13 ms·

Extremely stupid tweet by Andreessen. He probably doesn't even realize that, like most ignorant people. FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy

• tosseraccount 11y ago
  Mughal Empire , sectarianism and caste system crippled India, not Britain.
  • vowelless 11y ago
    Were the mughals invaders and colonisers like the British? Did they "leave" after their demise? I thought they basically became part of India, especially with their artistic and religious influence on the people.
    • tosseraccount 11y ago
      Mughals were the Mongols who converted to Islam and invaded India.
      • oblio 11y ago
        And they were a small ruling caste that was assimilated by the locals, for the most part. So the previous comment was quite accurate. The Mughals of Babur were far removed from the Mughals of Bahadur II.
        • tosseraccount 11y ago
          Manchu Qing Dynastsy was foreign invaders that "got assimilated", too. Chinese people were glad to get rid of them and okay with Britain countering their presence.
  • nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    You should find out what India's share of world GDP and trade was when the british arrived.
    • peteretep 11y ago
      Every serious economic paper I've read on the subject suggests that decline in Indian GDP during the colonial years was due to the bottom dropping out of several commodities markets. You seem to be insinuating something else was at work. Do you have anything you could cite?
      • tosseraccount 11y ago
        Mughals: "The psychological interpretations emphasize depravity in high places, excessive luxury, and increasingly narrow views that left the rulers unprepared for an external challenge." [ theory from Wikipedia entry on Mughals. Follow their citations. ] People were glad to get rid of them and their wars which crippled India. Britain kicked them out and (mostly) unified India.
    • MLR 11y ago
      I really hate this argument, the change in GDP share is because the West industrialised and the East didn't, before that it was mostly a matter of population, per capita GDP didn't matter so much. Not to say I have any idea what would have happened without colonialism, but thinking that India would have retained their share of world GDP is naive.
      • nileshtrivedi 11y ago
        Is it a coincidence that industrial revolution happened in a country which was taking raw material from its colonies at zero cost? Owning India is what allowed Britain to fund its own development (as well as all its international wars). The british destroyed india's local textile sector (which was world-famous), shipped all the cotton to Britain, and sold clothes BACK to Indians. That's how this industrial revolution happened. This is what Mahatma Gandhi opposed and encouraged Indians to make their own yarn. That's where his association with the "charkha" and swadeshi movement comes from.
  • dharmach 11y ago
    Islamic invasion, caste system and colonialism all crippled India.
  • typon 11y ago
    The revisionism in this thread is incredible. Britain enslaved an entire nation for centuries and you think that didn't cripple India? They will have to pay for their crimes one day.
• jccc 11y ago
  FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy during the 70s and 80s. Which is exactly what he says he meant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072752
  • mikeash 11y ago
    If I were him, I'd say I meant that too! The original was catastrophically dumb. Was it because it's what he actually believes, or because he didn't spend more than fifteen microseconds considering his words? Beats me. Fun to watch, though.
    • jccc 11y ago
      Even when dealing with people I don't like and with whom I almost 100% of the time disagree, I've found it much better to try first to understand what the person was actually trying to say before jumping reflexively to the most uncharitable interpretation of what the person said.
      • mikeash 11y ago
        OK, how exactly are we supposed to do this here? The original statement may have different interpretations, but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" to "socialism." There's just no way to get from A to B actually looking at what was said. Then he comes along and says he meant something completely different. No relation to the original statement. Apparently a moment of total brain confusion. Do we take him at his word? I suppose we could, but then we're basically giving everybody a free pass to retroactively alter any statement they've made in any way if they don't like the reaction. For what it's worth, I don't dislike Mr. Andreessen and have only a vague idea of who he even is (something to do with Netscape, right?).
        • tomp 11y ago
          > but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" And only a single stupid interpretation results in mapping "against anti-colonialism" to "pro colonialism", but you chose exactly that one.
• hackerboos 11y ago
  It wasn't socialism, more protectionism. Investment in defunct industry and lack of investment in new technology for fear that it would overshadow the old craftmanship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fHDWoQuUZo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fHDWoQuUZo
• picardo 11y ago
  He probably meant "Anti-West" attitudes, not anti-colonialism. Coming from a third world country myself, I know there is a tendency to deny and dismiss some socially disruptive innovations because of their origin. There is a cultural trust issue there.
  • factorialboy 11y ago
    Net neutrality is not anti-West.
    • mc32 11y ago
      You have to take politics into account. In this case due to historical factors and reactionary attitudes it very well can be a reaction to "the west"
      • nileshtrivedi 11y ago
        Facebook was not the center of this debate at all. The debate and the regulation are about differential pricing. The movement started in opposition of Airtel (an Indian company) and people en-masse downvoted Flipkart (an Indian company) for participating. People have praised Google (a western company)'s Project Loon for respecting Net Neutrality and installing free wi-fi in railway stations. The criticism of FreeBasics would have gone to Reliance (an Indian company) if Facebook hadn't started this high-decibel campaign with two full pages of ads with heading "What Net Neutrality activists are not telling you". FB wanted the attention so they got it.
