How the British took over India by Trevor Noah (Very Funny and Insightful) - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15306023
late wrote:...India is a democracy largely due to the institutions the Brits built...

Yes, and Croatia is Roman Catholic largely due to the institutions that the Crusades built.

So what?

A democracy with billions of food insecure people on the verge of collapse and in contant clashes between ethnicities... is what Britain left behind. Starvation is just around the corner, along with serious wars for water and other resources that this high population simply can't procure.

Hundreds of years of killing local leaders and social justice warriors.... That is what Britain contributed to what is now India. Removing leadership from the gene pool through "mowing the lawn" every few years.

OH, and the queen... she wasn't really perfect. And the locals should get to name stuff. :lol:
#15306029
QatzelOk wrote:

A democracy with billions of food insecure people on the verge of collapse and in constant clashes between ethnicities... is what Britain left behind.



You didn't say anything.

It was already a poor country when the Brits showed up. It already had ethnic clashes.

It's less poor, and the long term prospects for their economy look very good.

If they are ever going to resolve their ethnic disputes, it will be through democracy, and the values of liberty and tolerance that are part of it's heart.
#15306032
late wrote:...It was already a poor country when the Brits showed up. ...


This is an easy colonial thing to say, but impossible to prove.

wiki wrote:In the year 1CE India accounted for 32% of the world's GDP (its highest point). The gross domestic product of India in 1500 was estimated at about 24.4% of the world's economy, 22.4% in 1600, 16% in 1820, and 12.1% in 1870. India's share of global GDP declined to less than 2% of global GDP by the time of it's independence and would only gradually rise after the liberalization of its economy beginning in the 1990's. The Republic of India currently contributes 3.6% of world GDP (nominal) and 7.5% of global GDP (PPP) in 2023.


1 CE: India has 32% of world's GDP

1858: Britain takes control of India

1870 India has 12.1 %

1950 After violent independence from Britain 2%

***

But you do agree with me that the queen... she wan't perfect. Right? :lol:
#15306075
late wrote:I like this thread.

Rich keeps telling us he doesn't know much, and understands even less.

This is an ignorant liberal cretin, whose got a load of other ignorant liberal cretins to laugh at his ignorant jokes. He's saying look at these stupid ignorant British turning up in India, when its him who is the stupid ignorant one. He's saying the British were so stupid they didn't have a basic understanding of the identities involved when he is the ignorant know nothing git that doesn't understand the first thing about the identities involved.

1 When the English first arrived, India did not exist. It was not a political entity. It never had been a political entity. It had no common language, religion or culture. It never had had a common language, religion or culture.

2 When the English first arrived. Britain did not exist. The United kingdom did not exist. Britain was not a political entity when the East India company was formed. Britain had never been a political entity. And both English and Scottish identities were divided by murderous religious division.

3 The liberal is the supreme narcissist. He demands universal conscription into his culture wars, not just of all the people alive today, but of all the people who have ever lived. The divisions of identity that matter so much to people in 2024 meant little to nothing to people in the early 1600s. For the typical "Indian"in a rural village, who the supreme ruler was, a Mughal, the Portuguese King, the East India Company or a Hindu / Sikh probably meant very little.

4 The Liberal claims to be a multi culturist. Where as in fact most liberals make zero effort to understand the cultures of the past or present. He makes no attempt to understand the technological economic and social realities of the time, or he wouldn't come out with this worthless unfunny drivel.
#15306076
Rich wrote:
India did not exist. It was not a political entity. It never had been a political entity. It had no common language, religion or culture. It never had had a common language, religion or culture.

When the English first arrived. Britain did not exist. The United kingdom did not exist. Britain was not a political entity when the East India company was formed. Britain had never been a political entity. And both English and Scottish identities were divided by murderous religious division.

The liberal is the supreme narcissist.

The Liberal claims to be a multi culturist. Where as in fact most liberals make zero effort to understand the cultures of the past or present. He makes no attempt to understand the technological economic and social realities of the time, or he wouldn't come out with this worthless unfunny drivel.



