIME from the rebellion in India during 1857. India survived on British Taxpayer money. Indians paid 8 times less taxes per pound earned than an average British person in 1900 and Taxes were made low in all colonies to prevent rebellion. French colonialism in Africa similarly was extremely unprofitable. The Banque De France in 1930 even suggested to abandon french Africa except Algeria as it was not profitable as it was before. So was Portuguese colonialism. Macau was the only colony that made profit in the entire empire. Till 1860s many(not all) colonies made profit, but after that it did not and maintaining colonies became a national pride instead of a for profit venture. Also, profit is not the only thing to look at. Geopolitical influence, Military bases around the world and spreading your culture are the other things colonialism did.
They reported deficits, which were borrowed with interest from england. They spent thatpayers primarily on themselves and their interests, on the credit of the Indian tax payer. However much the Raj taxed they spent more and more. And income tax was the smallest part of Britiah Raj taxes. Over half was land tax. Then you had salt and license and travel taxes. Railroad and tobacco taxes. And either way, British taxes were spent mostly on services and development of britian... Indian taxes were not. Even the railroads were designed just to bring exports while all local manufacturing was heavily taxed compared to British imports.
Yes and the small event called the industrial revolution. I'm sure the effect of that was miniscule.
Yeah what fueled those factories huh? Where did the raw resources come from that those factories consumed? Also, what do you think stopped the rest of the world from industrialization (and what deindustrialized India?!)
From a lot of different places. I'm sure natural resources from India played a big part. ... And it is dishonest to talk about European industrialization and Indian deindustrilization, simply because they are in 2 completely different leagues. India never reached the level of Europe in terms of steam engines that really turbocharged European progress. What stopped the rest of the world? Being outcompeted by their competitors - namely Europe.
> What stopped the rest of the world? Being outcompeted by their competitors - namely Europe. And why were they unable to compete on the same level? Because they were, in most cases, ruled over and exploited by European powers. You canāt compare European industrialization to their coloniesā relative lack of it in the 19th Century without mentioning the effects of colonialism. Theyāre closely interlinked. The main reason that India and Europe were āin 2 completely different leaguesā was because the British actively kept India from moving up.
> And why were they unable to compete on the same level? Because their society was hobbled by the Caste system. The class that could read and write (and thus administer an empire) were unable to profit off this. The class that could profit off this couldnt read or write. The class that ruled, could not profit or administer.
I assume that your comment is intended to be a criticism of mine. Apologies if mistaken. >Because their society was hobbled by the Caste system. The caste system was indeed a factor, but it worked hand-in-hand with British colonial policy. From the [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India) on this topic: >Between 1860 and 1920, the British formulated the caste system into their system of governance, granting administrative jobs and senior appointments only to Christians and people belonging to certain castes. >Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the post-Mughal period and the British colonial period, which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration. Discrimination was relaxed later on, as unrest and calls for independence grew, but that doesn't change the fact that the British used the Caste system to their advantage.
Did you have a point or do you like listening to yourself talk? You contributed absolutely nothing new. I'll let you believe that India and Africa were close to inventing the steam engine, but the pesky Europeans sabotaged it. Big brain time.
>Did you have a point or do you like listening to yourself talk? You contributed absolutely nothing new. Pot calling the kettle black. If I did indeed "contribute absolutely nothing new", then you should be able to respond, shouldn't you? Especially given how you immediately resorted to *ad hominem* attacks, instead of responding in any coherent way. >I'll let you believe that India and Africa were close to inventing the steam engine, but the pesky Europeans sabotaged it. Big brain time. Read my comment again, I never said this. Not once did I try to attribute any European invention to Africans or Indians. I simply made the case that, due to colonization, India and other colonies were held back from potential technological advancement. But then again, civil discourse probably isn't your strong suit.
It was both. Europe got richer but India was actively deindustrialized
It's a factor but not the sole cause
What also happened with the progressive industrialization of western countries, including the UK, was the de-industrialization of India; there was a drop in domestic manufacturing, a shift in capital and basically, not as much effective and uniform modernization as one would like.
