Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World • Hacker News Board

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#201

Post by shripadk » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 8:59 PM UTC

british_india wrote: post #9

There is one salient example: fresh water in India. In 1947, the British departed with 24/7 pressurized water across the developed parts of India. Now, the British-built water system has all but collapsed. Instead of pressurized water, the water comes weakly and only intermittantly. What difference does that make, you ask? Well, if a pressurized system leaks, the leak causes water to leave the pipe. In a non-pressuri…

The British also brought the Great Bengal Famine along with them. Funny how this 24/7 pressurized water could not prevent a famine in which millions died. And yes, the famine took place when India was still a colony of the British Empire.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#202

Post by kafkaesq » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

jccc wrote: post #198

kafkaesq wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am making the point that the assumption people are making about what he meant is wildly unfounded, and is mainly useful for justifying their already-held opinions about him. But (if you mean this idea that he specifically wants to bring back British colonialism) I don't anyone thinks that he meant that. So it seems like a weird charge to defend him against. If that's not what you meant (by "the assumption people ar…

I don't think anyone thinks that he meant that. The Internet hate machine on this issue has been driven almost entirely by that very thought. Andreessen's even been forced to say, "To be clear, I am 100% opposed to colonialism, and 100% in favor of independence and freedom, in any country, including India." https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/697488911350652928 Why would anyone have to make such an absurd clarification…

The Internet hate machine on this issue has been driven almost entirely by that very thought.

Without dissecting what Bloomberg may or may not have meant with their temporary headline, it seems you're (mistakenly) assuming that people have been somehow reacting more to Bloomberg's (since retracted) one-line description of what Andreessen said than by the substance he actually did say (and his immediate follow-up remarks, which to say the least, weren't particularly apologetic). Most readers on HN go straight to the source, and don't attach much weight to catchy headlines.

Why would anyone have to make such an absurd clarification if that wasn't exactly what has become a widespread interpretation?

It's a fairly typical form of ass-covering to categorically "reject" a position one didn't actually make (as a way of deflecting attention from from the somewhat more nuanced, but just the same, boneheaded and disturbing statement that one did, in fact, make).

You'll notice he isn't trying to explain just what he did mean by his initial tweet, right? That's because he knows there's no way he can really salvage himself.

And BTW:

The Internet hate machine on this issue

It's not a "hate machine." Andreessen did say something pretty darn stupid and and offensive (his subsequent and less than entirely convincing attempts to talk his way down from what he said notwithstanding). And is being rightly called out for it.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#203

Post by Brakenshire » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

shripadk wrote: post #152

Brakenshire wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's almost certainly true, but again I'd go back to the example of Russia, where the elite continued to put their wealth principally into competitive status symbols rather than industrialization for almost two centuries after the industrial revolution started. Elites siphoning off wealth for their luxury, rather than investing in society or the economy, has been the rule, not the exception, for the majorit…

India had a more vibrant scientific society than the West. While the West was still figuring out if the Earth was flat or not, Indian scholars had already established that the Earth was not only a spheroid but also determined the age of the Universe (See: https://www.quora.com/What-does-Hinduism-say-about-the-shape... and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time ). We even had Metallurgy working way be…

I didn't downvote you, but I do disagree very strongly with what you have written. I was talking about scientific culture in the 17th century and you reply with the achievements of Indian civilization from thousands of years earlier. No one doubts that India is home to one of the great world civilizations, but science is empiricism, it is observation taking precedence over everything else. If this had been created in the Hindu texts we would have settled separate star systems by now. You might as well say that 12th century England had a dynamic scientific culture because they read Aristotle and Galen.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#204

Post by douche » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

jgalt212 wrote: post #195

guyraput wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was just pure ignorance. Some of the larger impacts of colonialism: Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism. India's healthcare worsened during colonialism because all the resources were exported to Europe for cheap and in abundance India's literacy was worsened during colonialism and was…

>Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism. Please cite this very interesting piece of information.

All the charts that show this are dealing in percentage of world GDP. This is really a meaningless statistic, and by itself doesn't show anything one way or the other about colonialism. Until the beginning of the industrial revolution, China and India were always 1 & 2 in GDP, because they were 1 & 2 in population. The biggest innovation of the Industrial Revolution was decoupling production from population.

Est. world GDP, 1750: $128 billion - India @ ~22% = $28 billion

Est. world GDP, 1950: $4 trillion - India @ ~ 4% = $163 billion

[1] https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#205

Post by JetSetWilly » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #176

JetSetWilly wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to imagine because the industrial revolution required a huge number of pre-requisites most of which don't seem to be present in the India of the 18th century, but which were present in Britain. In fact it is the very absence of these pre-requisites that meant Britain was in a position where it was even able to colonise India. To blithely state that if Britain hadn't colonised India that India would have in…

> In fact if Britain hadn't colonised India, some other European nation would have instead. Are you really saying that two centuries of brutal and destructive rule by the British is totally fine because somebody would have done it regardless? I hope I'm just misunderstanding this....

