"How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians..." Topic

… in 40 years

"Recent years have seen a resurgence in nostalgia for the British empire. High-profile books such as Niall Ferguson's Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, and Bruce Gilley's The Last Imperialist, have claimed that British colonialism brought prosperity and development to India and other colonies. Two years ago, a YouGov poll found that 32 percent of people in Britain are actively proud of the nation's colonial history.

This rosy picture of colonialism conflicts dramatically with the historical record. According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, extreme poverty in India increased under British rule, from 23 percent in 1810 to more than 50 percent in the mid-20th century. Real wages declined during the British colonial period, reaching a nadir in the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly. Far from benefitting the Indian people, colonialism was a human tragedy with few parallels in recorded history…"

Main page

link

Armand

Not sure how much truth is in this article, since I don't trust anything from Al Jazeera.

The population of India in 1800 was 100 million and in 1900 was 240 million – where does the 100 million comes from?

It seems to come from assuming the death rate for the earlier period where there is no Indian census data was the same as for England in the 16th and 17th century. So based on the assumption that it was the same as for a pre-industrial, largely rural, society in a temperate country before the massive growth in urban centres. I suspect, that like England, the growth of large cities saw a big increase in death rates.
That's not to say the colonisation of India wasn't, first and foremost, all about enriching Britain.

Interesting piece from a valued source. Thanks for posting.

Looks like in the last 15 years 'British Colonialism' has come to Britain?

Well, more recently there was the 1943 Bengal Famine.
Let's just say that feeding civilians was not a high priority. But, typical of Churchill when it didn't involve England.

So how many Indians killed each other when Britain pulled out? We DO recall the Muslim vs Hindu mass violence, yes?

British imperialism was a mixed blessing/curse, but India does seem to have adopted some good things from it. They do not burn widows on the husband's funeral pyre anymore.

Ah yes. "Take up the white man's burden."

We must turn back history, a good start would be for the ancestors of the people who invaded America to leave and return the land to the original inhabitants, but probably only when the Italians apologize for the Roman Empire, or perhaps the Persians, or the Greeks!

Tally Ho!

So..
India wasn't colonised. It was ruled. British rule expanded as Mughal (another foreign Empire) rule contracted and to deny the resources of India to France. It wasn't a case of "oh let's conquer India for kicks.."
After the 2nd Afghan War, a series of anti famine measure were taken to prevent starvation of the peasantry- a measure which was successful until 1943.
1943 was a difficult one. In the middle of a war where the resources were being shipped around the whole world with limited shipping and a military threat on a very near border, switching to a famine relief task would have stretched any country..
Yes, around 3m may have died, but it wasn't deliberate, unlike the 1m who die in the partition or the 5m native Americans who died during the European conquest and colonisation of what became the United States.

Thanks

Armand

Oh AL JAZEERA? thank you to precise that instead of lost time with pro-islamic antiwesterner propaganda, I expected to read something historical and objective about British colonialism

hope to see the death tolls by islamic conquest and terrorism from 632 to 2024 according to Qatar's pro-HAMAS pogromists Al Jazeera channel

I am waiting for the AL JAZEERA story about the millions of Africans the Arabs enslaved and forcible removed. What about those millions of death?

The death of American natives was not deliberate either. Biggest killer was disease.

Oh, those Indians. When it said 'colonials,' I thought… never mind.

"Trip : Yeah, It stinks bad. And we all covered up in it too. Ain't nobody clean. Be nice to get clean, though."

Yes white, black, red and yellow: "we all covered up in it too. Ain't nobody clean"

There appears to be an awful lot of assumptions involved that makes the extrapolated data seem at best, sketchy.

An adjunct feloow at a school of social science, a professor at an eviromental science school, no actual evicence. They quote a previous paper they wrote, and it's al jazeera. No possible bias there.

Glup!…

Armand

Well that's a pile of nonsense.