Advertisement
by Angleter » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:49 am
by Birnadia » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:49 am
Jedi 999 wrote:you british supporters have failed to provide source or any arguement for your absurd claims now i think this made you shut up
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:49 am
Jedi 999 wrote:you british supporters have failed to provide source or any arguement for your absurd claims now i think this made you shut up
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:50 am
Birnadia wrote:Jedi 999 wrote:you british supporters have failed to provide source or any arguement for your absurd claims now i think this made you shut up
No it didn't. Have yo even ever met a British person before? Also, the British Empire doesn't exist anymore, so we aren't exactly "" anymore are we?
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:52 am
Jedi 999 wrote:well depends moughuls were good for india since they got trade and increased the amount of trade routes but every moughul is different
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:52 am
Angleter wrote:Aside from the tl;dr-iness of your OP, from it I found that it refers to India's greater wealth in comparison to the rest of the world pre-Britain. Well, the reason why India's share of the world's wealth decreased under British rule is simple- Europe and America moved up at a much faster rate. While India progressed at a rate much faster than its neighbours, such as the Qing Empire or Siam, other countries simply outpaced it. As I've said before, an independent India would not have been able to progress at Euro-American pace due to the corruption of the various rulers of India, the fractionalised nature of India, and the various wars for power in India taking place there before Britain came. Britain brought unity and stability, thus helping India progress.
As for famines, it is more likely that the perceived lack of famines before Britain could be due to poorer documentation, and that the greater amount of famines under British rule could be due to a population increase in India.
by Cameroi » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:52 am
by Cyber Utopia » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:52 am
Feazanthia wrote:Remember - every time you chuck an asteroid at a planet, Bruce Willis gets a sappy self-sacrifice scene in a shitty movie.
Last edited by Jenrak on Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed the spelling error in the title; you can thank me later.
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:53 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:Jedi 999 wrote:well depends moughuls were good for india since they got trade and increased the amount of trade routes but every moughul is different
*jaw drops*
If you think the Moguls helped India at all (except for a few, like Akbar), I'm surprised you condemn the British. The Moguls conducted systematic genocide on the Hindus, and caused more damage than can be comprehended. The Mogul occupation of India is probably the most terrible and tragic thing in the history of mankind. I just can't put into words how awful reading about it made me feel.
by Birnadia » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:53 am
Jedi 999 wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:I don't, because I support the Brits and Americans and what they've done, most of the time, at least. There are some unacceptable lapses.
On the other hand, I find myself with a slight distaste for historical India, and what it's done, been doing, and what's going on in the country today. I have no reason to learn Hindi, but every reason to know and speak English.
I don't know if India would have been much better off without Britain there. The country was once magnificent, but the Moguls fucked it in the ass. If the Moguls never came, then Britain would have had a terrible effect on the country, but, as it stands, I don't know how much there was to ruin.
well depends moughuls were good for india since they got trade and increased the amount of trade routes but every moughul is different
by Angleter » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:54 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:I don't, because I support the Brits and Americans and what they've done, most of the time, at least. There are some unacceptable lapses.
On the other hand, I find myself with a slight distaste for historical India, and what it's done, been doing, and what's going on in the country today. I have no reason to learn Hindi, but every reason to know and speak English.
I don't know if India would have been much better off without Britain there. The country was once magnificent, but the Moguls fucked it in the ass. If the Moguls never came, then Britain would have had a terrible effect on the country, but, as it stands, I don't know how much there was to ruin.
by Avenio » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:55 am
According to this map, shortly before the Bengal famine you mentioned, India was a very divided place. Kingdoms, principalities and smaller states were constantly carving out territory in what were most likely fierce internecine conflicts. (Another thing you fail to address in your anti-colonial tirade) These conflicts had been going on for millenia, dating all of the way back to the first Muslim invasions back in the twelfth century, (If memory serves) and showed no intention of slowing down. Had the British (Or any other colonial power, for that matter) not gotten involved in the subcontinent at all, come the turn of the 21st century, I would no doubt think that India would be a collection of small, tribal-tied states bitterly fighting over resources.
