to end this lies and disscussion for ever

[Jedi 999]

you british supporters have failed to provide source or any arguement for your absurd claims now i think this made you shut up

[Angleter]

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.

[Birnadia]

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 "RASIST COLONIESTS" anymore are we?

[Conserative Morality]

you british supporters have failed to provide source or any arguement for your absurd claims now i think this made you shut up

Have fun

[Jedi 999]

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?

former but RASIST COLONIESTS

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

[Jedi 999]

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

[Cameroi]

every ancient place, that was the first seat of power in its place, might well have been better off, had it not been successively and repeatedly concord, the could certainly be said of picts and celts, and especially of minoens, yet one might also speculate, had even the first seats of power, not themsleves been tyrannical and oppressive.

not meaning to suggest that all would have had to have been, or anything like that. assuredly SOME may have been peaceful, healthy and happy.

the problem, i believe, began with the very first armies and the very first excuses for them.

which of course does nothing to justify subsiquent tyrannies.

[Cyber Utopia]

What is your problem? Do you assume that all British people wish harm upon your people? Do you not accept the fact that we left years ago? GET OVER IT. The Romans invaded Britain once. I Don't hate Italians. I don't hate Scandinavian people either, even though the Vikings raped and pillaged Britain for quite some time. I'm aware that British colonisation of India is much more recent history than my examples, but still it's in the past. Just chill, we're all brothers and sisters on the planet. Instead of devoting yourself to hating the British, take a step back and think 'Actually, I'm being a tad unreasonable. Hating the entire British nation for something their ancestors did and which they had no control over? That's a bit silly of me.'

Seriously. Do you blame all German people for the Holocaust? I'm assuming not. So stop blaming all British people for colonisation.

[Jedi 999]

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.

well akbar was good so as i said before each moughul should be judged differently

[Birnadia]

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

And yet you fail to realise every Briton is different!

[Angleter]

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.

But there was no 'country' of India. There was Persia, Hyderabad, Mysore, Delhi, Bengal, Manipur, Vijayanagara, Travancore, Baroda, the Sikh Empire, Maratha Empire..., in fact the Mughals made it less easy to conquer since they managed to unify a great deal of India. The fact that they imploded due to Islamic theocracy is what made India so easy to conquer.

[Avenio]

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.

[Angleter]

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.

[Cameroi]

to me, i see britain as a place, that has mostly learned the hard way, by making mistakes like the empire it once had and tried to control, lessons which today's america, sadly seems to have yet to.

[Jedi 999]

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

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

Are you going to spare the optimates who spoke out against you, or are they going to be a source of campaign revenue?

[Jedi 999]

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.

the populace could have rebeled like against the kings if they tried such stuff we dont know what could have happend but britain stole lots of money as shown in the op and my old links

[The Parkus Empire]

well akbar was good so as i said before each moughul should be judged differently

I'm pretty sure you could find some excellent British prefects, too.

[Cameroi]

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.

[Conserative Morality]

Are you going to spare the optimates who spoke out against you, or are they going to be a source of campaign revenue?

Quietly, of course. Gotta remain popular with the people, even if I'm working against them.

[Jedi 999]

well akbar was good so as i said before each moughul should be judged differently

I'm pretty sure you could find some excellent British prefects, too.

well atlee otherwise no i cant think of any

[SD_Film Artists]

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?

[Conserative Morality]

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.

Because 'Yesterday's dead horses' have an effect on today's real problems. History influences the present, furthermore, perception of history influences the present.

These 'Dead horses' remain incredibly important in today's world.

[Jedi 999]

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?

remember 1905 huh forgot you britisher

note : this kind of ignorance angers me