I don't believe I said anything is "totally fine", you're imagining things.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#206

Post by JetSetWilly » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 9:52 PM UTC

Riod wrote: post #168

JetSetWilly wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to imagine because the industrial revolution required a huge number of pre-requisites most of which don't seem to be present in the India of the 18th century, but which were present in Britain. In fact it is the very absence of these pre-requisites that meant Britain was in a position where it was even able to colonise India. To blithely state that if Britain hadn't colonised India that India would have in…

Britain first used their military power to seize India. They then blocked the Indians from manufacturing a vast variety of manufactured goods and forced farmers to produce certain cash crops (like cotton), to be sold only to the British at fixed prices. They then imported those raw materials to their home country and then exported finished goods to India. They basically captured themselves a monopoly which kickstarte…

I didn't deny any of those things. You're looking for some imaginary person who said "British colonialism had no negative effects on India at all" - no such assertion was in my comment.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#207

Post by Riod » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 10:20 PM UTC

JetSetWilly wrote: post #206

Riod wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Britain first used their military power to seize India. They then blocked the Indians from manufacturing a vast variety of manufactured goods and forced farmers to produce certain cash crops (like cotton), to be sold only to the British at fixed prices. They then imported those raw materials to their home country and then exported finished goods to India. They basically captured themselves a monopoly which kickstarte…

I didn't deny any of those things. You're looking for some imaginary person who said "British colonialism had no negative effects on India at all" - no such assertion was in my comment.

You need to re-read what you said. You will never have a counterfactual proving that India was not able to embark on an industrial revolution, because the British seized the country and stymied all growth that was not beneficial to them.

By then going on to say if not the British then someone else would have done it give the reader the impression that you believe it was justified because of that. If that's not what you meant to say (and it is not just me who has pointed that out), then you need to be more precise in your use of language.

And FYI the industrial revolution in textiles kicked into high gear in England in 1822, a good 50 years or so after India was under effective company rule. And textiles was an industry where India had a comparative advantage before company rule. Wonder where Britain got all that raw material to make textiles from?

From wikipedia: During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[20] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.[21]

Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#208

Post by Riod » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 10:39 PM UTC

shas3 wrote: post #189

guyraput wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was just pure ignorance. Some of the larger impacts of colonialism: Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism. India's healthcare worsened during colonialism because all the resources were exported to Europe for cheap and in abundance India's literacy was worsened during colonialism and was…

Colonialism was one factor. It is not clear how India would have imbibed and benefited from the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution in the absence of British presence in the subcontinent. Just a reminder that British presence started in the very late 18th century, but their true hegemony was for 90 years, between 1857 and 1947. Japan had American presence, but no hegemony and is a good counterpoint to those who c…

Wrong. From wikipedia: Company rule in India (sometimes, Company Raj,[1] "raj," lit. "rule" in Hindi[2]) refers to the rule or dominion of the British East India Company on the Indian subcontinent. This is variously taken to have commenced in 1757, after the Battle of Plassey, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company,

Also India pre 1947 was a civilization; a 2000+ year old one. Closest analogy is Europe. Do people vex about the existence of Belgium (a small country)?

India went from exporting finished goods to exporting raw materials from the 1780's to the 1860's. Coincidence?

To repeat what I said below:

the industrial revolution in textiles kicked into high gear in England in 1822, a good 50 years or so after India was under effective company rule. And textiles was an industry where India had a comparative advantage before company rule. Wonder where Britain got all that raw material to make textiles from?

From wikipedia: During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[20] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.[21]

Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#209

Post by vram22 » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 10:52 PM UTC

trowawee wrote: post #197

vram22 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. Interested to see if there is any answer.

I mean, I think we can make a decent guess. If Tencent came over to the US and offered free wifi, but it was limited to Baidu, WeChat, and QQ services, every tech celebrity in this country would flip their shit and the government would declare it illegal.

Exactly. Yet Indians are being told that it is "for their good".

Re: Marc Andreessen Pro-Colonialism Tweet Riles India Tech World

#210

Post by guyraput » Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 11:10 PM UTC

jgalt212 wrote: post #195

guyraput wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was just pure ignorance. Some of the larger impacts of colonialism: Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism. India's healthcare worsened during colonialism because all the resources were exported to Europe for cheap and in abundance India's literacy was worsened during colonialism and was…

>Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism. Please cite this very interesting piece of information.

Sourced from here http://www.economist.com/node/16834943

You would enjoy this as well -https://www.change.org/p/british-government-england-uk-india...