4 ms·

Why? If 169m were born during that period and 100m lost their lives because of British policy, then it still means that 100m lives were lost unnecessarily.

• notart666 4y ago
  Ehhh that's a lot more complicated than that. But sure. How many would die naturally in the same given period due to things such as disease and natural outcomes, I prefer facts to biased and somewhat radical sources. We already know the constant population during certain periods so why not extrapolate how many died to famine rather than claim it as a glob that it is not? It worsens the claims that these people are trying to portray and actually makes the Indian government look much worse. As if demanding the money and reparations rather than a conversation. It's not hard to see why nobody is taking it seriously.
• Blackstrat 4y ago
  So you’re positing that roughly 60% of the incremental population growth was lost to British rule? Didn’t happen. Just as shark migration patterns were not changed by slavery. Nor any of the other absurdities promulgated by the media and politicians today.
  • kira123123 4y ago
    Yes, I don't think you quite understand the horrors of Britain ruining india during their 100 year invasion. Similar to the destruction of the native american population of Canada and America. As well as the treatment of Kenyans during their rule. This is not " Just as shark migration patterns were not changed by slavery. " This is a European country travelling halfway across the world and murdering a indepdant nation. Stealing their exports, and reselling it on the global market. Using their land to produce opium where they later used to invade china and kill their local population. https://www.britannica.com/topic/opium-trade https://www.britannica.com/topic/opium-trade You can deny it all you want, but the history will remain. There's the 3 million that have died due to the bengal famine. https://newint.org/features/2021/12/07/feature-how-british-colonizers-caused-bengal-famine#:~:text=The%20Bengal%20famine%20stands%20as,more%20fell%20into%20crushing%20poverty https://newint.org/features/2021/12/07/feature-how-british-c.... The destruction of India's economy under british colonization, causing massive poverty. http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/how_the_british_ruined_india_.pdf http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/how_the_bri... Various Massacres (That we have heard about, from british soldiers when the local population tried to rise up) https://www.britannica.com/event/Jallianwala-Bagh-Massacre https://www.britannica.com/event/Jallianwala-Bagh-Massacre
  • rmk 4y ago
    No, this is just one scenario. There could be other scenarios, for example, 300m being born but 100m losing their lives because of British policy, and the rest dying because of high infant mortality, epidemics, and so on. The point is, 100m over 100 years because of an inhumane and callous colonial master is just not as unthinkable as the parent commenter makes it out to be. Edit: 11 million minorities, including 6 million Jews, were killed in 4 years during the holocaust. In many countries, the Jewish population did not recover at all. In 2020, Covid-19 slashed the average American life expectancy by 1.8 years. This is for a population of 320 - 350 million. The article contends that Indian life expectancy dropped by a whopping 5 years at the height of British colonial power. For a large and populous country to lose 5 years of life expectancy is a pretty big deal no matter what way you slice it.