That was an era when nations, as we know them, were forming (or starting ). The technology made it possible, and it happened. So while India "did not exist" as a nation, it did exist. The Brits, in India, were part of that process, forging India into a nation.

Same thing. Personally, I like to take the transition during the reign of Louis the 14th as an example. He brought the lesser nobles to Paris, and kept them busy.

As a minor god of information, a touch of narcissism goes without saying...

Actually, 3 or 4 more classes in history, and I would have a degree..

https://www.amazon.com/Civilization-Capitalism-15th-18th-Structures-Perspective/dp/B0013GA7EY/ref=sr_1_10?crid=29U3R4RESCCNC&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.lxzaYFYATL7z1ZHlGxTh7-Aam1S3Jzte_o40PM8OlH_RjPMwW3XeFXZ6jkpvoxf9jDPgCeonpNXjkh2ePRQvau_4XjdcN7kYo4alPZROmYpdcrLQzyPxYlcA9yfh6soI42349zD-axRX1G8nOK5iYp7gTZARAPWsS_jSmZdc5Q1iVa3Az_12QPlws5lCQb1MlerPYeLEbJjtnizoMRV4O4c1HJsMU68urqTobbDOH7E.4F3_mic1LuVvqB_PgMZmfkAYiPFVudt_PaDpGfV67mI&dib_tag=se&keywords=braudel+civilization+and+capitalism&qid=1709383994&sprefix=braudel%2Caps%2C146&sr=8-10
#15306078
Rich wrote:This is an ignorant liberal cretin, whose got a load of other ignorant liberal cretins to laugh at his ignorant jokes...

...The liberal is the supreme narcissist. He demands universal conscription into his culture wars, not just of all the people alive today, but of all the people who have ever lived. ...

4 The Liberal claims to be a multi culturist. Where as in fact most liberals make zero effort to understand the cultures of the past or present. ...

This is why it's so important to maintain the original meaning of the word "liberal" and to place this definition in its historical context. It basically means "reform-minded" but this definition was made at a time when many institutions existed that could counter the logic of "huge piles of cash."

Today, "Liberalism" is basically about letting "huge piles of cash" determine social policy. "Huge piles of cash" is a secular god for the liberal, and Trevor Noah is a well-paid media personality, and thus worships at the altar of "huge piles of cash."

For some reason, "Huge piles of cash" can never accurately recall history...
#15306088
Istanbuller wrote:Legacy of Britain ...India... world's largest democracy.

Replace the word "democracy" with the word "lemonade stand" and you are correct.

Britain leaves India as "the world's largest lemonade stand."
#15306091
QatzelOk wrote:Replace the word "democracy" with the word "lemonade stand" and you are correct.

Britain leaves India as "the world's largest lemonade stand."

I would say that If the Spanish or the Portuguese colonised India. Both colonists lacked intellectuality and reason why they were colonising. But Britain was different. British colonists defined many things today we have.
#15306098
QatzelOk wrote:
Replace the word "democracy" with the word "lemonade stand...



You babble.

Underneath the nonsense, you have a point. British imperialism had a lot of negative attributes.

But that doesn't erase the positives.

It's one of the things historians struggle with, and argue about.
Last edited by late on 02 Mar 2024 17:11, edited 1 time in total.
#15306099
Rich wrote:For the typical "Indian"in a rural village, who the supreme ruler was, a Mughal, the Portuguese King, the East India Company or a Hindu / Sikh probably meant very little.

Actually I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. The Sikhs at the time would have probably preferred the rule of the East India Company to the Mughals. We see something similar in later times, with many Muslims preferring British rule to rule by Hindus and many Hindus preferring British rule to rule by Muslims. We also saw a similar calculation in Iraq 2003. The Shia factions had no love for the Americans, but they correctly calculated that they were best off allowing the Americans to get rid of Saddam for them and then it would be a lot easier to get rid of the Americans.

Or take Ho Chi Ming, he never forgot who the real enemy was. And it wasn't France or America.He knew if China got their claws into Vietnam they would never get rid of them.
#15306104
About how the West calls lemonade stands 'democracy,' late wrote:You babble.

Underneath the nonsense, you have a point. British imperialism had a lot of negative attributes.

