Who Benefited from the British Empire?
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 04. 2023
- Who benefited from the British Empire? In the metropole, did it benefit wealthy landed aristocrats and financiers of the City of London, or did the Empire create employment and cheap goods for British workers? What was the impact on different parts of the empire, and different social groups, as they were drawn into a global economy?
A lecture by Martin Daunton recorded on 4 April 2023 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/b...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
Nothing has changed. All the bureaucracy, military, finance is in the South of England. The call centre jobs of the de-industrialized North have gone to India.
Much more than that, call centres were just the beginning and it seems that they are moving back onshore now. But from my personal experience, 50% of financial industry functions (risk management, administration, IT, HR) was taken over by Indian employees in less than 20 years. Senior medical personnel, dentists is in very large percent Indian/Pakistani. Then accounting, legal profession and of course most senior government positions (although many seem to be the descendants of the former colonial administration in Africa).
@@bigbarry8343 Regarding your comment that medical / dental blah blah blah are mainly Indian / Pakistani - so you don’t regard both and bred Indian / Pakistani as British 😒
@@commentor9002. Who does? 😂
@@ArmyJamesWhat? Everyone does. Born and bred British people of Indian and Pakistani heritage are definitely British.
I think he's saying that there are a lot of first generation immigrants who are filling these roles. And if he's not then he should.
I don't think there are many people who think that 2nd or 3rd generation people of Indian origins aren't British.
@@ravebiscuits8721 If you’re not white, you’re not really British. I’m a supporter of the British National Party by the way.
Who benefited from the British empire ? Certainly not the the lower classes of this country but however the monarchy and wealthy did very well out of it financially as the unscrupulous always do and are still doing today from the so-called lower classes .
I've noticed that British people don't want to admit that. They all like to think of their ancestors as protagonists of Jane Austen's novels, hence gladly accept collectivised guilt and shame that is being put upon them. Pride before the fall...
@@bigbarry8343 the so-called empire fell a long time ago and sadly the wealthy and powerful still live in the past so-called glory days but then they can afford to and usually at the expense of others as they did back in the days of the empire
Even the lower classes of Britain benefitted from colonial wealth as it trickled down in terms of better public transport, public schooling, and health services. Compare a poor British to a poor Indian today, the British will be in a much better position
@@mozenwrath4u And a poor Britton is arguably worse off than a poor South Korean. 😮 Why are Turks less wealthy than Finns despite having had a great empire for centuries? 🤔
Trust me, you have no idea how much of wealth looted is still hidden away
About the trade imbalance between colonial India and Britain and the impact on Indian manufacturing - such as cotton goods. There was a similar impact in colonial Australia. In the colony of Victoria, the elected government imposed import duties, to protect local manufacturers from cheap imports from large British manufacturers and support the growth of local manufacturing - such as wool textiles, clothing and footwear. In other Australian colonies, raw wool was exported to the Britain - a huge boost for woollen clothing manufacturers in Bradford and Leeds. In Victoria too, most wool went to the Uk, but wool textiles became an important part of manufacturing in Melbourne and country Victoria. Similarly, machinery manufacturing in Victoria - originating from underground mining for gold during the Great Victorian Gold Rush of the 1850’s to 1890’s - needed protection from the massive influence of UK manufactures on Australian industry.
This confounds the British, because they deliberately are not taught about colonization, from what I gather.
Fascinating lecture! Every word counted.
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
Great research.
He bends the truth . He just hates his own country because they reject him for his bias .
Great lecture
excellent lecture - thank you - rackets
British interfered in every Indian matter.Looted everything worth looting diamonds,pearls,crowns,thrones, paintings,
statues, even stones,pillars, even fabrics,
spices
I didn't know that the British in the late Victorian era elected an Indian to Parliament who was opposed to the nature of the Raj.
The British followed the Roman model, where any citizen could run for high office. So, you could be an Iberian, Carthagian, Greek etc and be a senator in Rome or a general in the army. Back in the day, the British colonial subjects were known as 'British Subject, Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies'. In legal terms, this pretty much sums it all up.
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
@@NG-dc2pk India went under British rule from being the richest country in the world to the poorest.
In addition 10s of millions died under British rule.
How women were treated was a choice for the Indians to make, not the murderous British.
All apologists for the Empire are beneath contempt.
@@PanglossDr choice for the Indians to make , hahahaha , then whom to loot was the choice for the British to make and they did , if we are leaving aside morals
@@PanglossDr the US when it had slavery before Lincoln produced high agricultural yields than it did after abolishing slavery , so are you gonna criticize slavery now?
I don't know of any country or former colony ,that the English did not exploit, cheat or otherwise take advantage of.
Then you have never read a history book .
Extremely interesting and stimulating talk.
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
My ancestors at this time were land less labourers and coal miners. They got little from the British Empire other than poverty and an early death.
Excellent lecture, thank you!
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
Enjoyed video
The major driving forces in the world have almost always been economic. The Industrial Revolution ie mechanisation put many traditional skilled people out of work or they were forced into low wage jobs. This happened not only in India, it happened in the UK and other countries. Today, capitalism is doing the same. Indian workers today may gradually be paid better wages until a cheaper source of production is found. The investor class are no longer British aristocrats. They are from all over the world and they care no more for the countries in which they invest or for their populations.
Rome was the same
100%tru the devil’s of the central bank’s are interested to make all ways more money 💰 not to help people and Nations. Rather to control people and Nations.
What connects the topic of this video, as "compartmentalized history" and 99% ancillary details, with the bigger overall European "picture"?
It is "divide and rule" as THE "systems/strategies" tier of things, as the 1% of history that counts...
Exemplary of a divide and rule/conquer strategy:
Entire regions of human beings are used or set up as proxies, as "walls" or "Limitrophe States" to seperate potential areas which might unite.
Wiki: "In modern history, it was used to refer to provinces that seceded from the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, during the Russian Civil War (1917-1922), thus forming a kind of belt or cordon sanitaire separating Soviet Russia from the rest of Europe during the interwar period.[4]... The nations were then "the cards to change hands in big political games" and included the Baltic peoples, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians."
These nations were, and still are today, simply "tools" for the empires who hold the geographical advantage of power
When everybody started talking about Versailles as a "peace conference" back in the days following WW1, it allowed for narratives to take shape. These "narratives" then floated to the top of discussions and debates, books and documentaries, and became the way people started thinking at the time, and...more importantly, still think*** today.
