Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
India split along religous lines in terms of Hindhu and Muslim after Britain left.
The British Empire was nothing to do with mass immigration, it was a trading Empire, indeed for most of our time there the local Maharajas (Princes) ran the local regions and had their own armies, and Britain helped make them wealthy through trade. The Indian Caste system condemned many Indians to povery, and there was poverty and starvation in India, hoever there was poverty and starvation in Victorian Britain, with the average life expectancy for a male in a city such as Liverpool being 26 years old.
This suited Britain a naval power with a relatively small army very well.
Most of the British Empire occurred during a period of wooiden ships and muskets, and we were not responsible for all the worlds ill's.
Britain has it's own immigration rules which are being tightened further still post-Brexit, and Britain is a major contributor in terms of foreign aid, and gives nearly $18 Billion a year and is one the biggest per capita aid contributors in the entire world.
To pretend that modeen Britain or France are responsible is nonsense as is to suggest that immigration has any bearing on this, as immigration relates to all countries in the EU, US and West and not just France and Britain.
sure britain has absolutely nothing to do with any of the post colonial chaos present in the world.
Way to wash your hands off of the responsibility.
Let me guess… The chaos in Israel and Palestine is also not related to England, right?
Nor the terrible partition of Africa into countries that catered to British interests rather tan to African interests.
Modern Britain has a responsibility with mending its past wether you like it or not.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19488
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovia
sure britain has absolutely nothing to do with any of the post colonial chaos present in the world.
Way to wash your hands off of the responsibility.
What responsibility we left India in 1947 and they took control over theoir own affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovia
Let me guess… The chaos in Israel and Palestine is also not related to England, right?
Palestine was never part of the British Empire and neither was Mesopotamia (Iraq)
The British had a peacekeeping mandate there after WW1 folloewing the brak up of the Ottaman Empire given to them by the League of Nations which was the equivalent of todays United Nations. The mandate was very very unpopular in Britain and the ordinary people wanted British troops out of the area, as they were being targeted by terrorist groups on both sides.
The French also had a similar mandate in relation to Lebanon and Syria.
Britain allowed some Jewish migration but never wanted the mass Jewish migration which happened after WW2, nor did we vote for the partition of Palestine or the creation of Israel. Indeed we abstained as not to annoy Truman and the US, as the nation had been bakrupted by WW2.
It was the UN, US and the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Israeli state that started lasting conflict and not Britain, indeed Britain left the region altogether after WW2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovia
Nor the terrible partition of Africa into countries that catered to British interests rather tan to African interests.
Modern Britain has a responsibility with mending its past wether you like it or not.
Britain had limited number of territories in Africa, although it should be noted that African tribes had been killing each other for centuries and they still don't like each other to this day, just as there was a history in the middle east throughout the ages. In terms of Africa it is only countries such as Zimbabwe which have fallen to despots and have been mismanaged that have really suffered, indeed I am sure you would be blaming Britain for Venezuela right now if he we had an Empire in South America (which we didn't). This countries are free to rule themselves and have been for a long time, and we did them a favour in WW2 in terms of helping to defeat the Germans in North Africa.
England was part of the Roman Empire, subject to Viking invasion and Danelaw, was invaded by Anglo Saxons (Germans) and Normans (French), saw off the Spanish Armarda, and even fought off invasion in the 20th Century, whilst it's cities saw mass bombing raids over them. So we do know all about Empires and invasion, or did you think being conquered invaded and ruled by other nations was something that applied to other countries and not Britain itself.
What responsibility we left India in 1947 and they took control over theoir own affairs.
When the British arrived in India in 1757 it was one of the largest economies in the world along with China. When you left in 1947 it was one of the poorest countries in the world. Through a series of devastating economic policies the British government methodically dismantled what existed of the Indian economy while also stagnating its ability to be industrialized. Measures included:
Barring Indian manufactured goods from being exported out of India while flooding India with cheap made British products. This process completely destroyed India's artisan class which at that point was the strongest portion of their economy. Thus artisans were forced to abandon their centuries old practice and take up agriculture. India within a short period of time went from being a net exporter based economy to a net importer based economy. Poverty increased exponentially.