Though colonialism has wrought terrible, terrible things onto the subcontinent, (And even in places like my home country, Canada) simply glossing it over as 'evil' and accusing us Anglo-Saxons of being 'racist' is ignoring a significant piece of the puzzle. History cannot be seen in black-or-white, it has to be appreciated and understood for the murky shade of grey it is, warts and all.
by Angleter » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:56 am
Jedi 999 wrote:Angleter wrote:Aside from the tl;dr-iness of your OP, from it I found that it refers to India's greater wealth in comparison to the rest of the world pre-Britain. Well, the reason why India's share of the world's wealth decreased under British rule is simple- Europe and America moved up at a much faster rate. While India progressed at a rate much faster than its neighbours, such as the Qing Empire or Siam, other countries simply outpaced it. As I've said before, an independent India would not have been able to progress at Euro-American pace due to the corruption of the various rulers of India, the fractionalised nature of India, and the various wars for power in India taking place there before Britain came. Britain brought unity and stability, thus helping India progress.
As for famines, it is more likely that the perceived lack of famines before Britain could be due to poorer documentation, and that the greater amount of famines under British rule could be due to a population increase in India.
well we had the money we could invest it in new technologies and increased our production
by Cameroi » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:57 am
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:57 am
Avenio wrote:I'll just repost this for emphasis, as it was taken from your previous thread;According to this map, shortly before the Bengal famine you mentioned, India was a very divided place. Kingdoms, principalities and smaller states were constantly carving out territory in what were most likely fierce internecine conflicts. (Another thing you fail to address in your anti-colonial tirade) These conflicts had been going on for millenia, dating all of the way back to the first Muslim invasions back in the twelfth century, (If memory serves) and showed no intention of slowing down. Had the British (Or any other colonial power, for that matter) not gotten involved in the subcontinent at all, come the turn of the 21st century, I would no doubt think that India would be a collection of small, tribal-tied states bitterly fighting over resources.
Though colonialism has wrought terrible, terrible things onto the subcontinent, (And even in places like my home country, Canada) simply glossing it over as 'evil' and accusing us Anglo-Saxons of being 'racist' is ignoring a significant piece of the puzzle. History cannot be seen in black-or-white, it has to be appreciated and understood for the murky shade of grey it is, warts and all.
In conclusion, even though the British did terrible things to India and the subcontinent, they did give them two important things. The first is a lingua franca, English, that practically everyone, from Sri Lanka to Islamabad, had to learn in order to function in a British-dominated society. Secondly, the British presence itself served as an enormous motivator; everyone, whether they were Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, they all disliked the British and wanted independance.
In short, if the British hadn't colonized India, it would be a largely tribal, violent and undeveloped place, with nations largely based upon ethnic or religious divides constantly bickering with one another and little hope of meaningful unity.
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:58 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Two-thousand and counting, I'm planning on looting the Kingdom of Baltimore to the east, for supporting my rivals during my struggle for the Imperium of Cumberland.
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:58 am
Angleter wrote:Jedi 999 wrote:Angleter wrote:Aside from the tl;dr-iness of your OP, from it I found that it refers to India's greater wealth in comparison to the rest of the world pre-Britain. Well, the reason why India's share of the world's wealth decreased under British rule is simple- Europe and America moved up at a much faster rate. While India progressed at a rate much faster than its neighbours, such as the Qing Empire or Siam, other countries simply outpaced it. As I've said before, an independent India would not have been able to progress at Euro-American pace due to the corruption of the various rulers of India, the fractionalised nature of India, and the various wars for power in India taking place there before Britain came. Britain brought unity and stability, thus helping India progress.