Historians should stop talking about The Treaty of Versailles as a "peace conference" (name branding), but to start calling it out for what it was in terms of geopolitics and grand strategy: it was divide and rule/conquer *of and over* continental Europe, by the outside world powers, all imperialistic in nature, with a geographical advantage (Washington DC/London), using Paris as a continental foothold, or an "extension" of their own power. Such language abounds in the strategy papers of the true powers.
These powers favored Paris for this specific reason, regardless of what ideologues desired (Idealism is an '-ism' or ideology).
*Favoratism is a core technique used in a divide and rule strategy.*
The Fourteen Points were largely written by a "think tank", the New York based "Inquiry" group. As for Wilson, was he really that naive to think that the large and prominent forces of isolationism would not prevail, and lead to the USA/Washington DC not joining any collectivised system of security for the entire planet?
Was there really no "Plan B" in Washington DC?
Divide and rule as a strategy is elaborated in more detail in the comments thread under the Kaiser Wilhelm video of the "History Room" educational channel. Go to the other channel, select "latest comments" first (three little bars at the top of every comments section), and read as far back as desired.
*The "oh so fine" British Lordships thought they could play divide and rule/conquer games with the world, and in the end British citizens and military men lost bigtime, as at the very end of the Empire, their own Lordships "...ran off with all the f%cking money..." (quote = George Carlin/ reality = tax havens).*
The answer to any observed divide and rule strategy is eventually going to be brute force. On a micro level, it will be some form of uprising or revolution. On the macro level (states/empires) it will be crises and war. If words no longer achieve the desired effects to oppose the actions by the psychopaths who have infiltrated positions of power (incl. our so-called "western liberal democracies"), and become uncompromising and start using bully tactics, the answer will be brute force. No system is going to "turn the other cheek" indefinitely.
No, this is not a "yet another conspiracy theory," but elaborated and provided with sufficient evidence, and inductive/deductive reasoning on the other channel/video.
*Divide and rule/conquer is a strategy, not a conspiracy theory.*
***As a mixture of opinions, biases, emotions, analyses, assessments, etc. proclaimed in a multitude of books, documentaries, journals, essays, stories and...just about everything related to "compartmentalized history". In reality, how every individual "thinks" is not important: it is the *systems/strategies* tier of events which is the truly indicative tier.
👍👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
The British systematically destroyed the Indian textile industry, the ship building industry, the steel industry etc. Britain's industrial revolution was premised upon the de-industrialization of India. Britain. The handloom weaver's for example famed across the world whose products were exported around the world, Britain came right in. There were actually these weaver's making fine muslin as light as woven wear, it was said, and Britain came right in, smashed their thumbs, broke their looms, imposed tariffs and duties on their cloth and products and started, of course, taking their raw material from India and shipping back manufactured cloth flooding the world's markets with what became the products of the dark and satanic mills of the Victoria in England
The corporation of London
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
@@NG-dc2pk that is such complete propaganda. that's like saying all afghans are paedos because you heard of bachi bazi. when the ottomans conquered eastern europe, they freed christian women from being burned as witches on the stake.
@@NG-dc2pk
Sati was not conducted all over India, but by some community.
Sati was abolished by Raja Ram Mohan Roy of Hindu Brahmo Samaj.
& England is well known for witch burning & torture machines.
@@jirachi-wishmaker9242 sati was made illegal by Lord Bentick in 1829. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was one of those who lobbied for the ban.
@@jirachi-wishmaker9242 nope, it was practised all around india until the Brits came and abolished that abhorrent custom
Who benefited? That would be me.
I was a recipient of Sir. John James Cowperthwaite's positive non-intervention policies. It turned out great for me- who need k-12 schooling, who need universties, hospitals, who need vaccine to combat the 1968 pandemic.who need the comfort of a "cottage". I have all the freedom to choose not to not to live, freedom to not to pay off the British offcials as a 11- years old.
Thank you. May I have this for the rest of my life.
Thank you-much appreciated!
Could we draw a paralell to the behavior of Richi Sunak ?
Not just India.
The famine in Ireland in the 1840s led to over a million deaths and decades of emigration so that the population of the island of Ireland is still less than in 1840. British rule of Ireland was catastrophic for the native Irish.
Irish freedom fighters James Dally graves in Dgshai Himachal
Not famine To an Irish speaking nation it was An Gorta Mor meaning the great hunger Nowadays the calculated number of dead is estimated at five million Buried in mass graves ditches and some just left on the ground
there was no joules Verne giant flying machine spreading potato blight everywhere. it was a famine , in those days no one in any part of the world got free food and board in situations like that. sadly they had a choice, move somewhere else or go to the workhouse. and by the way, vast numbers of Irish people exercised their right as British people to move to other parts of Britain, Liverpool alone took in over 300,000 .
Pc nonsense. They had a monoculture. It failed, they died. As ever across the entire globe. Your note is infantile
Ireland May have suffered at times, no doubt about that. But being an English speaking country in Europe, with strong links to the US is paying dividends now. So being once in the British Empire has had benefits
Thank you for your honesty sir.
This man is any thing but honest . He just hates his own country . He lies and forgets the " What has the Romans ever done for us"
verdadero mucho gracias
The british elite. Period. No need for an 1 hour video essay.
I believe the Modern world as we currently know it evolved from the Old British Empire.
Well that is one way of looking at it!
I believe America has had to mop up all the modern problem's the Brit's has caused in the
Balkans, Middle East, Asia, Africa,
they'd be no modern world if not for the USA!!
Dundee was in England? The stuff you learn in these lectures
Well, that is food for thought.
A most illuminating talk. Yet the question re "greed" remains relevant. Daunton studiously avoids using it despite the fact that Adam Smith's "vile maxim" of "all for us and nothing for the rest" has been an enduring theme of the evolution of capitalism which has, of course, as Daunton says also been a complex political process.
A matter for another day, under the heading Psychoses Endemic in Human Species : Is there a Cure? Personally One Pandora's Box at a time is less confusing but all this material should illuminate future arguments about evolution of capitalism or the psychology of greed.
Simple fact.. when British left india.. the country had only 16% literacy rate, had witnessed mass famines in which millions were killed, had trade deficit with most of the world and didn't matter on world map.