  • shripadk 11y ago
    India is pro-modernism. It has nothing to do with cultural trust. We just don't want to take in Western culture into India because we believe our culture, tradition and identity, that has been inherited from our ancestors for over thousands of years, needs to be protected. It is nothing against the Western culture. When we visit foreign countries we don't demand that our customs be followed but instead assimilate with that country's culture. Why do you think there are so many Indians in every part of the World living harmoniously? The same cannot be said about some other countries who are actually "Anti-West" and actively seek to change Laws in Western countries to suit their customs/traditions. We don't do such things and never will.
• rorykoehler 11y ago
  To be fair, it was stupid, however it was also a tongue in cheek tweet that was not an endorsement of colonialism and more poking fun at the sluggish Indian economy once they freed themselves of colonial rule. He was essentially making the point you made.
  • Gigablah 11y ago
    > poking fun at the sluggish Indian economy Ah, that's so much better. /s
  • blinkingled 11y ago
    > sluggish Indian economy once they freed themselves of colonial rule If you understand the affects of colonialism of 200 years - economic and other exploitation - sluggish is pretty much the best case you can expect after freedom. Comparing to other colonies India has done fairly well for having being nearly destroyed and rebuilt.
    • rorykoehler 11y ago
      I understand colonialism perfectly. My country was under British rule for almost 900 years, longer than any other country on earth. I wasn't supporting him in his statement, actually I disagree with at least 80% of what he tweets, however if there is to be a backlash against the likes of Marc Andreessen then it should be for legitimate reasons and not that he endorsed colonialism which he didn't. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be pissed with SV elites who say and act as they wish without making up fake reasons.
  • Zigurd 11y ago
    The 1970's called. They want their stereotype of the Indian economy back: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12146579/India-overtakes-China-as-worlds-fastest-growing-major-economy.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12146579/India-...
    • rorykoehler 11y ago
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• guyraput 11y ago
  It was just pure ignorance. Some of the larger impacts of colonialism: Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism. India's healthcare worsened during colonialism because all the resources were exported to Europe for cheap and in abundance India's literacy was worsened during colonialism and was just close to 10% during Independence. India's revolutionaries who opposed colonialism and raised against the British were brutally killed or hanged under British rule. Anyone who spoke against the colonialism were jailed. British Divide and Rule policy still affects India today.
  • shas3 11y ago
    Colonialism was one factor. It is not clear how India would have imbibed and benefited from the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution in the absence of British presence in the subcontinent. Just a reminder that British presence started in the very late 18th century, but their true hegemony was for 90 years, between 1857 and 1947. Japan had American presence, but no hegemony and is a good counterpoint to those who claim that colonialism has benefits. A few things to note: without the British, there may never have been a coherent whole of "India" as we know today. Counterfactuals are hard, but it is hard to assume that there would necessarily have been an Indian Bismarck or Garibaldi had there been no British hegemony. Different regions and kingdoms in India would have developed differently. You would have had a few Japans, notably in the South, West coast, Northeast, and parts of the Gangetic heartland: regions which were always wealthy and/or politically stable. Whether the economy would have declined less in the absence of colonialism is really impossible to answer. But to cite colonialism as the only reason is wrong, especially since the decline coincides roughly with the scientific and industrial revolutions that occurred in Western Europe and later, America.
    • Riod 11y ago
      Wrong. From wikipedia: Company rule in India (sometimes, Company Raj,[1] "raj," lit. "rule" in Hindi[2]) refers to the rule or dominion of the British East India Company on the Indian subcontinent. This is variously taken to have commenced in 1757, after the Battle of Plassey, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company, Also India pre 1947 was a civilization; a 2000+ year old one. Closest analogy is Europe. Do people vex about the existence of Belgium (a small country)? India went from exporting finished goods to exporting raw materials from the 1780's to the 1860's. Coincidence? To repeat what I said below: the industrial revolution in textiles kicked into high gear in England in 1822, a good 50 years or so after India was under effective company rule. And textiles was an industry where India had a comparative advantage before company rule. Wonder where Britain got all that raw material to make textiles from? From wikipedia: During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[20] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.[21] Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.
• rayiner 11y ago
  One thing I never see mentioned in this debate is the fact that America was a British colony as well, and colonial status definitely drained American wealth for centuries (though obviously, the occupation of India was far more brutal). But I think it's highly unlikely that America ever would've become a superpower without the benefit of British culture, institutions, and law.
  • JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    How about German culture, institutions and law? How about Bohemian? Austrian? Italian? Czech? Polish? America was last a British colony, but it was far from a uniform culture of expat British. And it reinvented itself violently upon rebellion. Into something quite new in the world. Or at least not seen in a long time. And definitely not British.
    • protomyth 11y ago
      Well, that's not exactly true. American is another child of the Magna Carta and we definitely (at the North's insistence) adopted the British economic system (Capitalism). Originally, Americans fought for their rights as British subjects, and later turned towards independence when that was not going to happen. Yes, the American government was a new thing, but it was built on a foundation already understood by the founding fathers. I often wonder about the world in the British had given seats in the House of Commons to its bigger colonies. Distance and communications speeds were problems as well as the government's attitude toward the colonies. It probably would have been cheaper than the world spanning war they ended up fighting with France during the American Revolution.
      • JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        They did something like that - they would defer decisions until they'd heard from the representative of the colony (the Governor?) In fact that was all the 'representation' that the American colony wanted in that slogan "No taxation without Representation!" (perhaps the worst political slogan of all time?) Just to be heard. Because our colony rep arrived a day or two too late to speak on the tea tax, designed to defray Britain' expenses for the defense of the Colony. Ironically the representative would have spoken in favor! But because he was not heard at all (and his objection dismissed as irrelevant), that put colonists in the same bucket as slaves and women - those who were not heard in government. That was what was intolerable.
• cookiecaper 11y ago
  Let's drop the pretense. A differing political interpretation is not necessarily a sign of ignorance, and pretending like it is only contributes to the atmosphere of toxic obstinance that has devoured our political process in recent years. Instead of implying that Marc Andreessen is uneducated or ignorant, explain your disagreement civilly, without name-calling or mud-slinging. If the issue is too sensitive for you to do that, it's probably best to refrain from replying until you've cooled down enough to remain civil and present a legitimate counter-argument.
• oxymoron 11y ago
  On the subject on British attitudes towards the third world, an illuminating example is that of Iran. English prospectors found oil in Iran in the early years of the 20th century, a find that in the words on Winston Churchill was "a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams". Britain established what was then the largest refinery in the world in Abadan, Iran, operated with was effectively slave labour, and spent the decades leading up to fifties with extracting vast fortunes. The Shah goverment was mostly a puppet regime and due to the British refusal to allow independent audit of the books of the Anglo-Persian oil company, only a few percent of the actual profit ended came back to the Iranian people. The Iranian people finally rose against the imperial influence of the British and ejected all British citizens in the early years of the fifties. Mossadegh, the prime minister, rose to prominence on an anti-english platform, initially demanding a 50% share of profits and reasonable treatment of Iranian labour. The British, under Attlee as well as with Churchill back in control, selfishly rejected all attempts at comproimise, and produced several internal reports that spoke of how inferior the Iranians were as a race. Finally, having lost their influence, the English turned to the US for assistance in overthrowing the democratically elected government. Truman resisted, but Eisenhower relented, with John Foster Dulles enthusiastically moving forward with a coup. The Shahs absolute power was reestablished, and his oppressive rule paved way for the Islamic revolution two decades later. One of many illustrative examples of how the English could never be considered benevolent rulers. (As described in All the Shah's men, by Stephen Kinzer)
  • eternalban 11y ago
    Above is (somewhat) right. Meet the original BP [1] The Shah was not a puppet. Puppets dance to the tune of puppet master & master would not replace said puppet with Ayatollahs. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was an Iranian Nationalist and the story of 20th century in Iran is far far more nuanced than the caricature painted by (very interested) partisans such as Kinzer. Do the research. This [2] is the Iran that the "puppet's" father, Reza Pahlavi ("the Great") inherited. Exceptional moves by the "puppet's" father began with establishment of an independent National Bank (which did not please "master" in City of London). And continued until Iran was actually considered a geopolitical threat to the gang that started the Trilateral Commission [3]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company [2]: http://www.chaonix.com/DL/National_Geography_April_1921.pdf http://www.chaonix.com/DL/National_Geography_April_1921.pdf [3]:https://youtu.be/DqrHQpRHwws https://youtu.be/DqrHQpRHwws (Don't be confused. Jimmy here is saying Iran is /too/ stable and my friend Zibig & our friends like to see massive instability in this region until "the great game" is won.} [minor typo edits; link fix; final edit note corrected NG pdf link.]
• Riod 11y ago
  Honestly I think this reflects a fairly common sentiment amongst westerners. Not the first time I've heard this; doubt it would be the last. I've even heard white south africans in the west say that south africa would have been better off under apartheid, to be greeted by a chorus of nodding heads. Scary people actually think subjugation is a good thing.