Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

#31

Post by kweingar »

heywherelogingo wrote: post #25

"This is a straightforward case for reparations" - and there you have it. This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. Where do you draw the line - 1900? 1800? 1700? Ridiculous. It's the same with conversations about slavery - apparently the only relevant slavery is post 1700 African slavery which also ignores that Africans were participating slave traders - enough arbitrary const…

> This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. Where do you draw the line - 1900? 1800? 1700?

I’m interested where you draw the line in the other direction. 1900? 1950? 1980?

In 1980, most people alive today had not yet been born. Suppose a country took out a loan in 1980 and have made minimum payments since then. Can a young new leader of that country validly refuse to pay the remainder of the debt because they shouldn’t owe anything for a previous generation’s actions?

Suppose a country confiscated land from some people in the 1950s, and those people fled the country. In 2022 is it too late to demand the land back?

Suppose that two nations declared a treaty of alliance in 1900. In 2022, one of the nations is attacked. Can the other party to the treaty claim that they are not bound to any agreement made by their long-dead ancestors?

Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

#32

Post by BMc2020 »

rramadass wrote: post #30
BMc2020 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least 5 HN readers disagree with you.

That means nothing i.e. Ignorance. It is a question of Education and Why one should not trivialize it.

You are right, I don't want to remain ignorant. Educate us about the sudras and untouchables.

Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras are the four Hindu castes. These castes or groupings are called varnas. Whatever caste or varna a baby is born into will be his or her varna for life. Marriages for young people are arranged within one's caste. Each caste has its codes of conduct and unique lifestyles. For example, upper caste members receive better education. For centuries lower caste members were forbidden to even acquire books. Sudras' work never allows them to gain financial independence or accumulate wealth. All wealth in Indian society is reserved for the top three castes.

Below the four varnas is a fifth group called Achuta, known as Untouchables.

Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

#33

Post by rramadass »

BMc2020 wrote: post #32
rramadass wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means nothing i.e. Ignorance. It is a question of Education and Why one should not trivialize it.

You are right, I don't want to remain ignorant. Educate us about the sudras and untouchables. Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras are the four Hindu castes. These castes or groupings are called varnas. Whatever caste or varna a baby is born into will be his or her varna for life. Marriages for young people are arranged within one's caste. Each caste has its codes of conduct and unique lifestyles. For example, u…

???

Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand; you have now officially "jumped the shark".

Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

#35

Post by [deleted] »

kira123123 wrote: post #14
BMc2020 wrote: post #4

For 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)

There is a lot more to it than that. If we can stop caucasian-washing history for a second, britain did not simply arrive in india, and leave peacefully either. They lied about their motive as a trade company (the east india company). They used religion (Christianity) To scout the local population and worked with priests/nuns to see if the land as able to be invaded. And when they left they split the country into two…

[deleted]

Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

#36

Post by rramadass »

thisrod wrote: post #34

Has anyone read Late Victorian Holocausts , a full exposition of this argument? It's important if true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts

Thanks for the pointer; another one for my "to read" list.

However i have read about the Economist Utsa Patnaik's works on the same subject where she makes the argument that Colonialism/Imperialism gave rise to and sustained today's Capitalism. There is a direct correlation which is well supported by available facts. Whether we want to face it or nor is another matter.

Some of her works can be accessed from my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33979856

Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

#38

Post by defrost »

heywherelogingo wrote: post #25

"This is a straightforward case for reparations" - and there you have it. This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. Where do you draw the line - 1900? 1800? 1700? Ridiculous. It's the same with conversations about slavery - apparently the only relevant slavery is post 1700 African slavery which also ignores that Africans were participating slave traders - enough arbitrary const…

Britain is A-OK with long term reparations.

Mind you, that's for capitalist slave owners denied of "their chattels" .. not as compensation to those affected.

> the British government spent £20 million, a staggering 40% of its budget in 1833, to buy freedom for slaves.

> That’s equivalent to approximately £20bn today, making it one of the biggest ever government bailouts.

> The cost was so high, the vast loans the government took out to fund it were only just paid off in 2015. [1]

No slaves were apologied to, returned home, back paid, trained for future employment, etc.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200205-how-britain-is-...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/12/treasu...

Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

#39

Post by gizajob »

kira123123 wrote: post #14
BMc2020 wrote: post #4

For 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)

There is a lot more to it than that. If we can stop caucasian-washing history for a second, britain did not simply arrive in india, and leave peacefully either. They lied about their motive as a trade company (the east india company). They used religion (Christianity) To scout the local population and worked with priests/nuns to see if the land as able to be invaded. And when they left they split the country into two…

And yet if you asked Indians today whether they'd remove this from history alongside English and Cricket being removed, they'd still choose to be speaking English and playing Cricket, in part due to the huge economic advantage given to the subcontinent by the British "invading"

Re: British colonialism killed 100M Indians in 40 years

#40

Post by Aleksdev »

rramadass wrote: post #30
BMc2020 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least 5 HN readers disagree with you.

That means nothing i.e. Ignorance. It is a question of Education and Why one should not trivialize it.

You spelt “Education” with a capital E there…
Post reply on HN