5 ms·

Britain transferred trillions of wealth from India. India and China were the top 2 richest countries in the world before the Empire.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
Yes, that's my point. You can't discuss why Britain isn't as well off as it used to be, without at least acknowledging where that past wealth came from.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
They did not get relatively poorer because they were plundered. The UK and Europe became much richer thanks to industrialisation, etc while others stagnated in their "old" world. In fact, one reason for the current situation in the UK is that most of those old industries which were the foundation of the country's prosperity disappeared but were not always replaced.
- polotics 2y ago
  Oh maybe you missed the analysis pieces from the Victorian era that explain very logically and with great authority why india can never be anything else than agricultural and backwards, and the looms are best placed in Great Industrial Britain? There was massive plunder, extermination of any that would raise their heads, and great damage imposed by the crown on its brown subjects. You just wait.
  - Gud 2y ago
    “You just wait”?
    - polotics 2y ago
      Yesyes Gud, the resentment is real and deep and never talked about.
      - Gud 2y ago
        The resentment is strong within the UK as well against their elites. The boot of the British crown is stomping down on their white subjects as well. I think they are just more used to it
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  This simply isn't true. They did not stagnate for no reason, they were purposefully exploited by the British (and French), first by the East India Company and then by the government itself.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    I am not saying that they were not exploited. But they went from being among the richest to being among the poorer not because of that but because Europe (and the US) progressed and industrialised while they didn't. It's not a loss of wealth, it's absence of growth. They would not have fared better in that respect without colonisation/aggression when you look at the political and social state of India and China at the time, and they would probably have stayed the way they were and not evolved. The very obvious example is China that was basically "punched" into modernising (including by Japan that had modernised earlier). But the same goes for India which might not even exist as a country today without the reaction to British invasion. Japan is actually a good example of that modernisation. Do you think this would have happened endemically in the Indian subcontinent? Japan is quite unique in that respect as it happened very early and profoundly to the point it became an "equal" to Western powers in the early 20th century (which also demonstrates that it was possible to achieve)
    - _aavaa_ 2y ago
      > I am not saying that they were not exploited. But they went from being among the richest to being among the poorer not because of that but because Europe (and the US) progressed and industrialised while they didn't. It's not a loss of wealth, it's absence of growth. This is where I disagree. Because it very much was a loss of wealth [0]. As for growth, would the East India Company or the British empire after it allow India to grow to a degree they could challenge them or gain independence? We know that they didn't, and we know they fought to suppress rebellions, pit local factions against each other, and hold on to power over the region for as long as possible. > They would not have fared better in that respect without colonisation/aggression when you look at the political and social state of India and China at the time, and they would probably have stayed the way they were and not evolved. Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know the counterfactual. But what we do know is that they were not "modernized" by Britain out of the goodness of their heart. And it was not done in a way that had the well being of Indians as the primary concern, but that of Britain. [0]: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-st...
mike_hearn 2y ago
China wasn't a part of the British empire, and what does "trillions of wealth" even mean? Trillions of what? Pounds? Rupees? This is one of those cases where a citation would actually be helpful. India was certainly not one of the top two richest countries in the world before the British Empire. Maybe some ideological academics played with numbers until they found a way to claim that, but reality would disagree. War is romanticised in our culture as being about bravery, heroics and the justice of your cause, but actual analysis of the history of war tells a fairly depressing story: the countries with the bigger economies win. Britain established a global empire because it was much wealthier than the places it colonized. The Mughal Empire was an essentially agrarian / medieval society with little technological innovation and industry. It moved things around using roads. The British Empire was industrial. It moved things around using trains, canals and ships. That's why it was the British colonizing India and not the other way around.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  > China wasn't a part of the British empire No, but perhaps you have heard of the opium wars. > what does "trillions of wealth" even mean? Trillions of what? Pounds? Rupees? Literal gold most of the time: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-st... We aren't arguing over whether or not the British won. We're arguing over how they won (not just be outcompeting others, but by subjugating them) and what they won.

