Who Benefited from the British Empire?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- 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...
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/...
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
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
The british elite. Period. No need for an 1 hour video essay.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@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 attracted 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
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.
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 "
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.
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.
Could we draw a paralell to the behavior of Richi Sunak ?
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.
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.
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
Who benefitted from the British Empire? The British did, more specifically the ruling classes in Britain. They did not create their empire for the benefit of the 3 million African they enslaved and shipped to the colonies or for the benefit of the 2.4 millions Indians they conned into indentureship and shipped to their colonies or for the benefit of the millions who died as a result of the policies they enacted for non-whites in their colonies or for the benefits of inhabitants of those colonies who were savagely crushed whenever they dared fight for their freedom or the the benefits of the non-whites in their colonies they oppressed and dehumanized with their racist policies. The empire was set up to exploit lands they had no claim to for their own selfish purposes. Any institutions they created they only did so for the more efficient running of their empire and in furtherance of their goals of stealing material wealth from those lands for the benefit of the British “royal” family and the “elites” of British society.
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.
Great research.
He bends the truth . He just hates his own country because they reject him for his bias .
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 "
This comment section is basically Britishers moaning about losing their cash cow colonies. Russia did you guys dirty. Stay poor, stay hungry
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"
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.
The workers who built the railways in the US were not Americans.
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.
Lecture is based on point of view of Britain, not considering point of view of the colonies.
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...
Britain
it was a constant subject of debate in Britian whether the cost was worth it - not really sure to be honest
Rome.
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.
Nice discussion
It shows things were more complicated than we think
Respect from india
Bvrahmin quota people benefitted from British Empire.
Don't forget that when Britain was the wealthiest empire in the world and our aristocracy all lived like kings, our children were hungry and had no shoes on their feet. Ordinary people saw no benefit. Little has changed really........
🎯 & 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*
👊💥🔥🐍🤺
Dundee was in England? The stuff you learn in these lectures
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
I'm sorry
Did he say anything about crimes against humanity, illigal occupation, atrocities, dictatorship, exploitation, keeping the poor poor? Did he say anything about apologizing? Did he say that Brittain should be ashamed? Did he say anything about the fact that Brittain still kling to empirical thoughts?
It's an empty lecture designed to lull to sleep and complacency.
@@tenmanX Aha, that's what I thought I heard. What a waste.
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?
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.
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.
To take from Niall Ferguson, "anglobalization" has benefited the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (plus Hong Kong and Singapore), and they in turn have contributed to it.
If Argentina (including Uruguay) had become part of the formal British empire - and Argentina was very close to being so in the early 1800s - it, too, would have benefited from "anglobalization" and would have further contributed to it. (South America as a whole - including Chile and Brazil - would also have benefited from it, but to a lesser degree.) The benefits to Argentina, which would have become English- as well as Spanish-speaking, would have been far more profound in both time and scope than they were in real-life Argentina under the informal British Empire. (It's much better, in this sense, to extrapolate from the US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand - plus the white sector of South Africa - than a. from the vast majority of the British colonies that didn't end up as rich and b. from real-life Argentina/Uruguay's experience with the British.)
You are placing your faith in a British intellectual, working in the Hoover Institution, riding on the tails of the Americans. After WWII, if you happen to be Argentine, you'd be as flat broke as the bunch of them. And you would not have been the priority.
Who benefited? The British ruling class of its Empire. It was a one way flow of financial and material benefits. Economic exploitation of the worst kind.
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?
SATI was banned by independant Indias govt,not British. This is a lie
Well, that is food for thought.
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.
In 1818 the British Defeated the Maratha Empire by inciting local castes against each other, the downfall of Indian Economy starts after that
All the countries who were in the Empire have benefited. They had the advantage of 1000 years of Anglo-Saxon advancements in the Law, science and technology, the Industrial Revolution, health and medicines. And not to mention democracy and the abolishment of slavery. Also the Empire led to the creation of the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That’s some achievement for a tiny group of tribes located on the edge of Europe.
must be nice in your alternative reality. The british empire allowed over 1Million men women and children starve to death. There was NO shortage of food ,But they took it to sell in england .Dont start me on your "british justice". Learn the facts ; dont just live in a make believe world.
Uk is nothing infront of mighty germany. Even after losing 2 wars german giants marches on meanwhile uk manufactures nothing
@@Myanmartiger921 The mighty German’s lost the war but got their soul back. Lucky for them the western allies weren’t like Soviets. Lucky for them the western allies refused to let Soviets starve the Berliners and supplied them by air. Lucky for them the Brits and Americans provided protection against further soviet aggression. Lucky for them they were granted huge amounts of financial support and aid so they could rebuild their country. Lucky for them the west allowed them to export their goods and rebuild their country.
This must be the first time in history when an evil murderous state who attacked its neighbours was treated so humanely by it’s conquerer’s. Yep, Germany is a very, very mighty country.
Zero benefits for India. Surely, India didn't want western education, railways and ports that were meant to serve the interests of the Englishmen residing in India. Railways and ports were built specifically to take indian resources out of India back to Britain. The poverty,famines and illiteracy caused by banishing India's ancient educational institutions and abolishing it's industries surely isn't a benefit.
