5 ms·
> and negative impact elsewhere This is factually incorrect. The USA, Canada, Australia and NewZealand we're colonies. Certainly under British rule colonisat
by dublinclontarf 10y ago
> and negative impact elsewhere
This is factually incorrect.
The USA, Canada, Australia and NewZealand we're colonies.
Certainly under British rule colonisation had a hugely positive impact.
- allendoerfer 10y agoFor the Europeans, who moved there. The original inhabitants might think different. In their point of view, these colonies actually were the most devastating.
- waqf 10y agoBut leaving aside whether the advantages accrued to one ethnic group or another, didn't colonization increase the economic output on those land masses? Overall, I mean (unquestionably it was destructive too).
- sn41 10y agoI can speak about India. India went from controlling 25% of the world's output in the 1500s to controlling 2% of the world's output in 1947. Till about 1900, Indians were banned from starting industries. Just so that you don't think that Indians had no industries, the first Fellow of the Royal Society from India was a shipbuilder [1]. British colonization was devastating for Indian commerce. You can argue that it is only now hobbling back to normalcy. On balance, British did introduce railways, which was instrumental in unifying the country, and a unified legal system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardaseer_Cursetjee
- gunnyguy121 10y agosmallpox riddled Native Americans might want a word with you