Who Benefited from the British Empire? 

This confounds the British, because they deliberately are not taught about colonization, from what I gather.

@arunnaik3375 I don't think it does. The state of Victoria introduced some tariffs against British imports. This is not really very different to the tariffs raised by the USA and Germany. It gave a chance for Australian industry to develop. In India tariffs were not raised against British imports until after the end of rule by the East India Company which is why Indian industry was massively depleted as a share of world output.

@@jamesthomas4841 Your statement is partially correct but needs some clarification and context. The depletion of Indian industry as a share of world output began under the East India Company due to British economic policies that favored British goods over Indian goods. The situation did not improve after the end of Company rule, as British policies continued to suppress Indian industrial growth. source: The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule by Romesh Chunder Dutt The Empire and the World at Large: Britain’s World System and the Industrial Revolution by P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins

​​In fact I understated my point. Tariffs against British imports were raised by the EIC from 1846. They continued under direct British rule. Generally the colonial government of India raised tariffs at 5% against British goods. There were occasions when exceptions were made for example for a few years British made cotton imports attract​ed no tariff. This was reversed though. As Daunton points out in this lecture the fall in the value of the rupee was as significant as tariff regimes.t@@arunnaik3375

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.

British interfered in every Indian matter.Looted everything worth looting diamonds,pearls,crowns,thrones, paintings, statues, even stones,pillars, even fabrics, spices

@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.

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.

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 "

Ah, the classic "human nature" argument-how charmingly simplistic. So, let’s get this straight: India, a nation that was bled dry for nearly 200 years, should have magically transformed into a utopia overnight once the British packed up their exploitative bags? Your reasoning would be laughable if it weren't so tragically uninformed. You bring up India's space program and film industry as if they somehow negate the horrors of colonialism. But do you think these achievements just popped into existence out of nowhere? They’re the result of decades of painstaking effort to rebuild a nation that was systematically dismantled by an empire that prioritized plundering over progress. And slums-yes, let’s talk about those. Do you think the vast wealth drained from India, leaving it in poverty, has nothing to do with the current economic struggles? The British didn’t just leave behind a railway system; they left behind entrenched poverty and a fractured society that would take generations to heal. So, next time you feel the urge to oversimplify complex historical realities, maybe consider picking up a history book. Or better yet, a mirror-because blaming "human nature" for the consequences of colonial greed is a level of mental gymnastics that’s almost impressive, if it weren't so painfully ignorant.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Lol... you found your safe space. Enjoy, Precious.

🎯 & Ditto Not a jot as changed in the great 👑 *order* schemers still scheming *plots* against 99% of humanity - a little recent reminder 💉💉💉💉💉💉 👑/A virus following the money... *Always* 👊💥🔥🐍🤺

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

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.

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.

It's an empty lecture designed to lull to sleep and complacency.

@@tenmanX Aha, that's what I thought I heard. What a waste.

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. . . .

@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.

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.

India in the 19th century generally had a tariff of around 5% on imported British goods. There was a tariff of around 10% on imported goods from outside the Empire. In the last quarter of the century there were brief periods where British cotton goods attracted no tariff. There was no formal ban on imports from outside the British empire There were restrictions in the early 18th century on Indian textiles being imported to Britain. That damaged the east India company but perhaps helped the nascent British textile industry.

You can always find collaborators. Without them no empire would have ever lasted more than few decades

@@oro7114 No they abolished suttee and thugee and the caste system is entrenched and sometime underpinned by visible markers. India is now an Empire not a country, technically, as is China. Ruled by lighter skinned Brahmins and lighter skinned Han Chinese respectively. The truth is brutal.

@@Blissblizzard The caste system extends back at least 2,000 years.

@@kreek22 Exactly.

@@jamescaan870 :Collaborators are Low Class and Traitors to their own people.

Volunteer is a nonsensical word. Indian soldiers were basically mercenaries who fought in those wars for a remuneration. Volunteer word is used by the British for propaganda purpose. In reality all the Indian soldiers were mercenaries even when fighting within India. Earlier the country was divided into various Kingdoms and it were the Kings who used to raise Armies. British were able to exploit the system by hiring soldiers from within India. These were private soldiers and worked for the East India company. This is how the British could fight and eventually take over regions in India. They are usually called soldiers but in reality they were mercenaries.

@@asmirann3636 They took the king's shilling voluntarily, ergo they were volunteers.