Today the country has progressed much more in last 70 years than it did in 200 years of slavery
@BrianT Mass famines did not occur in India. Actuarial data began to be collected in 1900. Between that period until India's independence, the GDP *fell* by 0.6% per annum.
@BrianT Request denied! I'll take it to the former, the major benefactor.
@BrianT why would the elites want to be under somebody else rather than themselves, doesn’t
@@Imagine_No_ReligionSo I guess the 50 to 160 million deaths during British colonization were due to minor famines. I never would have guessed that.
@@arunnaik3375 Check the context first: Mass famines _before British colonization_ did not occur.
The rich & powerful whoever they may be from both ends....
Britain were suffering from the massive debt following the war. Britain was indebted mostly to the USA. By the 1960s Europe was recovering but Britain was suffering. Britain was badly managed and although today it is suffering it is still relatively affluent compared to most of its former colonies.
Too many assume that solutions are obvious. The Corn Laws during the Irish Potato Famine are a clasic example.
When the blight hit Ireland corn (wheat) was expensive so the poor suffered.
The Corn Laws were blamed for driving up the price of wheat. Abolish the laws and the reduced profitability of growing wheat caused landowners to turn to raising livestock, instead.
Raising livestock required less labour, so a lot of poor rural workers lost their jobs, and became extremely poor slum-dwellers. Where they died from disease more than starvation.
You can't change just one thing.
The effects of repealing the corn laws (lack of import tarrffs)were also disastrous as it decimated British agriculture and villages, causing workers to either move to city, colonies or abroad. It also made Britain perilously close to starvation during the UBoat menaces.
Slavery and caste system both also had nuances and complex angles but We seem to an general agreement that they were bad. It’s 2023 and as an Indian, I am amazed how British feels colonisation was not all that bad. It seems “White Man’s burden” attitude still prevail. I have just question to ask - if Britain in future becomes technologically and/or socially “backward”. Would they be ok with being colonised the way India was?
It’s really gross to watch someone talk about nuances in taxation and ignore the tens of millions who died in preventable famines as a direct result. There is a place for nit-picky economics and it is after a long disclaimer about the horrors of colonialism. Luckily, people like him are a dying breed.
They r cryin now over how many asians r overtaking white man's home UK n they rnt even colonised yet (crying even before that).
From google :
"How many white British live in India?
As Anglo-Indians were mostly isolated from both British and Indian society, their documented numbers dwindled from roughly 300,000 at the time of independence in 1947 to about 125,000-150,000 in modern day India."
From Google:
"Population. In the 2021 Census, 1,864,318 people in England and Wales were recorded as having Indian ethnicity, accounting for 3.1% of the population"
The issue is who wins politically by fueling racism, and revanchism.
Try to find politicians of European descent in Asia and Africa
@@nikoskalaitzakis4824 we do have sonia gandhi who is of italian descent.
Minute 35 is a damning result of trickle down economics.
Well, rather too much confusion, stumbling and lack of clarity. Referring to things obliquely or with not enough introduction or explanation. Sounds like it's contrasting apples and oranges to some extent as well e.g. the ethics of the power structures of empire versus those of economic flows.
Why were most people in Britain poor during the time of the empire. It was only after India left the empire that the NHS started in Britain and lives started to improve for the poor of Britain.
most people were poor everywhere in the world in 1900--because technology was still not advanced enough.
@kreek22 So, this whole debate means practically nothing then. Nearly everyone was poor prior to 1900, regardless of whether they were in Britain or if they were in India.
The Lords held most of the Wealth, they intermarried to increase Family Wealth, Degenerative Diseases from In-Breeding is very common, they would rather In Breed that let the commoners have a Living Wage and fair share of the benefets.
@@kreek22 :: The Production of Local People was Taxed and sent to London to enrich the In-Bred Nobles who were so ridden with GREED they married cousins to increase Family Wealth.
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
Caste is your profession,your trade, your own talent. Nothing wrong in that. Class system BY British was more destructive.
The workers who built the railways in the US were not Americans.
and who in the british empire is benefiting from usa? britain and later europe's neocolonial projects started in the americas, britain had better things to do like fight france and spain around the world then try stopping some colonies from seceding, so they just set up a debt and financial system where they would still profit off the usa. less than forty years later, the royal family helped their monarchy friends/extended family in spain with doing similiar neocolonial projects in latin america when they started fighting for independence
Nice discussion
It shows things were more complicated than we think
Respect from india
Bvrahmin quota people benefitted from British Empire.
Britain
it was a constant subject of debate in Britian whether the cost was worth it - not really sure to be honest
Rome.
It makes no sense to claim that the wealth extracted from India was in British money. Actual biophysical wealth and labor were extracted.
No matter what, the top 1% manage to do quite well, in all systems!
So that’s why taxes are sky high in the UK now, they can’t drain money from India 😂
Nothing AT ALL to do with it. All European countries with few exceptions has high taxes, USA too. Nothing to do with any colony.
I’m KL😢 KL t😅ty😊l
Im
What a heap of simplistic nonsense 😂
Maybe we could have the millions back we keep giving India in aid. And the rest of the world.
The illuminated history of typical human behaviour, inevitable violent consequences by default.
Excellent Teaching lecture, thank you.
From an Australian POV, the comments about hypocrisy made in the introduction apply, in every way. Basically the division of 1%, 10%, and probably 80% of the population of the world nowadays can be fitted in the old heirachical structure still. It doesn't add up, never will.
So relevant to WYSIWYG, ..always NOW.
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
As for Australia we elect our own idiots to our own parliament , and still blame "others" for our problems . We always seem to go for the lowest denominator and cannot blame outsiders for our own issues .
@@NG-dc2pk What, you reckon the English were their saviours???? Yeah, nah!
@@NG-dc2pk those killed in the Amritsar massacre were surely liberation
@@asnekboi7232 I wonder how is that different to the deaths caused by the Indian government after independence. There are several examples one of which is the Sopore massacre in Kashmir on 6 January 1993 when 55 Kashmiri students were killed by Security forces who fired on a procession.
Read - Was Is A Scam by Smedley Butler ( The maverick Marine )
What have the Romans ever done for us.
