2 ms·
Regarding British in India, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
by nonamechicken 9y ago
Regarding British in India, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I..., there are estimates of 20-50 million people died to famines which happened because of British looting.
And from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-empire-railways-myths-gifts https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/india-britain-...,
In 1600, when the East India Company was established, Britain was producing just 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was generating some 23% (27% by 1700). By 1940, after nearly two centuries of the Raj, Britain accounted for nearly 10% of world GDP, while India had been reduced to a poor “third-world” country, destitute and starving, a global poster child of poverty and famine. The British left a society with 16% literacy, a life expectancy of 27, practically no domestic industry and over 90% living below what today we would call the poverty line.
Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
- vacri 9y agoIt's no secret that Britain stripped India of its wealth. I wasn't saying the the British were a benevolent empire. But to imply that India dropping from 23% GDP from 1700 - 1940 was all Englands fault is grossly misleading. You're completely ignoring the Industrial revolution that swept Europe and North America in doing that, along with the immense increase in international trade that happened at the same time. The British in India played puppet states off each other. What they didn't do was wilfully exterminate entire cities.