But that doesn't erase the positives.

It's one of the things historians struggle with, and argue about.


"But that doesn't erase the positives." Yes, it does. The positives can never erase the culling of India's leadership by the British, and the cultural transmogrification that occured while they were slaughtering millions and causing famines and erasing the sovereignty and ability to govern from the locals. This is a major crime against humanity.

And to throw around the world "democracy" - as if India is full of School of Athens types, lounging in togas and inventing new government systems and contemplating human history - is pure propaganda.

Britain turned India into a lemonade stand full of worker bees. And India's percent of the world's GNP started to descend in the 1600s, as Spain and Britain began to enrich themselves with genocide-gold and genocide-resources and human slavery... in the Americas.

Now that the Americas have thousands of gas stations (democracy)... can we say that these Europe-enriching genocides "improved" the Americas?
#15306246
QatzelOk wrote:
"But that doesn't erase the positives." Yes, it does. The positives can never erase the culling of India's leadership by the British, and the cultural transmogrification that occured while they were slaughtering millions and causing famines and erasing the sovereignty and ability to govern from the locals. This is a major crime against humanity.

And to throw around the world "democracy" - as if India is full of School of Athens types, lounging in togas and inventing new government systems and contemplating human history - is pure propaganda.

Britain turned India into a lemonade stand full of worker bees. And India's percent of the world's GNP started to descend in the 1600s, as Spain and Britain began to enrich themselves with genocide-gold and genocide-resources and human slavery... in the Americas.

Now that the Americas have thousands of gas stations (democracy)... can we say that these Europe-enriching genocides "improved" the Americas?


It takes two to tango though.
#15306363
Rancid wrote:It takes two to tango though.

This statement means nothing on its own.

How is it related to the quote you tacked it onto?
#15306382
@QatzelOk wrote:

Today, "Liberalism" is basically about letting "huge piles of cash" determine social policy. "Huge piles of cash" is a secular god for the liberal, and Trevor Noah is a well-paid media personality, and thus worships at the altar of "huge piles of cash."

For some reason, "Huge piles of cash" can never accurately recall history.


Ave María Q, this made me laugh a lot!

The British just can't do it. Admitting the truth, that the motivation was Greed and really just Greed? Is too much for them.

Late then goes into his speech about how they brought machines to make more efficient the tea production and so on and so forth.

Rich talks about how India did not exist until who showed up? Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the II?

Just stop the fucking self delusion.

I never believed that homo sapiens are perfection. Or that one human civilization is somehow magically superior to another because one organized another society so that it inherited better tea production or learned how to do this or that. India is the cradle of Chess, of a lot of modern mathematics, astronomy and of a lot of culture of all sorts. It is also a land of incredibly poverty, caste systems, prejudices and religious and ethnic violence and so on. It is also the land of the Bhagavad Gita.

People go to India and are revolted by the lack of hygiene in the streets the extreme poverty, the death and disease running rampant. The chaos, the dirt, and then the beauty, the mangos, the architecture of its great civilizations, its ancient tribes and disputes, its diverse languages and art, and so on.

India is everyone and everything all wrapped up. As it is because by itself it is about 18% of humanity.

The British want to think it went in there to bring civilization and humane practices to a backward society.

I never believed that. The British went in there for the same reason Christopher Columbus sailed the Atlantic long ago in 1492 looking for a trade route to India where they knew the spices were, the silk was, and the wealth of the East existed. Not to make it a better civilization but to pay debts off of the King and Queen of Spain for having to fight a bunch of Moors for eight centuries and unify the entire Spanish Iberian Peninsula against Moorish religion and its influences and expelling the Jews from a Roman Catholic nation who wanted there to only be one true religion. Greed. Lol. Couched in new pretty words of redemption and Jesus. The Cross or the Sword. Convert or Die.

The British were Let us Profit or Die. Lol.

Stop making bullshit excuses.