😆
Ask the romans …
Aquaducts
Sanitation
Roads
Irrigation
Medicine
Education
Wine
Safe to walk in the streets at night
Public Baths
Public Order in a place like this and
Peace
@@cva987 fake those were all invented by the Greeks
@@cva987 some ppl have that without rome but not last longer like rome to europe
200 years from now Gresham will be looking back at who benefited from the AI revolution. In the meantime, here is GPT-4 answering the question from the video title:
The British Empire, which lasted from the late 16th century to the mid-20th century, was one of the largest empires in history. It played a significant role in shaping the world during this period, and many different groups benefited from it in various ways. However, it's important to acknowledge that the empire also caused significant suffering and exploitation. Some of the main groups that benefited from the British Empire include:
The British Crown and Government: The empire provided the British Crown and government with wealth, resources, and power. Colonies were a source of raw materials and markets for British-made goods, leading to increased revenue and a stronger economy.
British merchants and companies: The expansion of the empire opened up new markets and trade routes, allowing British merchants and companies to profit from the exchange of goods, services, and resources. Companies like the British East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company were granted monopolies in specific regions, leading to substantial profits.
British citizens: Many British citizens benefited from the empire, either directly or indirectly. Job opportunities were created in the colonies, particularly in administration and military roles. Additionally, the increased wealth and resources from the empire helped improve living standards and fuel the industrial revolution in Britain.
British military and naval power: The empire enabled Britain to establish a strong military and naval presence around the world. This helped the nation to project power and protect its interests, while also contributing to technological advancements in warfare.
Infrastructure and development in some colonies: Although the primary goal of the empire was to benefit Britain, there were instances where the colonized territories benefited from infrastructure development, education, and healthcare systems. Railways, roads, and ports were built in many colonies, and some locals were exposed to new ideas and technologies.
Cultural exchange: The British Empire facilitated cultural exchange between different parts of the world, leading to the spread of ideas, art, and literature. This allowed for cross-cultural interactions and the development of new cultural forms.
It is important to note that while these groups benefited, the empire also had many negative consequences for the colonized peoples, including exploitation, cultural erasure, forced labour, and violence. The legacy of the British Empire is therefore complex and multifaceted, with both positive and negative aspects.
Colonised please, you are referring to Britain after all, not the US.
So what? You could say pretty much the same thing about the Roman Empire, but you don't find people complaining about it. Fact is Britain dragged a great many backward and barbarous nations, kicking and screaming, into the modern world; and when the fashionable hysteria has died down, the Empire will be seen in a similar manner.
“Cultural exchange”
You mean importing superior western values and ideas
@@LordOfLight may you live to be colonised for the benefit of another nation.
@@krishnamoorthysankaranaray4057 First: Britain has been invaded many times, though not for centuries. Second: If invaders find a fractured country, constantly at war with itself, where an elite few have all the wealth and the rest live in grinding poverty, and then leave it having bequeathed a stable political and judicial system then I could be all for it. And hopefully we'd do a better job of administering ourselves than India and Pakistan have done in the last 75 years.
Ever heard of the Indian/Jewish Sassoon family?
Yes. The east India company management were all jews.
Basically everyone besides UK and Europe🥲
Cripes it all sounds like Chinas Belt and Road... and yes to some degree this is true. My Great Great grandfather was born in Bombay India in 1838 and my Great great great grandfather worked for the East India company, my great great grandfather then left India and settled in Blueskin Bay Otago once again Trading after the discovery of Gold in Central Otago....Otago still has the second largest Gold Mine in the Southern Hemisphere!
India is a great country, it isn't all bad ... the Indians are great people!
I thought so too... Until I read 'The White Tiger' in school.
Afterwards, the words 'India' and 'corruption' became intertwined for me.
It's the Belt and Road initiative. Let's try to get the term right, before explaining, what it actually means!
After reading some of the comments here from Indians I am sorry to inform you that your sympathy for their country and its people is not returned.
Your sympathy for empire is not that rational as you would like to think, your solace that it wasn't all bad is the sign that you just like to believe your people were not in the wrong side of history, same goes for Indians. they have no problem from Britons today but their sympathy for their ancestors is valid.
Britain only gained most of its empire around the times of the 7 Year War and America got a foretaste of what it meant to be its colony. Indeed the colonies werent an extension of Britain but its property including its trade and its people were subjects without rights under the crown. Indeed they were not the Englishmen they believed themselves to be and it one incident proved how it felt about them in Parliament to none other than Benjamin Franklin. While he was there before the Revolution he was ordered to appear before it and was dressed down in front of everyone assembled like an ungrateful child. He was reminded that being a subject was different than say a being a business man in London or nearly every one there with legal rights at the time meant they should be grateful that they weren't equal. Franklin was told they did have some representation in Parliament if someone spoke on their behalf if at all and complaining that they didn't have an actual seat meant nothing. It got worse since Britain had a monopoly over the colonies and were often banned from importing certain materials or raw goods from anyone but them and it was a one way street.The colonies traded in what ever currency was available including other European countries silver etc like Spain's were only available yet were expected to pay in only Pounds back to Britain which had to be borrowed often at high rates. Before they put the screws to India etc the American Colonies had but one partner and its treasure was to flow back to Britain and its upper crust only before anyone else. The Americans rebelled since they were never the equals to the ordinary Britain either in name or by law but subjects of the crown and paid to be overseen by Royal Forces put there often to enforce that reality upon them first. That
As a Canadian I find your story to be typical American version of history. It disregards the 60,000 colonials who voluntarily served the crown in the American revolution. After American victory which was won by the French fleet and the civil war was ended two new countries emerged USA and Canada. The United Empire Loyalists founded Canada where the King is our head of state. Are ordinary Americans better off than ordinary Canadians?
Here we are 80 years later and India has a space programme, international film industry.... and the most destitute slum dwellers in the world. Easy to blame colonialism for human nature.
Who benefited from the British Empire? *Martin Daunton*
Great Britain 🇬🇧 benefited
One of the myths that people love to believe, is that there is some form of utopia which only "greedy imperialists" prevent. Reality is that extreme poverty and oppression occured almost everywhere and were endemic in places like India and Australia and Africa, before they arrived.
The second myth is that fixing poverty and oppression is simple. Reality is that what we consider "normal" today is the result of centuries of trial-and-error by people fumbling their wsy through economic, technological and moral development.