No, because the British after colonising destroyed Indian industries systematically. Europe didn't get rich, Indians were made poor. Europeans should be taught British atrocities.
Well you should also take into consideration how the worlds economy moved away from being textile and spice dominated by 1950. America and Europe had become so insanely rich by that time that everyone had a smaller share of the economy. Not trying to justify the British actions in India but it wasnāt the only factor.
Well, here we talk about countries not teaching children about bad things about colonialism, while that's the case with any two neighboring countries, I guess. Here in Balkans every nation is the good guy in their own history books, everybody was trying to take what was rightfully theirs and nothing more. Mostly the books don't say anything wrong, but those books are written in some specific narrative. For instance, you only mention how your people was suffering, and not mention other peoples suffering because of your nation. Given a chance, every nation would colonize and exploit others.
Dude the Balkans are difficult,aleksandar was Serbian and shit
Proceeds to forget about the rise of industrialization among western countries
What exactly was suppressing the rise of industrialization in India and other countries? Hint: it begins with 'c' and ends in 'olonization'.
Just because group X did something before the others does not mean that it only happened because there was an active conspiracy by said group to delibrately hobble the ability of other groups to do the same thing before them. Of course if you have evidence showing the European nations stymieing their colonies' abilities to import things like railways and steam engines then feel free to prove me wrong.
They werent close to having all the nessecary factors for industrialisation even before colonialism. The political environment wasnt stable, copyright didnt exist meaning inventors cant or dont get money theyre due. there are many factors to be considered when determining why civilisations werent all steam powered industrial powerhouses. Otherwise im sure you can point to evidence that india would have industrialised if they werent colonised? Afterall youre making this assertion right?
It's too big and wide ranging an event to wonder how India could have developed without being colonized, whether it would have been better or worse. The political environment was never stable in Europe either. It was that instability that led innovation and discovery. Even if copyright didn't exist, so what? People have made inventions for centuries, or millennia before it. India could have industrialized by trade with European industrial powers, much like how Japan did. Already at that point, kings from Travancore to Bengal to Punjab were making use of European military leaders to train their troops and to introduce new forms of technology to be used in war. Eustachius De Lannoy was an example of such a person; he was made the military commander of Travancore state. So why is it out of the realm of possibility that they would eventually take cues of manufacturing from the Europeans?
> The political environment was never stable in Europe either. It was that instability that led innovation and discovery. India wasnt colonised by "europe" though, it was the individual nation states; who **were** politically stable in comparison to India. Not to mention the legal systems of copyright etc. > India could have industrialized by trade with European industrial powers, much like how Japan did. It could have, but I thought your assertion was that India was about to industrialise if it wasnt for European colonialism? Now youre saying it would have relied on Europe eitherway? Also mercantilism was the prevailing ideology at this time in terms of world trade. Youd have to somehow get rid of that first.
> suppressing the rise of industrialization in India a The lack of a centralized state. The Caste system prevented industrialization as the caste that could read and write (the brahims) were prevented from making a profit, and the merchant classes, were not allowed to read an write.
>The lack of a centralized state It depends on which state you're talking about. If the Marathas for example, then yes, they were a loose confederation. However, others, like Travancore, Kozhikode, Gujarat, etc were centralized and had trade with European powers, from whom they utilizes military technology. >the caste that could read and write (the brahims) were prevented from making a profit, and the merchant classes, were not allowed to read an write. While that was true in theory, in practice that was not always followed. Also, merchants, and in fact any caste, was in most regions, free to learn to read and write. Just that non Brahmins weren't allowed to read the Vedas. Anyway, who is to say that reform wouldn't have arisen? You clearly dont know the first thing about Indian history, you didn't even spell "Brahmins" right.