@@CB-fz3li Clearly, the concept of voluntary service takes on an entirely new meaning when one contemplates the colonial context. One can only imagine the excitement that must have gripped the Indian masses as they eagerly stepped forward, motivated by an overwhelming desire to serve their benevolent colonial masters. It is truly a testament to the power of the king's shilling that it could inspire such unwavering loyalty and devotion. Let us set aside any considerations of coercion, economic hardships, or the long-reaching consequences of colonial dominance. For in the face of the irresistible allure of that regal coin, all other factors surely pale in comparison. We must admire the Indians for their unquestioning eagerness to offer themselves up as volunteers, freely surrendering their agency and embracing a life of subservience under colonial rule. Oh, the lengths one would go for the privilege of being called a "volunteer." How fortunate the Indians were to have the opportunity to participate in their own subjugation, all thanks to the magnanimous gesture of the king's shilling.

the british employed soldiers from the princely states in india in return for money to the raja which was Indian money. as they needed men the princes agreed

​@@truthseeker327 Most of the Indians enlisted enticed by the promise of land, a dependable stipend, and consistent repasts. A contingent, distinct from the former, sought to refine their technical or engineering acumen, drawn by the military's progressive evolution during the conflict. This metamorphosis facilitated their acclimatization with intricate apparatus introduced as the war unfurled, affording them a gamut of experiential mastery. But these colonial forces, often relegated to obscurity's shadow, not only proved instrumental in securing victory for the Allied powers in their conflict but also kindled the seeds of events that would inevitably guide certain colonies towards self-governance. Amidst their sacrifices, these cohorts encountered the bitter reality of inequality. Despite their adeptness in battle and their role in maintaining order along London's avenues, their subservience to European or American commanders remained prevalent. Ascending the echelons of authority proved an arduous endeavor, hindered by the tint of their skin, even though their martial prowess was evident. Disparities in recompense between them and their Caucasian counterparts were conspicuous, a divide further exacerbated by the deepening hues of their complexion. The maltreatment endured by Indian soldiers, distressing as it was, paled in comparison to the even graver hardships endured by their African comrades. During August of 1941, Winston Churchill, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed the Atlantic Charter. This document encapsulated a nascent panorama for the era following the war's cessation, wherein the imperative essence lay in a new vision for the postwar world, highlighting the right of all people to self-determination. Yet, Churchill, that repugnant embodiment of human form, proceeded to expound upon the matter, stipulating with his characteristic haughtiness that the principle of self-determination, as elegantly set forth within the script, was, regrettably, to be confined solely to those nations languishing beneath the iron grip of German occupation. The Japanese army launched Operation U-Go, a methodically planned operation intended at penetrating northeastern India from the expanse of Burma. However, their advance encountered formidable opposition in the form of resolute Allied contingents - approximately seventy percent of this militant assemblage hailed from India, with a comparably modest representation from African colonies. Notably, the British forces exhibited a discernible hesitance toward stationing themselves upon the Indian terrain, their inclinations tugging them towards the allure and prestige of the battlefronts gracing the landscapes of Europe. At the onset of the invasion, the Japanese 15th Army, a formidable force numbering 85,000, bore witness to the grim toll of 53,000 soldiers laid low or vanishing into the mists of battle's culmination. Regarded as among the most ruinous setbacks suffered by Japanese land forces throughout the expanse of the war, this defeat is postulated by scholars to have played an instrumental role in nurturing the burgeoning self-identity of the Indian military. Moreover, it is perceived to have ignited the fires of nationalism in the corridors of India and even certain corners of the African continent. (source: Beyond the World War II We Know)

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?

Does he have any talks on RU-vid?

@@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?

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.

Unfortunately people like Michael O’Dwyer did (Amritsar massacre) and unlike Colonel Dyer (ex Middleton school) O’Dwyer was a Catholic, though whether he was a nationalist I don’t know

@wayne mcauliffe only if you exclude everything exemplified by the modern Irish state.

@@alanbrooke144 Which a lot of the modern Irish hate mate. I`m not on a anti English thing but just admit you did wrong. All empires do

​@wayne mcauliffe a few of us still can't face up to our history.

@@SuperMookles That`s ok mate. I`m Australian and we are just now facing up to ours

Er no it is not true, the thumb cutting has been pretty much debunked.

@@CB-fz3li There may have been isolated cases of 'thumb cutting', but the ruin of Indian handicrafts led to the desertion of many towns which specialised in certain crafts. Prosperous cities like Murshidabad and Dacca were depopulated and de-urbanized.

I advise anyone to look into the counter arguments for this 43 trillion pounds figure before simply believing it. It isn't true.

A most clueless comment if I've ever seen one. This comment is so off that there are more things that are wrong in the comment than there are sentences here.

Some people derive immense delight from unabashedly parading their profound lack of knowledge before the discerning eyes of the world.

advantages of being colonised? well why didnt britain become a colony then... makes you wonder

Britain was colonized by the Romans. They brought with them,among other things, written language-a huge historical advantage.

@@basskick666 And what was that long period after the Romans left called again?

@@chaitanya7 Britain is a colony. Just don't tell anyone.

And it shows how far the debate has come that this talk could not be delivered by a non white academic without a particular section criticising things. (But to say Shashi Tharoor is that august an academic / historian / economist without acknowledging his gentleman politician background is a touch disingenuous)

India was Partitioned by Britain, Ireland was Partitioned, Palestine was Partitioned. Syria was partitioned, creating permanent TROUBLES in the former colonies. Britain joined the European Union, and after a few decades decided in the PARTITION of the EUROPEAN UNION. They leave major political and economical problems everywhere.