It's not simple.
you think extreme poverty wasn't endemic in victorian britain? how laughable. britain was such a prosperous island that more than 30% of its population left the island for colonies in australia new zealand, south africa kenya, zambia and zimbabwe ryt? what utter rubbish.
@@TheMrgoodmanners ... No... Extreme poverty was endemic around the world.
What this SHOWS is that (a) it wasn't caused by the British, and (b) it wasn't the result of racism.
It is only we moderns who think of it as something requiring a malevolent cause.
@@TheMrgoodmanners
Oh and BTW, I happen to live in Australia. My ancestors came here for a number of reasons relating to initiative and opportunity. Not because they were starving.
People often forget that prosperity usually requires risk, initiative and inspiration. If it was easy, a billion people woukd have done it before you.
@@TheMrgoodmanners :: They were Transplants, America was the Penal Colony before 1776, just a minor infraction, like taking a turnip from the field meant "Transportation" to the Penal Colony,
@@peterwebb8732 ::Britain had "Penal Laws" in the Irish Colony for practicing the Native Irish Religion,(1) No Irish Catholics could go to school. (2) No Irish Catholics could own land.(3) No Irish Catholics could own a horse worth more than 5 Pounds Sterling.(4) No Irish Catholic could hold a "Public Sector Job". (5) No Irish Catholic could Join the Army, and so On and On.
THE RICH AND THE GOVERNMENT LOOKING AFTER THEM SELVS ME THE POOR PEOPLE IN THE UK DID NOT GET NOTHING...SO DON'T BLAME ME
MY FAMILY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ALL THAT...
Of all peoples who benefited from the British Empire was South Africa the least with Argentina a close second except without their wives and children dying in concentration camps.
Finally, people from former colonies nowadays replace the brits in their homeland. I'd call it historical justice.
That's a foolish standpoint, what'll happen when the pendulum swings the other way
History has shown us the fate of colonisers time and time again 😅
@strake750 If you are a brit you may not like the fact Birmingham is the pakistani city.
@@Ian-vj5pv
Every single city in Europe is in the hands of interlopers
Sooner or later a leader will emerge who'll rid Europe of these parasites, history has shown us this repeatedly down the centuries, just like the Pakistanis kicked the British out of India
It remains to be seen if it'll be peaceful or not, but the revolution will be televised
William Digby estimated that from 1870 to 1900, £900 million was transferred from India. Applying a measly 5% of interest , the sum amounts to £38.53173 trillion.
The world
Land tax: 53%!!😳
very interesting lecture bringing in many different facts and points of view. However, i feel that the ;ecture lacks a clear answer not just a conclusion as to who benefitted in different points of time.
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
@@NG-dc2pk You've copy-pasted the same undiluted claptrap everywhere. I'll do the same to decimate this balderdash. Girls weren't getting burnt alive. It was an extremely rare practice that a widow would jump into the funeral pyre of her dead husband. It occurred only in Rajasthan which bore the brunt of Islamic invasions.
The early British were full of praise at the 'bravery" of those widowed women who would jump into the pyre. Read "Around the World in 80 days", where custom was described in apparent awe.
Later on missionary in an effort to paint the native religion as evil, used this rare occurrence as a propaganda tool.
@@NG-dc2pk 5 year old girls weren't getting married off. They were getting *betrothed* to 7 year old boys. Marriages arranged by the parents of the bride and groom are still common (I think).
@@NG-dc2pk It is not known how entrenched the practice of untouchability was in Indian society before the British came, but the British definitely exacerbated the practice by creating separate electorates for "upper" castes and "untouchables" amongst other things. It was a part of their strategy of "divide and rule".
By the way, how come there were "billions" [your choice of words] of "untouchables" when the Indian population was in the millions back then in history?
Let us not forget that when the British arrived, they were getting human beings as "cargo" and auctioning them off as CHATTEL SLAVES.
What a refreshing break from the usual moral and political grandstanding that usualy dominates the discourse on such topics, kudos!
Lol... you found your safe space. Enjoy, Precious.
Where did India and Indians get the GBP to pay taxes in GBP to Britain?
NB. 16.42 m. 1902 book. On Imperialism. i.e. how to make Britain not great after all. Quote, "Our most profitable and progressive trade is with rival industrial nations," that is America and Germany in 1902, not Africa, India or other developing nations we can pillage. Refer to E. Schmidt quote re China in P&I review of speech to conservative tink tank. 19/4. Wed.
Aristocracy: The Thieving Class.
Why am I the only one that agrees with you ?
@@bobcosmic Probably because that's a bit of a naive view adopted almost entirely by simpletons.
And your roads,infrastructure,buildings, Universities. Your modern history is built on looted money
@@grantwithers Well said
Ah, the illustrious legacy of the British Empire, a veritable masterclass in economic acumen, one must jest! In their tireless pursuit of enriching the motherland, they indeed elevated impoverishment to an art form. What marvelous ingenuity it took to diminish trade, extract exorbitant tariffs on local goods, and divert the lion's share of GDP across the seas to London's coffers.
But let us not overlook their pièce de résistance - the grand orchestration of famines and the establishment of concentration camps, a symphony of suffering that rivaled even the Nazis. Such feats of colonial brilliance, indeed, shall forever be etched in the annals of history as their chief accomplishment, much to the chagrin of the colonies they left in their wake.
Still peddling the AI garbage, then?
. . .
Just to correct the record - the British eliminated the scourge of famine from the subcontinent.
. . .
@@mauricebuckmaster9368 That is incorrect.
@@mauricebuckmaster9368- still looking up to Tommy Robinson then.
@@Shaggy-8392
Not an argument.
. . .
This was weirdly relaxing
Hebrews 4: 12 - 13
You are right about India's (and we may as well include China) dominance of manufacturing for over a millennia. However, you fail to say why it was so dominant. The reason was the Silk Road , the nexus of trading routes which joined up India and China and in Europe to Venice which in modern terms was the European subsidiary of these two powers. It meant that China and Indian products were not restricted to their home markets but could expand their reach across the world. Their products could gain a quite extraordinary premium. Venice although thousands of miles from the source in India and China and hence paying the most for them nevertheless became the richest state in europe through their connection. the silk route collapsed in the thirteenth century but after a gap the East India Company took over this role for about two centuries. They sold Indian and Chinese products at a vast premium in other countries. The last thing they wanted to do was to put Indian manufacturing out of business.
