British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colonialism was bad. Other than a couple of dimwits here, is there really anyone pro-colonialism today? I don’t think anyone is power is pro-colonialism.

Well yes, there are some Indians now and of course Indians then who thought colonialism was beneficial and better than the alternative. This study references very specific dates that were periods of civil unrest and political upheaval. Specifically periods of time when colonialism was not keeping the country peaceful.

[Anonymous]

What a weird debate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How did British rule cause this tremendous loss of life? There were several mechanisms. For one, Britain effectively destroyed India’s manufacturing sector. Prior to colonisation, India was one of the largest industrial producers in the world, exporting high-quality textiles to all corners of the globe. The tawdry cloth produced in England simply could not compete. This began to change, however, when the British East India Company assumed control of Bengal in 1757.

According to the historian Madhusree Mukerjee, the colonial regime practically eliminated Indian tariffs, allowing British goods to flood the domestic market, but created a system of exorbitant taxes and internal duties that prevented Indians from selling cloth within their own country, let alone exporting it.

This unequal trade regime crushed Indian manufacturers and effectively de-industrialised the country. As the chairman of East India and China Association boasted to the English parliament in 1840: “This company has succeeded in converting India from a manufacturing country into a country exporting raw produce.” English manufacturers gained a tremendous advantage, while India was reduced to poverty and its people were made vulnerable to hunger and disease.

However, at the same time, England and the rest of Europe was starting into the Industrial Revolution that really accelerated the wealth of England and didn't really have much to do with India at all.

A better argument, but not one that the study authors, or others citing the study, would be that England kept India out of the Industrial Revolution - but there's no reason to think that happened and that had England never encountered India that India would have proceeded alongside Europe in the Industrial Revolution during that time period.

India was an enormous economic driver for the British economy

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Now, let's do the Mongol Empire.

You know, the greatest cause of violent death (by percentage of people living at the time) in recorded human history.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a weird debate

The British committed some atrocities in India. These famines are different in cause and scope.

[Anonymous]

Odd claim. Britain brought India into the modern world. Moving from agrarianism to industrialism caused a lot of increased poverty in Britain as well when it was going through its own industrial revolution, that’s just how it works. The British empire was the most benevolent empire in world history. Are there any other contenders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How did British rule cause this tremendous loss of life? There were several mechanisms. For one, Britain effectively destroyed India’s manufacturing sector. Prior to colonisation, India was one of the largest industrial producers in the world, exporting high-quality textiles to all corners of the globe. The tawdry cloth produced in England simply could not compete. This began to change, however, when the British East India Company assumed control of Bengal in 1757.

According to the historian Madhusree Mukerjee, the colonial regime practically eliminated Indian tariffs, allowing British goods to flood the domestic market, but created a system of exorbitant taxes and internal duties that prevented Indians from selling cloth within their own country, let alone exporting it.

This unequal trade regime crushed Indian manufacturers and effectively de-industrialised the country. As the chairman of East India and China Association boasted to the English parliament in 1840: “This company has succeeded in converting India from a manufacturing country into a country exporting raw produce.” English manufacturers gained a tremendous advantage, while India was reduced to poverty and its people were made vulnerable to hunger and disease.

To be honest, this sounds like the equivalent of MSNBC talking about the US. Nonsense drivel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colonialism was bad. Other than a couple of dimwits here, is there really anyone pro-colonialism today? I don’t think anyone is power is pro-colonialism.

Are you serious? What does the word mean? It means to “colonize,” it does not mean some sort of Marxist fever dream. Colonialism worked out pretty well for North America. I.e., colonizing what is now the united states. Do you really think there is a scenario where no non American peoples would have come to this continent? Also, the democrats (and many republicans) are pushing the colonization of the United States today by foreign immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colonialism was bad. Other than a couple of dimwits here, is there really anyone pro-colonialism today? I don’t think anyone is power is pro-colonialism.

Colonialsm was pretty good for the British.

It's the way of the world that the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Colonialism was bad. Other than a couple of dimwits here, is there really anyone pro-colonialism today? I don’t think anyone is power is pro-colonialism.

Are you serious? What does the word mean? It means to “colonize,” it does not mean some sort of Marxist fever dream. Colonialism worked out pretty well for North America. I.e., colonizing what is now the united states. Do you really think there is a scenario where no non American peoples would have come to this continent? Also, the democrats (and many republicans) are pushing the colonization of the United States today by foreign immigrants.

You realize that colonialism is different from colonization? The British didn't move into India (or other nations) and establish colonies, it subjugated its people, and exploited its resources, at the expense of the people that were living there.

[Anonymous]

It is hard to compare the colonial experience in America with Indian. North America native population was reduced to a tenth of its population. You can look to Ireland. Clearly the British took to wealth and did not care what local populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How did British rule cause this tremendous loss of life? There were several mechanisms. For one, Britain effectively destroyed India’s manufacturing sector. Prior to colonisation, India was one of the largest industrial producers in the world, exporting high-quality textiles to all corners of the globe. The tawdry cloth produced in England simply could not compete. This began to change, however, when the British East India Company assumed control of Bengal in 1757.

According to the historian Madhusree Mukerjee, the colonial regime practically eliminated Indian tariffs, allowing British goods to flood the domestic market, but created a system of exorbitant taxes and internal duties that prevented Indians from selling cloth within their own country, let alone exporting it.

This unequal trade regime crushed Indian manufacturers and effectively de-industrialised the country. As the chairman of East India and China Association boasted to the English parliament in 1840: “This company has succeeded in converting India from a manufacturing country into a country exporting raw produce.” English manufacturers gained a tremendous advantage, while India was reduced to poverty and its people were made vulnerable to hunger and disease.

To be honest, this sounds like the equivalent of MSNBC talking about the US. Nonsense drivel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Odd claim. Britain brought India into the modern world. Moving from agrarianism to industrialism caused a lot of increased poverty in Britain as well when it was going through its own industrial revolution, that’s just how it works. The British empire was the most benevolent empire in world history. Are there any other contenders?

India was the industrial workshop of the world in the 17th and 18th century, before the British. How do you know that India wouldn't have come "into the modern world" if it weren't for the British? After all, the civilization there dates back thousands of years, and had some of the most advanced civilizations, well before Europe. I'm sure the British empire was "benevolent", if you were British; funny how none of the countries it colonized thought so, and the US actually fought a whole damn war to be rid of them.