The British might have killed grandma, but they also eventually shared medicine that ensured that junior didn’t die.
In 1800, more than 1 in 2 children in India died before reaching 5 years old. From 1900 to 1915 it dropped from 535 deaths per 1000 to 332. By the time India gained independence it had dropped to 260.
I’m not arguing that colonization is wonderful. But, it tends to happen when a technologically advanced civilization encounters one that’s technologically behind. The eventual result is that the less technologically advanced civilization has their technology level advance. One of the most dramatic results of that is that childhood mortality drops. Does that make you better off? In the modern world, most parents would say that the death of a child is one of the worst things that can happen in your life. Parents would do just about anything to avoid having that happen. Then again, in civilizations with high childhood mortality, there appears to be much less of a bond between parents and children, because parents don’t invest emotionally as much in their children because they know they might die.
So, maybe from the perspective of an Indian in the 1800s, the colonization wasn’t worth it. But, would a modern Indian be willing to go back to a pre-colonization lifestyle, not only with massive childhood deaths, but also with a rigid caste system, constant internal wars, etc.?
I find it telling that you don’t think India would have figured out some of the issues without the British’s “help” is pretty classic colonialist thinking. And without the British they would be back to “pre-colonial” times right now. That’s wild.
And why do you keep going on about that one factor? It’s barely relevant in modern times. Many uncolonized countries are also doing fine with their infant mortality rate, with or without colonization. Why? Because global medical collaboration, change in poverty rates, and higher education rates. Raising infant mortality rates is also to the benefit of the British. More people alive means more labor and resources, it was not from the goodness of their heart. If you have statistics comparing infant mortality rates of previously colonized VS uncolonized countries and that shows something of statistical significance, then we can talk.
Constant internal wars are part of a nation figuring it out. China had Warring States for hundreds of years before unifying. They did it without “help”. I’m sure India would have been fine too without interference. I’ve heard the same brain dead logic that Aboriginal tribes were fighting amongst themselves anyways, so the British did them a favor too.
And I can tell you don’t know anything about India’s history because the British co-opted and greatly exacerbated the social effects of the caste system to their benefit. The rigidity made the people easier to exploit and govern, by dividing the people. Please read up on it.
Anthropologist Susan Bayly writes that “until well into the colonial period, much of the subcontinent was still populated by people for whom the formal distinctions of caste were of only limited importance, even in parts of the so-called Hindu heartland… The institutions and beliefs which are now often described as the elements of traditional caste were only just taking shape as recently as the early 18th Century”.
In fact, it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India’s defining social feature.
This and the Hutus and Tutsis are prime examples of colonialists stirring the shit. That not only killed grandma, killed all her children, and grandchildren too.
I find it telling that you don’t think India would have figured out some of the issues without the British’s “help” is pretty classic colonialist thinking.
Sometimes things are invented multiple times. But, typically it’s hundreds of years between their invention. I find it telling that you somehow think that India, which was hundreds of years behind in technology, would have magically discovered that technology on their own without contact with more technologically advanced civilizations.
And why do you keep going on about that one factor?
Because it’s widely seen as one of the most important changes in human history.
Constant internal wars are part of a nation figuring it out
Ah, ok. Figuring it out is good if it’s your own people killing you. It’s only bad if the person has white skin.
The British might have killed grandma, but they also eventually shared medicine that ensured that junior didn’t die.
In 1800, more than 1 in 2 children in India died before reaching 5 years old. From 1900 to 1915 it dropped from 535 deaths per 1000 to 332. By the time India gained independence it had dropped to 260.
I’m not arguing that colonization is wonderful. But, it tends to happen when a technologically advanced civilization encounters one that’s technologically behind. The eventual result is that the less technologically advanced civilization has their technology level advance. One of the most dramatic results of that is that childhood mortality drops. Does that make you better off? In the modern world, most parents would say that the death of a child is one of the worst things that can happen in your life. Parents would do just about anything to avoid having that happen. Then again, in civilizations with high childhood mortality, there appears to be much less of a bond between parents and children, because parents don’t invest emotionally as much in their children because they know they might die.
So, maybe from the perspective of an Indian in the 1800s, the colonization wasn’t worth it. But, would a modern Indian be willing to go back to a pre-colonization lifestyle, not only with massive childhood deaths, but also with a rigid caste system, constant internal wars, etc.?
I find it telling that you don’t think India would have figured out some of the issues without the British’s “help” is pretty classic colonialist thinking. And without the British they would be back to “pre-colonial” times right now. That’s wild.
And why do you keep going on about that one factor? It’s barely relevant in modern times. Many uncolonized countries are also doing fine with their infant mortality rate, with or without colonization. Why? Because global medical collaboration, change in poverty rates, and higher education rates. Raising infant mortality rates is also to the benefit of the British. More people alive means more labor and resources, it was not from the goodness of their heart. If you have statistics comparing infant mortality rates of previously colonized VS uncolonized countries and that shows something of statistical significance, then we can talk.
Constant internal wars are part of a nation figuring it out. China had Warring States for hundreds of years before unifying. They did it without “help”. I’m sure India would have been fine too without interference. I’ve heard the same brain dead logic that Aboriginal tribes were fighting amongst themselves anyways, so the British did them a favor too.
And I can tell you don’t know anything about India’s history because the British co-opted and greatly exacerbated the social effects of the caste system to their benefit. The rigidity made the people easier to exploit and govern, by dividing the people. Please read up on it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734
This and the Hutus and Tutsis are prime examples of colonialists stirring the shit. That not only killed grandma, killed all her children, and grandchildren too.
Sometimes things are invented multiple times. But, typically it’s hundreds of years between their invention. I find it telling that you somehow think that India, which was hundreds of years behind in technology, would have magically discovered that technology on their own without contact with more technologically advanced civilizations.
Because it’s widely seen as one of the most important changes in human history.
Ah, ok. Figuring it out is good if it’s your own people killing you. It’s only bad if the person has white skin.
Please address all my points.
And here you go: https://www.eduresearchjournal.com/index.php/ijhars/article/download/82/75/192
Why do you think only white people had extensive medical knowledge. That’s so ignorant.
Wow, very original rebuttal. Thank you. Sorry, I’ll add it’s also bad when the Japanese colonized parts of East Asia.
No.