The reason that India and China lost out was that superior and cheaper products in virtually all areas began to be made in Europe. This was largely down to mechanisation which began in England in the 1740s (note before the colonisation of India) and increased throughout the nineteenth century. A secondary reason was that these countries lost some of the secrets of their manufacturing processes. The reason why people buy one product rather than another is not that people are forced to do so but because the products are better. It is the reason we buy Japanese cars and the reason I am buying a Royal Enfield motorbike from India. They have found a niche in the market and it is better than anything else at the price. Railways in India as everywhere else in the world ran where they could make a profit and get a return not for the benefit of the British. In India they had to be financed largely by central government as too few investors were prepared to risk their money and they were as a result more expensive per mile.
Silk Road was only one avenue. The major trade occurred via silk route, spice route, incense Route, Tin Route, and The Amber Road. When the British arrived they India share of the world economy when Britain arrived on it's shores was 23 per cent, by the time the British left it was down to below 4 per cent. Why? Simply because India had been governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain's rise for 200 years was financed by it's depredations in India. In fact Britain's industrial revolution was actually premised upon the de-industrialisation of India.
The handloom weaver's for example famed across the world whose products were exported around the world, Britain came right in. There were actually these weaver's making fine muslin as light as woven wear, it was said, and Britain came right in, smashed their thumbs, broke their looms, imposed tariffs and duties on their cloth and products and started, of course, taking their raw material from India and shipping back manufactured cloth flooding the world's markets with what became the products of the dark and satanic mills of the Victoria in England. That meant that the weavers in India became beggars and India went from being a world famous exporter of finished cloth into an importer when from having 27 per cent of the world trade to less than 2 per cent.
Brits like to point out that we missed the Industrial bus. That's because we were thrown under the bus.
By the end of 19th century, the fact is that India was already Britain's biggest cash cow, the world's biggest purchaser of British goods and exports and the source for highly paid employment for British civil servants. We literally paid for our own oppression.
During World War 1, one-sixth of all the British forces that fought in the war were Indian - 54 000 Indians actually lost their lives in that war, 65 000 were wounded and another 4000 remained missing or in prison. Indian taxpayers had to cough up a 100 million pounds in that time’s money. India supplied 17 million rounds of ammunition, 6,00,000 rifles and machine guns, 42 million garments were stitched and sent out of India and 1.3 million Indian personnel served in this war. I know all this because the commemoration of the centenary has just taken place.
But not just that, India had to supply 173,000 animals 370 million tonnes of supplies and in the end the total value of everything that was taken out of India and India by the way was suffering from recession at that time and poverty and hunger, was in today's money 8 billion pounds. World War II, it was was even worse - 2.5 million Indians in uniform. Britain's total war debt of 3 billion pounds in 1945 money, 1.25 billion was owed to India and never actually paid.
The railways and roads were really built to serve British interests and not those of the local people but I might add that many countries have built railways and roads without having had to be colonialized in order to do so. They were designed to carry raw materials from the hinterland into the ports to be shipped to Britain. And the fact is that the Indian or Jamaican or other colonial public - their needs were incidental. Transportation - there was no attempt made to match supply from demand from as transports, none what so ever.
Instead in fact the Indian railways were built with massive incentives offered by Britain to British investors, guaranteed out of Indian taxes paid by Indians with the result that you actually had one mile of Indian railway costing twice what it cost to built the same mile in Canada or Australia because there was so much money being paid in extravagant returns.
Britain made all the profits, controlled the technology, supplied all the equipment and absolutely all these benefits came as British private enterprise at Indian public risk. That was the railways as an accomplishment.
@@arunnaik3375 Then you must explain why China’s trade declined by an equal amount. China was not part of the British Empire.
@@tincoffin Ask the Chinese. I don't read Chinese.
@@arunnaik3375 Well we can at least deduce that it was not down to the British Empire since it cannot explain the even greater decline in China’s fortunes. As anyone can see it was down to a decline in relative demand for those products which had previously made both countries extremely wealthy.
@@tincoffin I dissent from your inference, for it oversimplifies the intricate web of factors that contributed to the ebb and flow of fortunes in both the British Empire and China. To attribute the decline solely to a dwindling demand for certain products is to overlook the multifaceted dynamics that shaped the destiny of these countries.
To truly comprehend the decline, we must embark upon a holistic exploration, one that transcends the boundaries of economic analysis and delves into the annals of history, politics, culture, and human endeavor. Only by weaving together these strands of knowledge can we aspire to unravel the intricate tapestry of decline and illuminate the pathways that shaped the destinies of nations.
To reinforce the plundering and theft from India perhaps read Shashi Tharoor The Inglorious Empire. Read Britain's Empire by Richard Gott surely demonstrates the negative side of Empire far exceeds the few benefits.
You know something is odd when virtually every Indian nationalist always recommends the same dude. They're all getting their information from the same single source and it's an unreliable source
Lol as usual colonial mindset@@jackthemac132
Thank you for spelling ‘benefited’ correctly. A pet hate
And the HongKong people too
The essence of British rule in India and the efforts to give their independence and a constitution (ratified by not an India, but by the British parliament) was termed by Nehru as "SLAVERY". The Indians didn't benefitted from the British empire, but were turned into subhuman, deprived of their democratic rights, that they pretended to be proud of.
How much democracy did they have before Raj?
Pretended to be proud of??? That don't seem right
@@anthonybaransky137 The British are proud of their tradition of free speech and democracy, but they practice hypocrisy.
You on substances contrary to Section 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 971 ?
Ask the 100m people they killed (over 35m in India alone) to obtain their Empire.
Words fail me ! 2:14
Where do you get the 100 million from ?
You say that “The share of workforce in (Indian) industry fell from about 15-18% in 1800 to 10% in 1900”. I don’t know what this statement means. Less than 5% of the UK workforce worked in factories in 1800. I doubt that 15% of Indians were working in factories at that time, if we’re applying modern ideas of what “industry” and “factory” mean.
During this time, India’s population rose from around 200 million to almost 300 million. Maybe it would be useful to give the figures for the actual number of Indian workers employed in factories in 1800 and 1900. Allowing for population growth, they may have remained static.
