British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
aljazeera.com
British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#2India’s population in 1880 was about 250m and by 1920 about 319m. Sorry the 100m killed is infeasible on its face. But, then consider the source.
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#3India’s population in 1880 was about 250m and by 1920 about 319m. Sorry the 100m killed is infeasible on its face. But, then consider the source.
Why? If 169m were born during that period and 100m lost their lives because of British policy, then it still means that 100m lives were lost unnecessarily.
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#4For one, Britain effectively destroyed India’s manufacturing sector.
British colonisers established a system of legal plunder, known to contemporaries as the “drain of wealth.” Britain taxed the Indian population
(that seems to be all)
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#5India’s population in 1880 was about 250m and by 1920 about 319m. Sorry the 100m killed is infeasible on its face. But, then consider the source.
Why? If 169m were born during that period and 100m lost their lives because of British policy, then it still means that 100m lives were lost unnecessarily.
Ehhh that's a lot more complicated than that. But sure. How many would die naturally in the same given period due to things such as disease and natural outcomes, I prefer facts to biased and somewhat radical sources. We already know the constant population during certain periods so why not extrapolate how many died to famine rather than claim it as a glob that it is not? It worsens the claims that these people are trying to portray and actually makes the Indian government look much worse. As if demanding the money and reparations rather than a conversation. It's not hard to see why nobody is taking it seriously.
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#6India’s population in 1880 was about 250m and by 1920 about 319m. Sorry the 100m killed is infeasible on its face. But, then consider the source.
Why? If 169m were born during that period and 100m lost their lives because of British policy, then it still means that 100m lives were lost unnecessarily.
So you’re positing that roughly 60% of the incremental population growth was lost to British rule? Didn’t happen. Just as shark migration patterns were not changed by slavery. Nor any of the other absurdities promulgated by the media and politicians today.
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#7eye for eye
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? If 169m were born during that period and 100m lost their lives because of British policy, then it still means that 100m lives were lost unnecessarily.
So you’re positing that roughly 60% of the incremental population growth was lost to British rule? Didn’t happen. Just as shark migration patterns were not changed by slavery. Nor any of the other absurdities promulgated by the media and politicians today.
Yes, I don't think you quite understand the horrors of Britain ruining india during their 100 year invasion. Similar to the destruction of the native american population of Canada and America. As well as the treatment of Kenyans during their rule.
This is not " Just as shark migration patterns were not changed by slavery. " This is a European country travelling halfway across the world and murdering a indepdant nation. Stealing their exports, and reselling it on the global market. Using their land to produce opium where they later used to invade china and kill their local population.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/opium-trade
You can deny it all you want, but the history will remain.
There's the 3 million that have died due to the bengal famine.
https://newint.org/features/2021/12/07/feature-how-british-c....
The destruction of India's economy under british colonization, causing massive poverty.
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/how_the_bri...
Various Massacres (That we have heard about, from british soldiers when the local population tried to rise up)
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#9eye for eye
That sounds awfully like a call to violence.
Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years
#10India’s population in 1880 was about 250m and by 1920 about 319m. Sorry the 100m killed is infeasible on its face. But, then consider the source.
Really poor argument, "oh biased source". Invading a country and colonizing their people. Can really destroy a local population. Ask Native Americans. Ask Kenyans. Ask the Phillipines. Britiain truly commited some upseakable horrors to the countries they invaded, and really push their idea of caucasian supremacy. Deny the truth all you want, the unmarked graves of native american children remain. The evil of the british empire is something we should condemn, but we conveniently ignore.