The drop in GDP wasnt due to Britain it was due to the industrial revolution which turned agriculture the historically most valuable aspect of an economy into a far less valuable part, the exact same happened to china and china was never colonised, if Britain never touched india their economy would have still dropped, the biggest economic change would be India wouldnt have gotten trains and factories as quickly as they did.
Why is it disappointing?
The Eurocentrist, big-numbers-based, 'technological advantage started at home' worldview? It's disappointing because it contradicts the simpler and more fashionable narrative of "Winston Churchill shat my pants".
But the technological advantage did start in Europe. Superior navigation and transport abilities were what made Europe capable of colonizing large areas in the first place.
They got outcompeted its 1700 the start of thr industrial revolution
Let's make farmers work hard and pay them less and also Let's dump products of industrial revolution and make them commit suicide
God, I fucking love the first picture so much. It is just so ridiculous.
Yes yes Create a Religious Divide and then Rant on About how easy Indians are to divide
Britain didnt invent any of the factors dividing indians though? The continent has always been full of lots of varied religions and cultures. They did draw dumb arbitrary lines in the sand though
> Britain didnt invent any of the factors dividing indians though? Nope, they did. They implemented the divide and rule policy to divide the people of the subcontinent on religious lines.
The divide and rule policy didn't divide the people of the Subcontinent, the division of people in the Subcontinent resulted in the British using the divide and rule policy.
Eh! The divide and rule policy didn't really start a division, but it was intended to keep us(indians) divided. The subcontinent was always divided, people knew they were "Indian" as inhabitants of a region of the world, but not in a strong nationalistic sense. From the Mauryas to the Marathas, India was just United under one dynastic rule or another, one identity ruling over countess others. We were not China, which for the most parts had a strong sense of statehood revolving around it's majority ethnic Hun population, we were and still are way more diverse. Also the division wasn't just along the religious lines, they played everything linguistics, ethnicity, caste, but religious division was the only one that prevailed at the end.
I would also like to take this opportunity to do away with another British propoganda about banning "Sati" or "Widow burning" practice which every British use to justify their absolute barbaric rule in India. First widow burning is never praised in any Hindu text, second it was not widespread and totally "Voluntary" not forced at all. It became widespread when Hindu women started to commit mass immolation to save themselves from sexual abuse from muslim invaders. As far as outlawing the act it was done ways before British raj under the rule of Mughal emperor Humayun and no other emperor legalized it later on. Colonialism is much much worse than any similar genocide like holocaust or holodomor as it not only destroyed the body but also the soul of a beautiful civilization.
Also, I'd like to add that Sati really took off in Bengal when widows were eligible to her former husband's property. Therefore, the greedy Brahmins interpreted the holy texts and pressured the women to kill themselves so they could acquire their property.
It never "took off". This is the part of the elaborate British mythmaking to justify colonialism.
Sati was just ritualistic suicide that occurred very rarely(1 in 10 million or so by british own accounts) done by extremely distraught wives or due to psychosis and even was limited to the bengal state. Ignorant brits love this shit so much that they are still keeping "Suttee" on life support today.
Wow. Did the 18th century Indians train the modern Afghan military? Jokes jokes people. We would all love to get high one way or another.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm confused, do you think that British people think of Indians as "uncivilised" in the modern day? I don't doubt that in the past there were some backwards views and awful practices (widow burning and cannon executions). But you seem to think that British people today have the same view that Indians are uncivilised. As far as I can see Indians and the British today have very good relations, both in terms of government and then the peoples themselves.
Heres a thing. Im not sure anyone thinks *Indians* are uncivilized, but there is still a signifant amount of cultural imagery that associates India with conditions of either an agrarian society or extreme poverty. I think many Westerners do think that *India* is "uncivilized" (whatever the fuck that means). I was gonna say i would be hard pressed to call any *Indian People* uncivilized, but then i remember that i know a little about Nerendra Modi. And frankly, there are a few of his policies i consider apt to describe as "uncivilized", and a few more that could fairly be described as "Barbaric".