Foreign investment was not allowed in British controlled India thus denying the locals the ability to naturally develop their own economy. This is critical in the period of Industrialization. This process thus hindered India's ability to economically develop setting them back a century behind the rest of the Industrialized world. Contrast this to Japan who was never colonized by Europeans. Thus Japan was able to industrialize at the same rate and time as Europe and North America.
Britain set India back by a century, you don't one day walk away from it one day and expect not be held accountable. Also 3 million poor Indians starved to death under British rule.
When the British arrived in India in 1757 it was one of the largest economies in the world along with China. When you left in 1947 it was one of the poorest countries in the world. Through a series of devastating economic policies the British government methodically dismantled what existed of the Indian economy while also stagnating its ability to be industrialized. Measures included:
Barring Indian manufactured goods from being exported out of India while flooding India with cheap made British products. This process completely destroyed India's artisan class which at that point was the strongest portion of their economy. Thus artisans were forced to abandon their centuries old practice and take up agriculture. India within a short period of time went from being a net exporter based economy to a net importer based economy. Poverty increased exponentially.
Foreign investment was not allowed in British controlled India thus denying the locals the ability to naturally develop their own economy. This is critical in the period of Industrialization. This process thus hindered India's ability to economically develop setting them back a century behind the rest of the Industrialized world. Contrast this to Japan who was never colonized by Europeans. Thus Japan was able to industrialize at the same rate and time as Europe and North America.
Britain set India back by a century, you don't one day walk away from it one day and expect not be held accountable. Also 3 million poor Indians starved to death under British rule.
It is estimated the British took almost 9 trillion pounds out of India in 400 years.
It is estimated the British took almost 9 trillion pounds out of India in 400 years.
The major European powers almost always disallowed any foreign investment in their colonial holdings. This is absolutely devastating to a regions ability to develop a modern economy. It was made even worse by the timing. The period of industrialization was critical to a nations economy future and many regions of the world were actively denied it for over a century. Africa, India, Southeast Asia, etc.
Thus an Indian man's only option for capital needed to start a tea business would by through a British bank. Think they would give this man a loan?...nope. Its no wonder that British businesses owned ALL of India's tea growing land and exports.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19488
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
When the British arrived in India in 1757 it was one of the largest economies in the world along with China. When you left in 1947 it was one of the poorest countries in the world. Through a series of devastating economic policies the British government methodically dismantled what existed of the Indian economy while also stagnating its ability to be industrialized. Measures included:
Barring Indian manufactured goods from being exported out of India while flooding India with cheap made British products. This process completely destroyed India's artisan class which at that point was the strongest portion of their economy. Thus artisans were forced to abandon their centuries old practice and take up agriculture. India within a short period of time went from being a net exporter based economy to a net importer based economy. Poverty increased exponentially.
Foreign investment was not allowed in British controlled India thus denying the locals the ability to naturally develop their own economy. This is critical in the period of Industrialization. This process thus hindered India's ability to economically develop setting them back a century behind the rest of the Industrialized world. Contrast this to Japan who was never colonized by Europeans. Thus Japan was able to industrialize at the same rate and time as Europe and North America.
Britain set India back by a century, you don't one day walk away from it one day and expect not be held accountable. Also 3 million poor Indians starved to death under British rule.
Absoloute nonsense - firstly it was Britain who largely established global trade through the Charted Companies.
Britain didn't invade India what happened was Chartered companies such as the East India Company started trading and doing deals with the Maharajas (Crown Princes) who ran areas of India and who had their own armies, and closer ties came through this.
The British eventually set up a civil service and government, western education, modern medicine and the rule of law, they also put in place local works, famine relief, and irrigation projects, most notably in the Punjab, which benefited enormously from what was then the largest irrigation project in the world.
