4 ms·

I would like to point out that the extreme poverty that India is known for today is pretty much a legacy of the British Raj. The 'enlightenment' you are talkin

I would like to point out that the extreme poverty that India is known for today is pretty much a legacy of the British Raj. The 'enlightenment' you are talking about came much before that, when India was a much more peaceful and prosperous area. So the 'Out of necessity' argument you made is pointless.

tokenadult 14y ago
I would like to point out that the extreme poverty that India is known for today is pretty much a legacy of the British Raj. Today (2012) is sixty-five years since the independence of India from British rule (1947). As an American, I have to agree with the general proposition that British colonial rule is not the best form of government, but as an observer of the great variety of former British colonies in the world that are now independent countries, I invite readers here to think about why some of those countries (including some that became independent more recently than India) are now prosperous and free. Perhaps there are details about life in India and policies of the independent government of India that kept India comparatively poor and backward even after India won independence. It's a backward-looking set of excuses to say "British rule was bad for us," as it may indeed have been, without also being curious about "How have other countries thrived since winning independence from Britain?" As far as the bad influence of colonialism goes, I think in general French or Spanish colonial rule have been even worse for most countries than British colonial rule. And it appears that one way harm was mediated to many places of the world by colonial rule is that socialism (especially hard-left socialism like Marxism) was transmitted to colonies by Western colonial officials, and then many countries pursued ineffective policies for national development for decades after independence, because they were stuck in socialist ideology for too long.
- vacri 14y ago
  British rule in the Dominion countries went like this: exterminate or wholly subjugate the natives, then flood the place with whiteys from Blighty. Same thing happened in the US, but they took the subjugation a step further into crusade territory with 'manifest destiny'. In effect, Britain was able to transplant its culture and laws directly in these places. British rule in India couldn't do this - half a billion people is a bit too many to simply overrun. Instead they played factions against each other, one trick being to give a smaller faction superior arms, they keep the peace and a slice of the pie, but are wholly dependent on the supply of arms. British rule in India was a massively different beast to the Dominion countries.
- nodemaker 14y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4215330 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4215330

tokenadult 14y ago

I would like to point out that the extreme poverty that India is known for today is pretty much a legacy of the British Raj. Today (2012) is sixty-five years since the independence of India from British rule (1947). As an American, I have to agree with the general proposition that British colonial rule is not the best form of government, but as an observer of the great variety of former British colonies in the world that are now independent countries, I invite readers here to think about why some of those countries (including some that became independent more recently than India) are now prosperous and free. Perhaps there are details about life in India and policies of the independent government of India that kept India comparatively poor and backward even after India won independence. It's a backward-looking set of excuses to say "British rule was bad for us," as it may indeed have been, without also being curious about "How have other countries thrived since winning independence from Britain?" As far as the bad influence of colonialism goes, I think in general French or Spanish colonial rule have been even worse for most countries than British colonial rule. And it appears that one way harm was mediated to many places of the world by colonial rule is that socialism (especially hard-left socialism like Marxism) was transmitted to colonies by Western colonial officials, and then many countries pursued ineffective policies for national development for decades after independence, because they were stuck in socialist ideology for too long.

vacri 14y ago
British rule in the Dominion countries went like this: exterminate or wholly subjugate the natives, then flood the place with whiteys from Blighty. Same thing happened in the US, but they took the subjugation a step further into crusade territory with 'manifest destiny'. In effect, Britain was able to transplant its culture and laws directly in these places. British rule in India couldn't do this - half a billion people is a bit too many to simply overrun. Instead they played factions against each other, one trick being to give a smaller faction superior arms, they keep the peace and a slice of the pie, but are wholly dependent on the supply of arms. British rule in India was a massively different beast to the Dominion countries.
nodemaker 14y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4215330 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4215330