What human right are you talking about?? The same English didn't wanted to be governed by the local Indian judges. The Hindus and the Muslims have their own personal laws. How do you think that the civilization functions before British reach a place?? Did the Romans have the brut saxons some law??

So great were the human rights that the life expectancy of an Indian was 35 in 1950 while 65 in Britain

Least correct comment of 2023 so far.

@@adityashaw3198 A life expectancy of 35 years doesn't mean most people died at 35 as child mortality rates were always high in the past, as much as 30-50% or more, so a life expectancy of 35 years could occur if say for every child that died in infancy, another person would have lived to over 65 years. In 1800 life expectancy in Europe was around 34 years while in Asia about 28 years. Child mortality in India increased 1950-55. Search online for "A Guide to Longevity Throughout History".

What is Indian GDP per capita?

@@georgehetty7857 what is Indian population

@@arcane3464 A bit higher than China’s any second now!

@Riya Mahato We have£ Sterling in England so $10 wouldn’t get anything! But we do have a benefits system that attracts many from India, also healthcare, schooling, Universities etc,etc,etc,

@Riya Mahato Try using a $ in a British shop and you’ll realise how big the difference is👍🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

Ah, the gospel according to the benevolent colonizer! It’s truly heartwarming to see such misplaced nostalgia for an era when "generosity" apparently meant "pillaging and subjugation." How touching that you believe steel mills and cotton mills-symbols of the very industries that exploited Indian labor and resources-were gifts from the British, bestowed out of the goodness of their hearts. Let’s dismantle this myth with the precision of an ironclad fact: India had a thriving textile industry long before the British decided to "generously" destroy it to make way for their mass-produced, inferior goods. But I suppose in your narrative, it’s perfectly reasonable to burn down someone’s house and then expect gratitude for the tent you graciously offer as a replacement. And the railways? Ah yes, the crown jewel of colonial "benevolence." Conveniently designed not to connect Indians, but to funnel resources from the hinterlands straight into British coffers. How selfless! And let’s not forget the countless Indian lives lost in the process-mere collateral damage, I’m sure, in the grand mission of Western entrepreneurship. As for information technology, the idea that it somehow owes its existence in India solely to Western intervention is so delightfully absurd that it almost borders on comedy. The global spread of technology is inevitable, not some colonial handout. India’s tech industry thrives today not because of Western patronage, but because of the brilliance, resilience, and sheer determination of its people-qualities that have endured despite, not because of, colonial rule. So, next time you feel the urge to romanticize the "gifts" of colonialism, perhaps take a moment to reflect on what was taken in return. The sheer audacity of your argument is almost as astonishing as the history it conveniently ignores.

How fascinating it is to behold such a remarkably astute observation! Verily, we mustn't overlook the proverbial pachyderm that graces our midst, for it is the realm of geopolitics that indeed provides the ultimate rationale for the construction of empires. No empire, it seems, can elude the primordial instinct of self-preservation, forever haunted by the specter of encroaching powers or rival empires. Our own imperial dominion, a product of fortuitous circumstances rather than an intricately crafted design, finds its genesis in the relentless pursuit of trade dominance. We commenced this noble endeavor in defiance of the Spanish empire, then carried forth with indomitable spirit against the Dutch. Ah, the cherished memories of those illustrious mercantilist wars, waged to thwart France's audacious bid for dominion over India. Alas, the yoke of empires is not merely borne by territorial conquests, but also by the weighty responsibility of governing the subjugated masses. To castigate Britain alone, while conveniently disregarding the deeds of other empires, is, in truth, a most grievous oversight. Let us not forget that the entire tapestry of the 19th century was woven with delicate threads of balance, seeking equilibrium amidst the formidable empires of France and Russia, until the emergence of Prussia, that nascent power that eventually metamorphosed into the imperial colossus known as Germany. And how effortlessly we overlook the imperatives of military might in sustaining an empire, as we sardonically ponder the criticism leveled against Britain for the alleged decline in the standard of living among our subjects. Nay, the pursuit of military power, an intrinsic demand of imperial governance, claims its rightful place. When inquiries arise regarding the fate of our wealth, it is a fallacy to cast unwarranted aspersions upon the noble members of the establishment, for it was the insatiable appetite of two world wars and the ceaseless military buildup preceding the cataclysm of the Great War that ravaged our coffers. Truly, we all emerged as hapless losers in this tragic saga. Oh, how delightful it is to revel in the radiant glow of such discerning perspectives, absolving ourselves from culpability as we immerse ourselves in the labyrinthine depths of geopolitics and the ephemeral fortunes of empires.

How to twist facts & juggle data to get suitable outcome 😂

вы можете попробовать, но никто не услышит известий о такой стране, как Британия😂

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

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 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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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 "