4 ms·

> Unsurprisingly, I don't think the Irish or Bengal famines were mentioned. In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glossed over. But lots of cov

by lurk2 2y ago

> Unsurprisingly, I don't think the Irish or Bengal famines were mentioned. In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glossed over. But lots of coverge of the Romans, Vikings, Normans, the black death and the two World Wars. I read a ton of Usborne and Dorling Kindersley books and these were exactly the sorts or subjects they fixated on. I suppose it's probably part of some long-established national curriculum. Where I live, people often (conspiratorially) complain that more serious subjects were not covered in school, but the only things I can't ever really remember covering involved South-and-4th-of-July-American history. We didn't really cover Africa outside of the 20th century, either. To be honest I think American schools are the only ones who really give colonial history the attention it deserves because it's the basis of their entire country and then goes on to fill out the comparatively boring eighty or so years between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War II. I find most people I talk to from the UK who are aware of some aspect of colonial history are either apologists for the British Empire or have this imported view common in North American (and especially Canadian) universities that the British were this uniquely nefarious force of evil. I suppose the historically curious ones just spend their time studying the Norman conquests.

donall 2y ago
I don't think the British empire was "uniquely nefarious", but I think most of the indigenous people of the places that they colonised experienced it as being _fairly_ nefarious! I'm not aware of many former colonies celebrating Colonisation Day or bemoaning the withdrawal of the British Army from their territories. Even one of the most anglo-friendly and prosperous former colonies, the USA, didn't have very nice things to say about the Empire when they were a part of it.
- lurk2 2y ago
  > I think most of the indigenous people of the places that they colonised experienced it as being _fairly_ nefarious! The Maori were eating each other before the British arrived - that's not hyperbole, they practised cannibalism. Upper caste Indians were throwing still-living women into fires so they could join their husbands in the afterlife. If the British arrived in these places as marauding pirates (and they did), they still come out ahead on these metrics alone. > Even one of the most anglo-friendly and prosperous former colonies, the USA, didn't have very nice things to say about the Empire when they were a part of it. Ironically that is where some of the worst atrocities occurred.
  - hermitcrab 2y ago
    The British Empire ended the hideous practice of Sati ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) ). It also unified India and built the railroads. The Indians paid a very heavy price for this though. The East India compoany was rapacious. Before the British colonised India, it was one of the richest countries in the world. When it left, it was one of the poorest.
    - lurk2 2y ago
      > Before the British colonised India, it was one of the richest countries in the world. When it left, it was one of the poorest. I've never seen any convincing evidence that it was one of the richest countries in the world. What are you basing that off of?
      - vinay427 2y ago
        It’s based on some of the same sources describing historical economies of other countries/regions. There are a variety of sources accessible online that go into more detail, including the ones cited in the excerpt I’ve included below. > India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[12] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[13] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[12] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India
        bitsage 2y ago
        Of course a nation with a high population will have a high GDP in a mostly agrarian society. Per capita, there’s no indication India was ever the richest. They did fall behind massively due to an inability to compete during industrialization though. The attached source even mentions deindustrialization started in the waning years of the Mughals. Due to industrialization, the West’s GDP per capita simply outpaced India and China significantly, to the extent western nations even had higher nominal GDPs.

by lurk2 2y ago

donall 2y ago

I don't think the British empire was "uniquely nefarious", but I think most of the indigenous people of the places that they colonised experienced it as being _fairly_ nefarious! I'm not aware of many former colonies celebrating Colonisation Day or bemoaning the withdrawal of the British Army from their territories. Even one of the most anglo-friendly and prosperous former colonies, the USA, didn't have very nice things to say about the Empire when they were a part of it.

lurk2 2y ago
> I think most of the indigenous people of the places that they colonised experienced it as being _fairly_ nefarious! The Maori were eating each other before the British arrived - that's not hyperbole, they practised cannibalism. Upper caste Indians were throwing still-living women into fires so they could join their husbands in the afterlife. If the British arrived in these places as marauding pirates (and they did), they still come out ahead on these metrics alone. > Even one of the most anglo-friendly and prosperous former colonies, the USA, didn't have very nice things to say about the Empire when they were a part of it. Ironically that is where some of the worst atrocities occurred.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  The British Empire ended the hideous practice of Sati ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) ). It also unified India and built the railroads. The Indians paid a very heavy price for this though. The East India compoany was rapacious. Before the British colonised India, it was one of the richest countries in the world. When it left, it was one of the poorest.
  - lurk2 2y ago
    > Before the British colonised India, it was one of the richest countries in the world. When it left, it was one of the poorest. I've never seen any convincing evidence that it was one of the richest countries in the world. What are you basing that off of?
    - vinay427 2y ago
      It’s based on some of the same sources describing historical economies of other countries/regions. There are a variety of sources accessible online that go into more detail, including the ones cited in the excerpt I’ve included below. > India experienced deindustrialisation and cessation of various craft industries under British rule,[12] which along with fast economic and population growth in the Western world, resulted in India's share of the world economy declining from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950,[13] and its share of global industrial output declining from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.[12] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India
      - bitsage 2y ago
        Of course a nation with a high population will have a high GDP in a mostly agrarian society. Per capita, there’s no indication India was ever the richest. They did fall behind massively due to an inability to compete during industrialization though. The attached source even mentions deindustrialization started in the waning years of the Mughals. Due to industrialization, the West’s GDP per capita simply outpaced India and China significantly, to the extent western nations even had higher nominal GDPs.