All human interactions are complex. No such thing as you are there and never learn from each other or adapt to what other cultures have in their lives. How many English eat Turkey for Christmas dinner? It is MEXICAN. How many Europeans drink Chocolate or eat it regularly? A lot. It is MEXICAN. How many eat corn products and so on? MEXICAN. How many use gunpowder? CHINESE. Use paper to write on. CHINESE. How many use silk cloth for some fine item they own? CHINESE AND INDIAN. Black pepper?

The List is Endless Late.

The list is endless Rich.

Humans learn a lot from each other no matter who is the temporary master and the temporary servants.

Instead of admitting the motivations for imperialism why is it so hard to realize that GREED is not about being civilized? It is about being BARBARIC. SAVAGE. And UNCIVILIZED.

And unfortunately, until we accept that being that way with each other is a mistake? This merry-go-round of denial is going to continue.

We are supposed to be maturing as a species. It will never happen if we fail to take responsibility for the past history and the real motivations behind what happens.

As they say in Spanish, 'No hay mal del cual el bien no venga.' There is no bad that which good can't come.

It means that suffering and bad happen but through it, humans tend to also bring something good in its wake.

The key to doing things right is not living in denial. It is embracing acceptance of it all. And making better decisions in the present. Knowing full well that all of humanity has gained by knowing more about the others out there living different experiences from each of us.

The truth is about accepting the good and the bad together and choosing something more humane and respectful. Not denying responsibility.
#15306391
QatzelOk wrote:This statement means nothing on its own.

How is it related to the quote you tacked it onto?


The British (like all colonizers do), will exploit the local population by cutting deals with the locals who have power/influence. Outsource their power basically (with conditions, like don't fuck with the crown). Not too different from how Putin's Russia operates actually. It's a kind of mafia protection racket basically.

It takes two to tango, in that, the British could never place a soldier on every street corner. Hence their need to recruit locals as collaborators. Could the British have colonized India if the entire population united against the crown from the start?

This question shouldn't be taken as trying to absolve the British of their misdeeds, but unless we understand all of the dynamics of how colonization (I don't claim to know them all), it will continue into the future. Like, the whole problem needs to be understood. "British = evil", while not false, isn't the whole explanation.

One of the key tricks to colonize, which the British executed well was to basically find all of the most selfish people in a given population, and get them on your side. Offer riches, and power. I'm sure this tactic goes back to before civilization.

ANyway, I need to start deploying this concept onto my enemies.
#15306406
Rancid wrote:The British (like all colonizers do), will exploit the local population by cutting deals with the locals who have power/influence. Outsource their power basically (with conditions, like don't fuck with the crown). Not too different from how Putin's Russia operates actually. It's a kind of mafia protection racket basically.

It takes two to tango, in that, the British could never place a soldier on every street corner. Hence their need to recruit locals as collaborators. Could the British have colonized India if the entire population united against the crown from the start?

This question shouldn't be taken as trying to absolve the British of their misdeeds, but unless we understand all of the dynamics of how colonization (I don't claim to know them all), it will continue into the future. Like, the whole problem needs to be understood. "British = evil", while not false, isn't the whole explanation.

One of the key tricks to colonize, which the British executed well was to basically find all of the most selfish people in a given population, and get them on your side. Offer riches, and power. I'm sure this tactic goes back to before civilization.

ANyway, I need to start deploying this concept onto my enemies.


You might be the key man who might just create a new Kingdom of Santo Domingo in Texas, and create a Caribbean Empire.

Shit Rancid, all I ever wanted is for Puerto Rico to be free of colonialism. Be an independent nation and just be who we are. A small island with great weather and beautiful nature, and gregarious people with a lot of fun and talent. Enjoy what we have. Forget about trying to control the world. That is for bad villains in some James Bond flick.

If the big nations want to kill themselves trying to control each other and control the world in the process? Leave the nations who are small and beautiful ALONE.

Not everyone has to be killing themselves and others in some orgy of control freak behavior politically or economically.

I say we fight it out with the Dominicans over Mona Island and call it a day! :lol:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Well that depends on what you want to accomplish.[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I freely admit that at the time, I totally undere[…]

Stop condoning Islam Stop condoning Orthodox Juda[…]

Farage, btw, is a Putin puppet. What a laugh. Th[…]