But many nations around the world have those benefits who were not part of the Empire. Do you think that Turkey doesn't have railways? Ideas, things etc. can be shared and become widespread without colonising anyone.
No matter what, the top 1% manage to do quite well, in all systems!
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.
. . .
Where did India and Indians get the GBP to pay taxes in GBP to Britain?
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.
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.
Shashi Tharoor could straighten out this guy in five minutes.
Does he have any talks on RUclips?
@@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?
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.
Bankers benefit disproportionately issuing IOUs and debt notes, aka bonds. America declared gold and silver shall be used as payment of debt. Islam forbids usurious use of interest rates as a form of slavery. Judaism and Christianity oppose Islam. Judaism and Christianity thrive on usury, use of debt to sell unborn children into 1913 IOU income tax debt slavery expanding empire. Inflating the economy since 1971 has benefits ASSET OWNERS, who have assets inflate to get FREE MONEY, expanding income inequality.
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.
India was such a rich country that every country wanted to do business or rule it. British did but unlike Mughal who were also barbaric like British, soaked every bit of wealth from banks of Ganges and squized the wealth on the bank of Thames.
Even after that, just after 75 years of independence, India already surpassed UK in GDP.
You can stall India for a while , but you can't stop India for a long time.
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👍🏴
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.
Weren't all Indian troops that fought for empire volunteers based on their own self interest not so much out of allegiance as Anzac forces did in large part.
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)
In short. The world.
The reason I don't like this lecture is because there are no conclusions in it. Maybe that's how truth is. But it's a higher priority to be comfortable than to know the absolute truth and therefore I will take the side of tharoor.
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.
The empire could not have come into power withour coolaberation of Hindu Brahmins, Rajputs and traders who were always a second class citizen during 500 years of Muslim rule and were the first to adapt to enlightment and Western Education and led Indian National Congress in demand for home rule and later independence
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.
India surely didn't benefit from the empire. Without India, Europe would've been poorer than Africa. India has seen more Civilizations than Empires. It used to be the richest nation in the world prior to colonisation contributing 27% to the world's gdp. Greek Scholar Megasthenes, Lord Macaulay's account and Fa Hien Chinese scholar seem to agree
I lelzed.
If only that's how economics or history worked 🤦♂️. Britain was able to colonize India because it was industrialised not the other way around
There is absolutely no reason to claim that Europe would've been poorer than Africa given Europe's history of development. Europe was far more developed long before colonialisation.
As for India once being the richest nation on Earth, firstly it wasn't a nation back then (that's like calling Europe a nation), and secondly it's easy to be the richest when you have a far larger population (thanks to the fertile land of the Indus river basin). Once the 2nd agricultural revolution allowed the rest of the world to develop substantial populations, then the rest of the world could now be highly productive and India's coincidental advantage decreased. Additionally you then also had an industrialised western world to compete against, as a non-industrialised country, which is a difficult thing to deal with economically. India was always going to lose its 27% share of global GDP provided that the west leapt ahead in development.
@deusmachinima1189
" without India Europe would have been poorer than Africa".
That is nonsense. In 1600 countries like England and Holland had the highest GDP per capita in the world.
It is that wealth that enabled those nations to invest in overseas trade and colonies.
Gosh havn't the liberals been slagging us off for a long time. They continue to do so today.
My favorite remark is who's reading English. QED.
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.
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?
10 million square miles 5 million people. Australia Canada. Africa was most people. How many people?
This was weirdly relaxing
Let me answer that, nobody!
Certainly India. There is no India without British colonization. Greatest repeat greatest benefit India got, Britain dislodged Mughals.Hindus were never able to dislodge Mughals. They were virtually slaves of Mughals. Further, Britain gave us in a plater the greatest universal language, English which enabled Indians to get educated in science and technology. Any foreign remittances India gets is due to knowledge of English. There will never be any “Pichai” or”Nadella” etc. without the knowledge of English.
Come out Unkill, so that I can see your face in public
That is an absolute lie. The British did not conquer the Mughal Empire. It conquered the native Hindu Maratha Empire. The Marathas ended Mughal rule in India, not the British. Not to mention the rebellions of the Sikhs and Rajputs against the Mughals.
India was one of the biggest failures of the British Empire, not because the British failed, but because the Indian people were not ready for modernity. They were given access to the modern world (transport, medicine, science etc) via the British, but they failed! At the same time, the British Empire lead to immensely successful nations like the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and played a major part in Hong Kong and Singapore.
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.
The Irish didn`t
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
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....
_"Who Benefited from the British Empire?"_
Literally everyone except for slavers and the French.
Did you mean slaves??
Must be British with that take. Stock standard arrogance and hypocrisy.
Drank way too much of the Koolaid...
Losing all of your land, language, as well as culture, sovereignty, freedom of movement, self-worth, healthy environment, and societal cohesiveness are not "benefits."
@@KeganTheTowel The Brits almost single-handedly ended slavery worldwide. So, yeah, the slavers were hard hit, along with their Jewish financiers.
