5 ms·
Yep. Britain controlled the largest empire in history, yet most of its own population lived in dire poverty. I don’t believe this was accidental. Imperial pro
by dijit 9mo ago
Yep.
Britain controlled the largest empire in history, yet most of its own population lived in dire poverty. I don’t believe this was accidental.
Imperial profits flowed almost entirely to a small propertied class (the landed gentry). The working classes.. who provided the soldiers, sailors, and labour.. saw virtually none of it whilst living in squalor. Before 1918, most British men couldn’t vote at all; franchise was tied to property ownership.
When we discuss ‘the British Empire,’ we’re largely describing the actions and enrichment of perhaps 3-5% of the British population. Most Britons today can trace their ancestry back through generations of poverty and disenfranchisement, not imperial beneficiaries. It’s an important distinction that’s often lost in broader discussions of imperial responsibility, as if those who are generationally impoverished should share guilt.
- arthurcolle 9mo agoSounds pretty much like today
- bandrami 9mo agoA poor person today has a better standard of living than a rich person in the 1700s
- defrost 9mo agoThat seems improbable unless they, say, own hundreds of slaves, travel extensively in Europe, never want for food or alcohol, own multiple houses, etc. Eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Manigault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Manigault
- randallsquared 9mo agoMachinery, computers, and the internet do more than hundreds of slaves/servants worth of work (how many musicians and actors would have to be at your call to replicate YouTube, which is free?). A poor person in Europe can still travel all over the Eurozone by train, etc. In the first world, we pivoted to "food insecurity" instead of "hunger", but the most common signifier of being food insecure is obesity: more food and alcohol than a person should want, at least. The only one that is a definite downgrade among those you list is the lack of owned houses and/or land.
- defrost 9mo ago> A poor person in Europe can still travel all over the Eurozone I picked a rich person in the Americas with hundreds of slaves, many houses, considerable land, a thriving business delivering returns, political connections, and frequently holiday on another continent. This is well above the standard of living of a poor person in contemporary America.
- nephihaha 9mo agoNo they don't. I don't live in a mansion with dozens of rooms, servants and footmen.
- bandrami 9mo agoPoor people have hundreds of servants, they're just robotic: a dishwasher, a laundry washer, a water heater, a door announcer, a courier who can travel at the speed of light, etc.
- nephihaha 9mo agoI don't have any of these except the last one.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- GJim 9mo agoEverybody now has antibiotics, oral contraception, machines to preserve and cook food, clean, heat your home, pass messages and put on music and plays in your living room. Who now needs dozens of personal physicians (practicing 19thC medicine!), prostitutes, cooks, maids, messenger boys and musicians?
- nephihaha 9mo agoI don't use most of the things you described. I don't sleep around so don't need two of those. My home is currently unheated thanks to high utility costs and taxes. The last three times I was on antibiotics they did almost nothing for me.
- Steven_Vellon 9mo agoDire poverty by modern standards, sure. But the 19th century saw a spectacular rise in living standards even for average Britons. The literacy rate in Britain was ~60% for men and 40% for women in 1800, by the end of the century it was near universal for both genders. Life expectancy at birth rose from ~40 to 50. Median wages rose, too, climbing ~50% from 1800 to 1850 (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Real-wages-during-the-period-1781-1851_fig1_301890342 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Real-wages-during-the-pe...). It is simultaneously true that the average Briton (arguably wealthy Britons, too) in 1900 lived in abject poverty compared to 2025, and the 19th century saw one of the fastest rises in living standards in Britain even among average Britons.
- saalweachter 9mo agoWasn't the literacy rate in New England substantially higher than the literacy rate in Old England, both in 1800 and in the years prior to its declaration of independence?
- Steven_Vellon 9mo agoNew England had a male literacy rate of around 70% compared to Britain's 60% in 1800. But New England was one of the most literate regions in America around the time of the founding, including the other American regions into the literacy rate would bring the literacy rate down (even more so when if one includes the enslaved population). Comparing the literacy rate one specific region of one country, to the national average of another country is comparing apples to oranges. But the important thing is, the 1900 Britain's male literacy rate was 97%. Illiteracy went from something that was fairly common to exceptionally rare.
- dijit 9mo agoYou’ve rather missed my point. I’m not saying nothing improved. I’m saying the imperial profits didn’t go to the people doing the dying for empire. 50% wage growth over fifty years whilst Britain’s running the largest empire in history? Compare that to the United States over the same period. The US saw 60% real wage growth from 1860-1890 with no empire whatsoever. If imperial profits were trickling down, you’d expect Britain to outpace non-imperial industrialising nations. It didn’t, if anything it was worse. The literacy and life expectancy gains you’re citing came from industrialisation and public health reforms, not imperial dividends. Meanwhile the landed gentry who actually controlled the imperial trade were getting obscenely wealthy. Life expectancy of 50 in 1900 still meant working-class Londoners in overcrowded tenements with open sewers, whilst their supposed countrymen lived in townhouses with servants. The Victorian poor saw industrial revolution gains, not imperial ones.
- PlatoIsADisease 9mo ago>You’re hitting a crucial paradox AI? Just curious
- dijit 9mo agoNo, just trying to open friendly. I sweated over the opening for 5 minutes because I didn’t want to go in really hard with “don’t you know most brits had it bad ackshulee!”- because I’m one of those generationally poverty-stricken brits and it hits a bit too close to home to sound neutral. Removed it; I’m getting flagged regardless, I might as well own it.
- flir 9mo agoOne could argue that they privatized the profits and socialized the costs. The costs being the army, navy and to a lesser extent an army of colonial administrators. You can see a similar shape in the decision to end slavery in 1833 by, essentially, buying it out. The money for that buyout had to come from somewhere. (I'm not a historian, I've no idea how well this idea would stand up to scrutiny).
- bandrami 9mo agoThe dire urban poverty was so much better than the pre-industrial rural poverty that nearly half of Great Britain moved from the countryside to a city during that period. You see the exact same patterns in India and China today.
- nephihaha 9mo agoNot quite. There was more work in the cities, but living conditions were more cramped and pollution was rife.
- bandrami 9mo agoYou can second-guess their decision all you want but they voted with their feet
- nephihaha 9mo agoHow am I second guessing their decision? Many of my ancestors were evicted from their native lands by hostile landlords so had to go elsewhere. It wasn't their decision to make in the first place.