Towards the end of the 19th century, Japan emerged as a significant industrial manufacturer in Asia. Presumably this will also have affected India.
The share working in industry has no relevance to their productivity level, which was (and is) quite low in India.
He's talking about cottage industry workers pre-factories. People weren't working in "factories" prior to factories coming about. They would be working in "cottage industry" aka women (usually women) weaving etc. at home etc. (also cobblers, tanners etc.) That was the forerunner to factories. Basically what they're saying is that there was around 15% of the indian pop engaged in some pre-factory in-the-home (usually tho they may have had a special building to go work in, in some cases) cottage industry, but then that percent fell to 10% when they started facing competition from british produced goods from back in British factories (where the output per worker was much higher).
And, you're probably at least somewhat correct that the pop growth additionally caused fluctuation in the numbers. And of course, any analysis being done on this level is leaving out a bajillion things that affected these huge amounts of people.
@@grantwithers All fair comment. We have to be careful in our use of language on this subject. As I understand it, before the Industrial Revolution, the word “factory” usually meant something more like “warehouse”. I’ve heard some Chinese posters insist that China already had an industrial revolution before Europe because some European traders referred to Chinese “factories”. In context, it’s clear these traders were talking about warehouses.
@@grantwithers Heck How little you know. India was one of the three regions in the world to be proto-industrialized (that's early industrialization minus automation).. The other two were Japan and northwestern Europe. There were factories producing steel, cotton textiles, dyes, and ships. India had captured the global steel market. The famous "Damascus steel" were manufactured large scale in India and exported. Even after the industrial revolution, the cotton mills of Manchester were no match for Indian textiles. So much that the British had to cut off the thumbs of Indian weavers.
@@Imagine_No_Religion You're up to speed on a lot of myths and fantasies anyway. Though yeah there was certainly what we can call some pre-industrialization work going on in india, you have to also look at the scale of that vs the total population. And how they fared moving forwards. The fingers thing is likely a myth (as is widely reported online and why most scholars don't bother with it), but even if it wasn't it wasn't nearly as wide spread as you I'm sure really want for it to be. Certainly there may have been someone that did some cutting off of some fingers and got the myth of it being a big thing started, but there's just not enough evidence of it happening on anywhere near the scale to have mattered in a macro discussion.
My favorite remark is who's reading English. QED.
The British empire.
mostly the british ruling class
In short. The world.
I request everyone to watch
India 1947 back then vs India now
Sardar Vallabhbhai patel united Bharat. British left India with two arbitrary line , beyond the line it was supposed to be muslim nations. That's it.
Only 13% were allowed to vote for province creation. Upon which, India was partitioned later.
There was no "Democracy". Infact British Empire didn't have an Emperor but the British India had Empress. British India was the only dominion to be under absolutely monarchy.
Atleast she claimed to be the Empress & the dominion was an absolute monarchy. That's why Dominion lile Canda Australia might have respect for the crown, which is not seen in India.
I know certainly less than 1% about British history, but I think there could be some serious disappointment concerning this question.
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
@@NG-dc2pk no girl was burnt alive regularly, even the Peshwa had banned the Practice before the brits. Besides it was a rare practice not something that's one is bound to do
The age of consent for girls with regard to marriage was 12 - that is, a girl under the age of 12 could not lawfully consent to marriage. The age of consent for boys was 14.
That seem to be a rather world trend considering the custom of the time
@@NG-dc2pk untouchables were about 3% of the population and were treated far better than the brits treated black slaves in the Caribbean.
@@jotteredits fool , 3% exactly when? They were treated this for 5000 years , not for 200 years like the Brits
Lecture is based on point of view of Britain, not considering point of view of the colonies.
Every one power ful rule other but British loot was so systematic that they build theirs system of multilayer to subdue not only native society but made them to work to pay theirs governing model with incentive
Who benefited Well Britain 🇬🇧 herself ..as the loot $43T in todays money equivalent was sent in installment for funding the Industrial Revolution of " Trains Automobiles & Planes & Factories flourished ..Cotton garments mills etc etc..Britain was the beneficiary
$43T from India alone as well stolen Kohinoor diamond from my home State of Andhra pradesh india..
1 million at least died from hunger under queen Victoria's rule in Ireland. Guess they didn't benefit
Where did your number come from? Your imagination? And the egregiously simplistic idea that because a bad thing happened it must all have been bad is eye-watering. Try not to talk like a fool.
@@LordOfLight Yes the number is totally incorrect Moe along the lines of five million
Yeah, what the Romans ever did for us... I mean, beyond aqueducts, sanitation, roads, irrigation, masonry.,.. and the wine, beyond that what have they ever done for us?
Their legal system was more important than any of your examples.
Defended England from Picts…
the day the British arrived in India it was an Independence day for majority of the Indians , for girls who were burned alive regularly , girls who were married off as young as 5 , billions of people who were treated as "untouchables "
@@NG-dc2pk Billions? When the British colonized India the population was in millions. Most of the Indian population wasn't untouchable and caste system isn't an indian thing.
Sanitation? Ever heard about Indus Valley?
10 million square miles 5 million people. Australia Canada. Africa was most people. How many people?
There's still a taxed India, which is still partially poverty stricken and agricultural, but that's alright as now it's self inflicted.
Britain took over from the Moghuls, the East India company were employed by the Moghuls to collect their taxes. India has been paying taxes for a millenia.
There was no welfare in Britain to benefit from any taxation largesse, in fact it was a cost to taxpayers to the benefit of merchants. What happened was that the industrial revolution funded by the stockmarket meant cotton clothing could be spun and sold cheaper in England than could be created by hand in India, that and the gold and diamond mines in South Africa created British wealth
I've listened to the first twenty minutes and I'm moving on.
Useless defense for colonialism. There was no free trade for India, they had to buy from Britain and had to sell to Britain like the rest of the colonies. They had no say. The entire industrialization of Britain owes to the fact that their textile was inferior to Indian textile, causing the trade initial deficit. In order to compete, they had to prevent Indian textile manufacture, and later to compete, the first factories emerged in Britain, those were textile factories, in order to compete with their colony.
The British had on average 40,000 troops in India. If Indians didn't see some value in British rule I'm sure they could have kicked us out whenever they liked.
They used other Indian soldiers against other Indian soldiers... British were really rich.