Britain left good transport hubs, one of the largest rauilway systems in the world and a system of trade which benefits India today.
India was also not the poorest country in the world.
As for famines there have been numerous famines across the world and there was lots of poverty in England itself, and life was cheap back thwn which is why children worked in coal mines and as chimney seeps or clearing out dangerous machinery in Victorian Britain, and why the average like expectancy was so low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirpal Dhaliwal
Despite the country's vast population, there were never more than 70,000 British troops in India; the running of the country required an enormous infrastructure of native troops, police and bureaucrats. As Hitler observed, Indians merely had to spit all at once and every Briton in India would have drowned.
Indians assisted with Empire because it brought them unprecedented order and civility. Indians were no strangers to outside rulers; for eight centuries before the Raj, the sub-continent had been subjected to the plunder and depravity of the Mughals - Muslim rulers who came from as far west as Turkey.
Delhi was razed eight times in that period and great pyramids were constructed with the skulls of its inhabitants.
Because Islam permits the enslavement of non-Muslims, Indians were sold across the Islamic world in such quantities that the international price of slaves collapsed. The Afghan mountain range of the Hindu Khush (which translates as the 'Hindu Slaughter') is named after the huge numbers who died there while being marched to the markets of Arabia and Central Asia.
For all the artistic refinement and opulence of India's past rulers - and their poetry, music, and the magnificence of the Taj Mahal are testament to that - they oversaw a period of general barbarism in which the ordinary Indian was no more than a starving chattel.
The rebellions which eventually arose against the Mughals - such as the Sikhs in Punjab and the Marathas in the south - fractured the rulers' power, and enabled the British to get their own foot in the door.
At this point, it's important to remember that the British did not arrive in an idyllic sub-continent full of happy, contented Indians, but in one in extreme turmoil.
And, though primarily motivated by profit, they sought to apply humane values - even if at gunpoint.
In 1846, the British commissioner, John Lawrence, told the local elite that Punjabis could no longer burn their widows, commit female infanticide, nor bury their lepers alive.
When they protested, saying that he had promised there would be no interference in their religious customs, Lawrence steadfastly replied that it was British religious custom to hang anyone who did such things.
In addition to combating these barbaric practices, the British also outlawed slavery in 1843 at a time when an estimated 10 million Indians were slaves - up to 15 per cent of the population in some regions.
Yes, British rule was exploitative and took away more than it provided, but compared to what Indians had known previously, there was much to be thankful for.
This gratitude expressed itself in 1939 when, at the height of the independence movement led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi, two million Indians nonetheless enlisted in the fight against fascism - the largest volunteer army in history.
It's no overstatement to say that, without the British, Indians would not even know what it is to be Indian.
After 800 years of Mughal rule, Hindu culture was in terminal decline and it was the likes of Warren Hastings and William Jones, the founders of the Asiatic Society, who began the collection and renewed study of India's ancient texts, educating Indians about their own rich and unique past.
As you can see everything was peachy in India efore the British arrived, and Britain has always been very grateful to the millions of Indians who volunteered to fight both in WW1 and against fascism in WW2.
India has been at the mercy of the Islamic Mughal rule for 800 years before the British arrived and it was the British that finally put the county back on it's feet and finally gave it independence, in order thsat it could become the strong independent country that it is today.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19488
Quote:
Originally Posted by rovia
It is estimated the British took almost 9 trillion pounds out of India in 400 years.
The world economy was tiny then in comparison to today and the Maharajas (Indian Royalty) had lavish lifestyles, and as for 400 years what utter nonsense, as it was only from 1858 to 1947 that India was subject to direct rule.
Today India is the 5th largest country in the world, and trades across the world.
Absoloute nonsense - firstly it was Britain who largely established global trade through the Charted Companies.