Agree russia will civilize ukarine.
the Sunak and Murthy families are reaping the benefits now
It is calculated that total loot by British from India during their rule was around 43 trillion pounds in today’s value. I t is true hx that British cut thumbs of hand loom weavers, they burned thousands of hand loom workshops.The truth is that the quality of Indian produced fabrics was so much better than that produced by power looms produced in England , therefore England could not compete with Indian textiles. This is what led the British to use the horrible techniques to destroy Indian hand loom industry. I wonder if this speaker has read this book- The corporation that changed the world.
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.
Who benefited from the British Empire? *Martin Daunton*
Less compelling when you realize that if he were to point out any of the historical advantages of being colonized by a technologically advanced country his career would be over and his name would be mud.
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)
Read - Was Is A Scam by Smedley Butler ( The maverick Marine )
Thank you for spelling ‘benefited’ correctly. A pet hate
Yes it’s complex, but to ignore the influence of the crude ideologies of Nationalism (Naroji), and Socialism (Hobson) and Woke, is myopic.
"And woke" 😂😂😂
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 "
None of those three ideologies were involved here.
Who had benefit with the BE,unless Britain?
👆
There's been a lot of talk about caste system. In contemplating the British colonial influence upon the caste system in India, one must unravel the intricate web of complexities woven by history. The British, in their engagement with this age-old social construct, inadvertently played a role in its exacerbation. Their policies and actions, akin to a silent symphony, conducted a subtle tune that resonated with the existing framework of the caste system, further amplifying its consequences. Let us delve into the facets through which the British became entwined with the caste system, deepening its roots.
Firstly, the British introduced a meticulous census, an exercise in capturing the essence of a nation through numbers. This census, akin to a painter's palette, sought to categorize and etch caste identities onto the canvas of Indian society. The brushstrokes of this bureaucratic endeavor solidified and emboldened the caste system, morphing it into an immutable fixture.
Secondly, the British, with their penchant for structure and order, bestowed legal recognition upon the caste system. Like a sculptor molding clay, they carved laws and regulations that lent legitimacy to caste divisions. These laws, however, cast a shadow upon the egalitarian aspirations of a society, perpetuating discrimination and unequal treatment.
The British, the architects of a new age, sought to reshape the landscape of landownership. Yet, in their endeavor, they unwittingly reinforced the caste-based hierarchy that thrived in the agrarian tapestry of India. The tendrils of their land revenue and tenancy systems intertwined with caste, entangling the social order within the tendrils of inequity.
Education, the beacon of enlightenment, was also touched by the British hand. In their quest to impart knowledge, they erected institutions that mirrored the stratified society they encountered. Separate schools for separate castes, like pages torn from a novel, etched the divisions deeper, curtailing opportunities and entrenching the very divisions they purported to address.
One cannot discount the "divide and rule" policy that silently pervaded the British administration. In their bid to maintain dominion, they exploited existing divisions, nurturing the seeds of inter-caste discord. This calculated manipulation further entrenched the walls separating castes, weakening the collective strength of a nation.
Thus, the British, as actors on the grand stage of colonial India, played a part in the perpetuation and exacerbation of the caste system. Like a fateful dance, their steps, though unintended, intertwined with the age-old rhythms, leaving an indelible mark upon the social fabric of the land. The echoes of their influence continue to resonate, shaping the contours of modern India.
Who benefited - Benefit at high cost.
A boring propaganda piece.
The British Empire brought peace, law & order, more human rights, than India had in 1700s. There was just minor Sikh invasion in 1845, Afghan invasion in 1919 & Japanese in 1944 & British stopped Pindari plundering from Marahta Empire, akin to Mexican Cartels. That defense is worth a lot of the drain, which is actually $ traded for British goods & services. $ sent to Britain must come back to buy Indian goods & services. Ghandi was such a buffoon that he wanted everything produced locally with no international trade, which increases prices for Indian consumers.
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".
The Elites.
Before the British Empire,
India did 23% of all the World Trade,...and built the likes of Taj Mahal.
After the British Empire,
India was left a poor Land, where peolpe lived in MudHuts.
Bvrahmin quota people benefitted from British Empire
The entire world, common law alone an enormous contribution human progress and individual rights
The Royal Family
The British. Not the empire.
Of all the zamindars of India, why did you show a picture of Nawab Salimullah who was very much loved by the people of East Bengal. His palace was rebuilt by the Bangladesh government.
It is *incredibly* annoying the way he licks his lip after each sentence… why would someone do that during a lecture?
You have not mentioned the most important point that before British rule Indian gdp was 30% of world GDP and they robbed it systematically to get it down to about 5% by independence. At least now they can atone their sins by least returning sacred scriptures ancient ones and artifacts which are in your galleries.
The world
Britain in WW2 benefitted. Fully armed USA and Canada. Armorys.
Just the English, and only the English.
Far from it, there was no British empire without the Scots involvement in particular.
No Sir. The Scots, Welsh and Irish (oh yes) were always happy to take part.
Everyone❤