_aavaa_ 2y ago

Yes, that's my point. You can't discuss why Britain isn't as well off as it used to be, without at least acknowledging where that past wealth came from.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

They did not get relatively poorer because they were plundered. The UK and Europe became much richer thanks to industrialisation, etc while others stagnated in their "old" world. In fact, one reason for the current situation in the UK is that most of those old industries which were the foundation of the country's prosperity disappeared but were not always replaced.

polotics 2y ago
Oh maybe you missed the analysis pieces from the Victorian era that explain very logically and with great authority why india can never be anything else than agricultural and backwards, and the looms are best placed in Great Industrial Britain? There was massive plunder, extermination of any that would raise their heads, and great damage imposed by the crown on its brown subjects. You just wait.
- Gud 2y ago
  “You just wait”?
  - polotics 2y ago
    Yesyes Gud, the resentment is real and deep and never talked about.
    - Gud 2y ago
      The resentment is strong within the UK as well against their elites. The boot of the British crown is stomping down on their white subjects as well. I think they are just more used to it
_aavaa_ 2y ago
This simply isn't true. They did not stagnate for no reason, they were purposefully exploited by the British (and French), first by the East India Company and then by the government itself.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  I am not saying that they were not exploited. But they went from being among the richest to being among the poorer not because of that but because Europe (and the US) progressed and industrialised while they didn't. It's not a loss of wealth, it's absence of growth. They would not have fared better in that respect without colonisation/aggression when you look at the political and social state of India and China at the time, and they would probably have stayed the way they were and not evolved. The very obvious example is China that was basically "punched" into modernising (including by Japan that had modernised earlier). But the same goes for India which might not even exist as a country today without the reaction to British invasion. Japan is actually a good example of that modernisation. Do you think this would have happened endemically in the Indian subcontinent? Japan is quite unique in that respect as it happened very early and profoundly to the point it became an "equal" to Western powers in the early 20th century (which also demonstrates that it was possible to achieve)
  - _aavaa_ 2y ago
    > I am not saying that they were not exploited. But they went from being among the richest to being among the poorer not because of that but because Europe (and the US) progressed and industrialised while they didn't. It's not a loss of wealth, it's absence of growth. This is where I disagree. Because it very much was a loss of wealth [0]. As for growth, would the East India Company or the British empire after it allow India to grow to a degree they could challenge them or gain independence? We know that they didn't, and we know they fought to suppress rebellions, pit local factions against each other, and hold on to power over the region for as long as possible. > They would not have fared better in that respect without colonisation/aggression when you look at the political and social state of India and China at the time, and they would probably have stayed the way they were and not evolved. Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know the counterfactual. But what we do know is that they were not "modernized" by Britain out of the goodness of their heart. And it was not done in a way that had the well being of Indians as the primary concern, but that of Britain. [0]: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-st...

mike_hearn 2y ago

China wasn't a part of the British empire, and what does "trillions of wealth" even mean? Trillions of what? Pounds? Rupees? This is one of those cases where a citation would actually be helpful. India was certainly not one of the top two richest countries in the world before the British Empire. Maybe some ideological academics played with numbers until they found a way to claim that, but reality would disagree. War is romanticised in our culture as being about bravery, heroics and the justice of your cause, but actual analysis of the history of war tells a fairly depressing story: the countries with the bigger economies win. Britain established a global empire because it was much wealthier than the places it colonized. The Mughal Empire was an essentially agrarian / medieval society with little technological innovation and industry. It moved things around using roads. The British Empire was industrial. It moved things around using trains, canals and ships. That's why it was the British colonizing India and not the other way around.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
> China wasn't a part of the British empire No, but perhaps you have heard of the opium wars. > what does "trillions of wealth" even mean? Trillions of what? Pounds? Rupees? Literal gold most of the time: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india/ https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-st... We aren't arguing over whether or not the British won. We're arguing over how they won (not just be outcompeting others, but by subjugating them) and what they won.