4 ms·
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
by 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.