British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years

[Anonymous]

Let’s not forget about South Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Certainly the white settlers decimated the native tribes, but I don't think you can lay that at the feet of the British. Most of that happened after the US became an independent country.

No actually most of the Native American population was already decimated by disease before they even laid eyes upon a white man for the first time. History needs to be taken more seriously than to just twist truth however it suits you.

[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.

The democrats, and many republicans, are purposing no such thing. Crazy! Is. This a new QAnon theory? Or one presented by white nationalism? Either way it’s pure hogwash!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, British colonialism brought modern governance and administration to the feudal feuding system that was previously there, and that returned at various times especially during the time periods of the study.

And the British system of governance and administration is kept in India now because it is good.

It has remained so in many former British colonies because it is a legacy institution, not because it is "good" or better than the previous system of governance.

Nonsense. You’re biting into some narrative concocted to support a Marxist agenda. “Colonizers are evil!” shrieked the Berkeley professor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, British colonialism brought modern governance and administration to the feudal feuding system that was previously there, and that returned at various times especially during the time periods of the study.

And the British system of governance and administration is kept in India now because it is good.

It has remained so in many former British colonies because it is a legacy institution, not because it is "good" or better than the previous system of governance.

Yeah, just look at how amazingly well the countries that were never subject to colonization are doing. Ethiopia sure is killing it right now

Ethiopia was colonized by Italy, just so you're aware.

For 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Thank God for both the Roman Empire and the British Empire, which built civilization as we know it and from whom you have all benefitted tremendously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank God for both the Roman Empire and the British Empire, which built civilization as we know it and from whom you have all benefitted tremendously.

Never mind the millions killed and still suffering because of Britain's civilization of coloured savages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I don’t think anyone is power is pro-colonialism.

Britain was once a Roman colony. They had some advances that would not return for 1000 years.

[Anonymous]

British colonies in Africa tend to be doing better than French colonies. The British legal system has been a benefit to India and many other places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:British colonies in Africa tend to be doing better than French colonies. The British legal system has been a benefit to India and many other places.

So 100 million dead in India and millions more in poverty is worth the British legal system. Remember the British legal system all power is from the monarchy. So no not worth it. Do you think communist legal system imposed by Mao was worth what he put China through?

Here are the areas formerly under British control in Africa.

Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Gambia, Sierra Leone, northwestern Somalia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, Ghana, and Malawi

The British system oppressed, kill and torture millions in South Africa and legalize the stealing on resources. The apartheid state was all British.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:British colonies in Africa tend to be doing better than French colonies. The British legal system has been a benefit to India and many other places.

So 100 million dead in India and millions more in poverty is worth the British legal system. Remember the British legal system all power is from the monarchy. So no not worth it. Do you think communist legal system imposed by Mao was worth what he put China through?

Here are the areas formerly under British control in Africa.

Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Gambia, Sierra Leone, northwestern Somalia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, Ghana, and Malawi

The British system oppressed, kill and torture millions in South Africa and legalize the stealing on resources. The apartheid state was all British.

Did you read the study of the OP? Because the "100 million dead in India" is the subject of this thread and that is not without issues, if you look at the study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:British colonies in Africa tend to be doing better than French colonies. The British legal system has been a benefit to India and many other places.

So 100 million dead in India and millions more in poverty is worth the British legal system. Remember the British legal system all power is from the monarchy. So no not worth it. Do you think communist legal system imposed by Mao was worth what he put China through?

Here are the areas formerly under British control in Africa.

Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Gambia, Sierra Leone, northwestern Somalia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, Ghana, and Malawi

The British system oppressed, kill and torture millions in South Africa and legalize the stealing on resources. The apartheid state was all British.

Did you read the study of the OP? Because the "100 million dead in India" is the subject of this thread and that is not without issues, if you look at the study.

How about the dead Irish? Can you really argue that Ireland wouldn't be at least as well off as it is now without years of English rule that vacillated back and forth between ethnic cleansing and neglect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank God for both the Roman Empire and the British Empire, which built civilization as we know it and from whom you have all benefitted tremendously.

Such a weird, sad take. Did you get this POV from your McGuffey’s Reader?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:British colonies in Africa tend to be doing better than French colonies. The British legal system has been a benefit to India and many other places.

And maybe they’d be doing even better had they not been colonized.

Maybe we should still be colonized - we’d be doing better, especially with gun control!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:British colonies in Africa tend to be doing better than French colonies. The British legal system has been a benefit to India and many other places.

And maybe they’d be doing even better had they not been colonized.

Maybe we should still be colonized - we’d be doing better, especially with gun control!

Of the countries that have never been colonized, Japan is doing great. That's about it.