At the benefit of only British companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
The British eventually set up a civil service and government, western education, modern medicine and the rule of law, they also put in place local works, famine relief, and irrigation projects, most notably in the Punjab, which benefited enormously from what was then the largest irrigation project in the world.
These projects were not for the benefit of the local people but for the benefit of the Brits who controlled India. The railroads for example were built for the export of raw material not to serve the Indian people. Not only that but in their very conception and construction, the Indian railways were a colonial scam. British shareholders made absurd amounts of money by investing in the railways, where the government guaranteed returns double those of government stocks, paid entirely from Indian, and not British, taxes. It was nothing more then a racket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
As for famines there have been numerous famines across the world and there was lots of poverty in England itself, and life was cheap back thwn which is why children worked in coal mines and as chimney seeps or clearing out dangerous machinery in Victorian Britain, and why the average like expectancy was so low.
How did the British Empire benefit working class Brits? It didn't. Most were wage slaves in all but name. The working class Brits were some of the biggest suckers of the whole empire. It was with their blood and sweat that the empire was forged and what did they get back in return? Nothing.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19488
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
At the benefit of only British companies.
Of course it eas in their own interest they were trading companies, however the Indians and especially the Hindhu majority much prefered the British to the Islamic Maghal Empire, and the British did keep the local ruler happy and make them wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
These projects were not for the benefit of the local people but for the benefit of the Brits who controlled India. The railroads for example were built for the export of raw material not to serve the Indian people. Not only that but in their very conception and construction, the Indian railways were a colonial scam. British shareholders made absurd amounts of money by investing in the railways, where the government guaranteed returns double those of government stocks, paid entirely from Indian, and not British, taxes. It was nothing more then a racket.
Firstly Britain never had more than 70,000 soldiers in India, it was the local rulers, the Indian police and the Indian authorities that kept order in such a vast country.
Secondly the projects mentioned benfited everyone, as did the British telling the that Punjabis they could no longer burn their widows, commit female infanticide, nor bury their lepers alive and that also outlawed slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
How did the British Empire benefit working class Brits? It didn't. Most were wage slaves in all but name. The working class Brits were some of the biggest suckers of the whole empire. It was with their blood and sweat that the empire was forged and what did they get back in return? Nothing.
Working class Brits were more concerned with where their next meal was coming from than anything else at the time.
It was among the slums of Manchester that Friedrich Engels wrote his famous work The Condition of the Working Class in England and it was in Manchester where he met with Karl Marx, who also saw the dreadful conditions, and it was from these conditions that Marxism and Communism developed as a political theory.
Of course it eas in their own interest they were trading companies, however the Indians and especially the Hindhu majority much prefered the British to the Islamic Maghal Empire, and the British did keep the local ruler happy and make them wealthy.
The fact that the British made a tiny fraction of Hindus wealthy in order to ensure the slave labors working the fields were orderly is hardly a positive thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Firstly Britain never had more than 70,000 soldiers in India, it was the local rulers, the Indian police and the Indian authorities that kept order in such a vast country.
You did to India what you had already done to Britain. How wonderful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Secondly the projects mentioned benfited everyone, as did the British telling the that Punjabis they could no longer burn their widows, commit female infanticide, nor bury their lepers alive and that also outlawed slavery.
This is top self level whataboutry. The point is rich London businesses ran a racket where they overcharged Indian taxpayers (who were already very desperate) on the construction of railroads. So yeah you built all those railroads but it cost Indians three times more then it should have, if they had done it themselves. How generous of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Working class Brits were more concerned with where their next meal was coming from than anything else at the time.
I'm baffled when working class Brits take pride in the achievements of the British Empire. Your sweat, your blood and you got nothing back in return. If you are from a working class family in Britain you should loathe the Empire. Not only that but the riches of the empire was not shared. Wealthy mercantile Brits horded the wealth amongst themselves and built grand estates while a mile down the road people were barely able to feed their kids. What great achievement is that? You traded in feudalism for another version of feudalism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