Yeah I'm sure Britain would've just ignored an Indian uprising and not sent more troops into the country in response lol
@@weirdblackcat We definitely would but we never had to!
@@chrisreeves9764 Gee, I wonder why, I'm sure people in India felt hopeful in even attempting an uprising against one of the most powerful military forces in the world
@@weirdblackcat Only 40k. We had a very light military presence in most countries. We must have brought something to the party otherwise they would have done what we did to the Vikings! Nice exchanging thoughts with you in such a polite way. Most unusual these days!
In 1818 the British Defeated the Maratha Empire by inciting local castes against each other, the downfall of Indian Economy starts after that
The Royal Family
Shashi Tharoor could straighten out this guy in five minutes.
Does he have any talks on CZcams?
@@MatthewMcVeagh Of course. The one in an Oxford debate went viral. It's just 10 minutes and definitely worth watching. His humor was at its very best too.
He just lies and misreprests statistics🤦♂️
He certainly straightened Pushkar
@@kahane2007 Who is Pushkar?
Gosh havn't the liberals been slagging us off for a long time. They continue to do so today.
Who had benefit with the BE,unless Britain?
👆
the "money" got all the money , there is effect on the british main land and empire . but the main stream of money ended up at rich people . at 43:00 the question rises , is it imperialism or global economy .... global involves more than one group of benefiters , it involves a country or a number of countrees. tge question than arises , did the entire british population and the west profit from this economic exploitation or was the distribution of wealth left to the trickle down methode....
I can believe what was said but worth noting that before the British Empire the Indian peasants would have been exploited by the Indian Princes and the Empires before that. From the peasants point of view it was just a different oppressor.
True
The Caste system still operates in India was listening to the BBC about IT Indians going to America then getting sent back to India when the higher caste Indians found out they are Dalute or untouchables 🇬🇧🇺🇸
@@Valhalla88888 BS!!!! Any proof?
@@Valhalla88888 That's hilarious.
@@Valhalla88888 who are the Dalutes?
The world benefitted.
I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Wrong question.
It should be "Who benefited form London's inability to change, in the face of changing circumstances?"
That was "Washington DC".
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused," as stated as desirable by Woodrow Wilson, one of the world's biggest advocates of imperialism/white supremacy, whilst hiding behind a "an image" of being a liberal/idealist/progressive (taken from a unpublished paper of 1907, as quoted in The Rising American Empire, 1960, by Richard Warner Van Alstyne, p. 201.)
Wilson of course was simply looking at what had happened the past 200 years as the original "13 colonies", first fought for independence, and then started going N.E.W.S. (North/East/West/South), brushing away all in its path. They wouldn't stop going, until they bumped up against European imperialism, their biggest rivals.
"During World War II, study groups of the (US) State Department and Council on Foreign Relations developed plans for the postwar world in terms of what they called the "Grand Area," which was to be subordinated to the needs of the American economy. The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe. These plans were implemented, as opportunities allowed."
*Such statements were taken from a series of Washington DC "strategy papers". To further quote the article: "These declassified documents are read only by scholars, who apparently find nothing odd or jarring in all this."*
(taken from, in parts: GEORGE KENNAN AND THE HISPANIC-LUSITANIAN WORLD: A CONTEMPORARY REFLECTION Antonio Luis Ramos Membrive Diplomático y escritor)
All this talk about imperialism but no mention of Lenin, a Marxist analysis of class, or the logic of capital? Nice video but seems like it's dancing around this.
@Never repeats Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. If you spend an hour discussing Stalin's reign and omit mention of the Holodomor--you must be criticized. In this case, however, I agree--Marxism is only one perspective on imperialism.
He fails to mention that the population of India during the 200 years of British paramountcy approximately tripled. Why is this apparent anomaly never addressed, let alone explained, in an analysis of "Who benefited from the British Empire"? (A similar phenomenon is observable in the colonies, as well.)
I think you will find that world population increased by about the same level over that period. What is your point?
@@nk-gp1ml My point is that there is an apparent anomaly between the narrative of exploitation and the population figures that requires explanation. To put it crudely, for every one Indian when the British arrived, there were 3 when they left. Do you have an explanation for the anomaly?
As most of the world came under European rule during this period with similar demographic results, this question may range wider than just India, but India is what is being discussed here.
You're catching at straws. The US imported nearly 400,000 slaves. In 1865 over 4 million slaves were emancipated. By your logic.... Look at the Development index. In 1947 after 200 years of British rule Indian literacy was 13% at best. 70 years later in 2018 it was 75%.... In 1960 Nigeria graduated barely 13 doctors from one medical school to serve a population of 50 million. After 70 years under the British. Today Nigeria produces 4000 doctors annually from 45 accredited schools & its population stands 200 million. From this it's clear. Colonization was not abt the Native population. It was there to benefit the Colonizer at the expense of the Native peoples.
@@markaxworthy2508 you are presenting natural population growth that has occurred throughout history in every society as proof of the benefit of empire. As the previous commentator stated, you are clutching at straws.
It does amaze me that people whose ancestors were the lackeys and cannon fodder that built the empire and who benefitted nothing, or next to nothing from a wealth grabbing enterprise for the rich, should be so proud and so determined to defend that empire.
@@ncheedxx0109 Yup, colonization, "was there to benefit the Colonizer at the expense of the Native peoples." That is not in dispute, (though it should be pointed out that Britain did not colonize India. Its form of exploitation there was different.) The question is whether there was an up side to British rule. The fact that there were three times as many Indians when the British left as there were when they arrived needs looking at in this context.
You post, "The US imported nearly 400,000 slaves. In 1865 over 4 million slaves were emancipated." If true, (I thought the first figure was rather higher), what point are you making?
The significance of a 13% literacy rate in India in 1948 depends on what the rate was before British rule. Was it better or worse than 13%? Also, what was the literacy rate in the Princely States, who had control of their own education systems throughout British rule? (Some were quite progressive compared with British India, but how many?).
The fact that Nigeria qualified only 13 doctors in country in 1960 might give the false impression that there were no qualified Nigerian doctors before. In fact, there were eight in the second half of the nineteenth century alone. Before independence, Nigerian doctors largely qualified in the UK. You might also ask yourself how many qualified Nigerian doctors there were before 1858. I think you know the answer.