British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

Shanghai is a major city thanks to European imperialism (not to mention Hong Kong).

No other major world power has held control of China, ever. China has always controlled China. That is the only thing I'm saying. There isn't a city on the planet that hasn't been influenced by outside cultures but the effect of another country coming in and asserting power over the indigenous population is what we're discussing here. It is weird to me that this is thing people are nitpicking about my post though, as this was a minor point and really not central to my overall point.

The Mongols controlled China for centuries. Europeans controlled key cities and treated the government as a puppet. Finally the Japanese occupied much of China.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

Shanghai is a major city thanks to European imperialism (not to mention Hong Kong).

No other major world power has held control of China, ever. China has always controlled China. That is the only thing I'm saying. There isn't a city on the planet that hasn't been influenced by outside cultures but the effect of another country coming in and asserting power over the indigenous population is what we're discussing here. It is weird to me that this is thing people are nitpicking about my post though, as this was a minor point and really not central to my overall point.

The Mongols controlled China for centuries. Europeans controlled key cities and treated the government as a puppet. Finally the Japanese occupied much of China.

I did not know that, thank you for educating me! I had thought China was ruled dynastically since pre AD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without the Brits far more would have died from malaria, cholera etc.

Win for the Brits- Indians are lucky to have had them.

India has had no major famine since independence, due to using the Indian Famine Codes developed by the British. The last big famine in India during British rule was in 1943, during wartime, when the codes were not followed.

The Bengal famine of 1943, a terrible atrocity when over 3 million Indians died due to Churchill's policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without the Brits far more would have died from malaria, cholera etc.

Win for the Brits- Indians are lucky to have had them.

India has had no major famine since independence, due to using the Indian Famine Codes developed by the British. The last big famine in India during British rule was in 1943, during wartime, when the codes were not followed.

The Bengal famine of 1943, a terrible atrocity when over 3 million Indians died due to Churchill's policies.

The causes of the Bengal famine of 1944, whether natural or man-made, intentional or unintentional, are debated. Probably not related to Churchill though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without the Brits far more would have died from malaria, cholera etc.

Win for the Brits- Indians are lucky to have had them.

India has had no major famine since independence, due to using the Indian Famine Codes developed by the British. The last big famine in India during British rule was in 1943, during wartime, when the codes were not followed.

The Bengal famine of 1943, a terrible atrocity when over 3 million Indians died due to Churchill's policies.

The causes of the Bengal famine of 1944, whether natural or man-made, intentional or unintentional, are debated. Probably not related to Churchill though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture.

Except for that invention of Western culture- communism.

[Anonymous]

It was only because it was the British that what Gandhi did worked. Anyone else would have killed him decades earlier, probably back when he was working for independence in South Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a very weird thread

A lot of people and civilizations in history did a lot of crappy stuff. We focus on the especially terrible (holocaust/ slavery) bc the human to human evil is recent and can be understood as evil even absent context. What do you want us to do about the macro economic public health impacts of a 2 century old regime? I don’t think we can hold Harry styles and Adele accountable

Colonialism is just as recent as the Holocaust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple assumptions that seem arguable. But at first look, there's no reason to think that colonialism could be good for the colonized - but the die cannot be unrolled, the present cannot be changed, and colonization did bring some benefits too.

I think the colonized should be the judge of that--and if the 100 million death toll was worth it.

No everyone is the judge of everything. Victims do not have special rights. No way the death toll was 100 million. Way more. But real question: so what? Who cares? That is the past. I am Irish and the death toll for the Famine is crazy high. More than 150 plus years latyer you move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a couple assumptions that seem arguable. But at first look, there's no reason to think that colonialism could be good for the colonized - but the die cannot be unrolled, the present cannot be changed, and colonization did bring some benefits too.

I think the colonized should be the judge of that--and if the 100 million death toll was worth it.

Shall we ask them to abandon "colonialist" benefits like a unified India, democracy, electricity, railroads, sanitation systems, the constitution, and the abolition of sati?

How dare you decide what would have been good for them. Maybe they would be more advanced than the western world if they had not been colonized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very weird thread

A lot of people and civilizations in history did a lot of crappy stuff. We focus on the especially terrible (holocaust/ slavery) bc the human to human evil is recent and can be understood as evil even absent context. What do you want us to do about the macro economic public health impacts of a 2 century old regime? I don’t think we can hold Harry styles and Adele accountable

Colonialism is just as recent as the Holocaust.

Actually far more recent. Belgium was committing heinous atrocities in the Congo up through the 60s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:India was valuable enough that the British Empire could lose the 13 Colonies in America, barely feel it, and still get much more powerful shortly afterwards.

India was a jewel. Jewels are pretty but they don't keep your house warm or fill your belly.

The Industrial Revolution was the source of wealth.

The Industrial Revolution was fueled with raw materials from the colonies, including India.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teaching improved farming techniques makes up for this hypothetical increase in deaths. I don't see any causal explanation for these excess deaths or lower living standards. Did the British salt the earth so farms wouldn't get crops?

Could it be that higher population itself increased the poverty rate? More poor people having more kids would boost a poverty rate very high.

Britain was exporting food out of Bengal to the UK (on those much-praised trains) while the Bengal Famine was killing millions in the region. The same thing happened during the Irish Potato Famine.

The point of colonialism is exploitation of the colony for natural resources to go back to the mother country, not development of the colony. The British outlawed textile production in India so that Indians would have to buy British textiles weaved using exported Indian cotton.

IOW, the British were lousy at colonization. The point of colonialism is not to create markets in India, or at least it shouldn't have been, although that's one of the things that the UK did.

Do you realize that mercantilism is one of the main drivers of colonialism? Do you realize that the US fought for independence out of Britain's mercantilist policies?

[Anonymous]

Weird how they blame britain for homophobic laws while ignoring the far longer Islamic rule of India . I have a feeling Islamic rule wasn’t lgbt friendly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a very weird thread

A lot of people and civilizations in history did a lot of crappy stuff. We focus on the especially terrible (holocaust/ slavery) bc the human to human evil is recent and can be understood as evil even absent context. What do you want us to do about the macro economic public health impacts of a 2 century old regime? I don’t think we can hold Harry styles and Adele accountable

Colonialism is just as recent as the Holocaust.

No one thinks the holocaust was good!