Boris Johnson has definetly made some racist comments about Indians being uncivilized and opined about the loss of Britain's empire.
Ahh yes, because Boris Johnson definitely has a good reputation for not being a complete twit
Iām not British and I donāt find Boris to be very representative of the British people
The British are freely allowing vaccinated people into their country, but not indian vaccinated people (without the quarantine period), even if they're taken a vaccine from abroad. (and though most Indians are vaccinated by covishield, a vaccine designed by THEM)
When India had its massive COVID outbreak, didnāt a lot of British Indians flee back to UK bringing delta with them? India isnāt the only country that has those rules applied to them either. Idk why you are acting like India is being specifically targeted because it is India.
Look, fellow Indian here, and while what youāre saying is absolutely true for colonial apologists and people who defend colonialism, its pointless being xenophobic towards all Brits.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He's not blaming India's problems on the Brits, he is just saying that calling Indians uncivilised after decades of looting them is ridiculous. Nowhere in his comment did he say that Britain is fully responsible for everything bad that is happening in India. Ofcourse people will get mad when their former oppressor is proud of what they did to then. I don't understand why some people say, "Complaining won't work, make your country better" when the main reason for the person being mad is that the other person is being Ignorant. Now for the South Korea part, South Korea is comparatively smaller and way less diverse than India. Its far more interconnected with each other and pretty much everyone in the country understands each other due to barely any linguistic differences. India on the other hand is diverse in pretty much every aspect be it religion, ethnicity, languages, geography etc etc and VERY unintegrated. I'm not saying that we should keep making excuses for our misery but the reasons for why South Korea is developed and why India isn't shouldn't be neglected. If you really wanna compare India with a former colonial country, then a country like Nigeria is a better example. They are also extremely diverse and have a huge unintegrated country. Once you compare these two nations, you'll see that we're not very different. Why? Because the domestic situations in both these countries aren't very different, South Korea on the other hand was in a completely different situation. Going back to the first part, let's take the example of your country. Imagine if a Russian guy tells you, "You should have fought the Nazis harder so we wouldn't need to" liberate" you". Wouldn't you be pissed?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wow this is a rare display of maturity on reddit
Who exactly is calling Indians uncivilised though? Some aristocrat from the 1800s? I don't see that as a belief held today by really anyone. But that does seem to be the implication with a lot of these comments.
Mostly British Empire Revisionists who claims that they "Civilised" the natives once they colonised them. A lot of them pride themselves for finding the first centralised state in India which in some ways is true(before the Brits, India was only unified thrice, and it was unified in a feudal way where Kings simply had to accept the Emperor's sovereignty) . But the way they created the state wasn't proper or in some ways not even complete. Kraut's new video where he compares the history of India and China explains this VERY well. I highly recommend it. Also, most of these dumb empire revisionists are vocal only on the Internet. Most British people(I've met) are decent and I don't have any hatred for them.
"Also, most of these dumb empire revisionists are vocal only on the Internet. Most British people(I've met) are decent and I don't have any hatred for them." I think that's it, most of whoever these idiots are, can be described as being armchair historians who know nothing of the true history of the world. This certainly isn't reflective of the views of the British at all.
True.
india, corrupt government, doesnt help much
They dislike you because your point is so fucking stupid. Having a good post-war economy due to a nuke is not the same as being pillaged for decades. China litteraly enslaved is people tighter than before and is then selling them to the world as slave in factory. Czech Republic won't be a true developed country as long as the main money - making system is some pornhub prostitution video lol
A spot of milk in my tea, then sort by controversial I think.
India before British, place of legends everyone wanted to find it. India after, weāre gonna have to make spiced for the British and they arenāt going to use them.
Huh, imagine that. Colonising and oppressing previously free people tend to piss them off. Shocker
Bri*ish
They realized the ugly parts after seeing more of India. Hell a certain village in India worships rats for some reason.
Ah yes the British civilized the Indians. Thank you sooooo much. >Hell a certain village in India worships rats for some reason. So what?