As for famines, it is more likely that the perceived lack of famines before Britain could be due to poorer documentation, and that the greater amount of famines under British rule could be due to a population increase in India.
well we had the money we could invest it in new technologies and increased our production
OR, as seems much more likely, the Nizam of Hyderabad and his hundreds of counterparts could have 'invested' it in their own personal wealths and in their armies, thus keeping their populaces from rebelling.
by The Parkus Empire » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:59 am
Jedi 999 wrote:well akbar was good so as i said before each moughul should be judged differently
by Cameroi » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:59 am
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:59 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:
Are you going to spare the optimates who spoke out against you, or are they going to be a source of campaign revenue?
by SD_Film Artists » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:00 pm
Jedi 999 wrote:Avenio wrote:I'll just repost this for emphasis, as it was taken from your previous thread;According to this map, shortly before the Bengal famine you mentioned, India was a very divided place. Kingdoms, principalities and smaller states were constantly carving out territory in what were most likely fierce internecine conflicts. (Another thing you fail to address in your anti-colonial tirade) These conflicts had been going on for millenia, dating all of the way back to the first Muslim invasions back in the twelfth century, (If memory serves) and showed no intention of slowing down. Had the British (Or any other colonial power, for that matter) not gotten involved in the subcontinent at all, come the turn of the 21st century, I would no doubt think that India would be a collection of small, tribal-tied states bitterly fighting over resources.
Though colonialism has wrought terrible, terrible things onto the subcontinent, (And even in places like my home country, Canada) simply glossing it over as 'evil' and accusing us Anglo-Saxons of being 'racist' is ignoring a significant piece of the puzzle. History cannot be seen in black-or-white, it has to be appreciated and understood for the murky shade of grey it is, warts and all.
In conclusion, even though the British did terrible things to India and the subcontinent, they did give them two important things. The first is a lingua franca, English, that practically everyone, from Sri Lanka to Islamabad, had to learn in order to function in a British-dominated society. Secondly, the British presence itself served as an enormous motivator; everyone, whether they were Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, they all disliked the British and wanted independance.
In short, if the British hadn't colonized India, it would be a largely tribal, violent and undeveloped place, with nations largely based upon ethnic or religious divides constantly bickering with one another and little hope of meaningful unity.
well the british stirred up anti-hindu /anti-muslim sentiments and thus played some role in the partition not major but minor and if the british had not been their many things could have happend
by Conserative Morality » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:00 pm
Cameroi wrote:i'm kind of having a hard time seeing the point of ragging on yesterday's dead horses, when today's problems are real and immediate.
by Jedi 999 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:01 pm
SD_Film Artists wrote:Jedi 999 wrote:Avenio wrote:I'll just repost this for emphasis, as it was taken from your previous thread;According to this map, shortly before the Bengal famine you mentioned, India was a very divided place. Kingdoms, principalities and smaller states were constantly carving out territory in what were most likely fierce internecine conflicts. (Another thing you fail to address in your anti-colonial tirade) These conflicts had been going on for millenia, dating all of the way back to the first Muslim invasions back in the twelfth century, (If memory serves) and showed no intention of slowing down. Had the British (Or any other colonial power, for that matter) not gotten involved in the subcontinent at all, come the turn of the 21st century, I would no doubt think that India would be a collection of small, tribal-tied states bitterly fighting over resources.
Though colonialism has wrought terrible, terrible things onto the subcontinent, (And even in places like my home country, Canada) simply glossing it over as 'evil' and accusing us Anglo-Saxons of being 'racist' is ignoring a significant piece of the puzzle. History cannot be seen in black-or-white, it has to be appreciated and understood for the murky shade of grey it is, warts and all.
In conclusion, even though the British did terrible things to India and the subcontinent, they did give them two important things. The first is a lingua franca, English, that practically everyone, from Sri Lanka to Islamabad, had to learn in order to function in a British-dominated society. Secondly, the British presence itself served as an enormous motivator; everyone, whether they were Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, they all disliked the British and wanted independance.
In short, if the British hadn't colonized India, it would be a largely tribal, violent and undeveloped place, with nations largely based upon ethnic or religious divides constantly bickering with one another and little hope of meaningful unity.
well the british stirred up anti-hindu /anti-muslim sentiments and thus played some role in the partition not major but minor and if the british had not been their many things could have happend
Why and how did they do that?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Click Ests Vimgalevytopia, Herador, Keltionialang, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Plan Neonie, Talibanada, Tungstan
Advertisement