'Boil Water' Warning After Confirmed...
News3 mins ago
Oh So It Is Not True, The British Were Not Wicked Colonial Oppressors, Who Sucked The Wealth Out Of India?
20 Answers
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
fender - I am sure my grandfather allowed cows to roam the streets - sacred to hindus and if the cow ate from your food stall it was considered a sign of good fortune .....
now imperialists and classicists - who spotted there is no Temple of Minerva ( a latin goddess anyway ) in Athens ?
// the third Mint was based on a design of the Temple of Athena in Athens, Greece, usually known as the Parthenon.//
sorry a bit pedantic that one
the indians being grateful for 200 y British rule ?
The Daily Mail of course well they would say that wouldnt they ?
The Egyptians saying they were better ruled by the British than by successors has cmore supporters ....
now imperialists and classicists - who spotted there is no Temple of Minerva ( a latin goddess anyway ) in Athens ?
// the third Mint was based on a design of the Temple of Athena in Athens, Greece, usually known as the Parthenon.//
sorry a bit pedantic that one
the indians being grateful for 200 y British rule ?
The Daily Mail of course well they would say that wouldnt they ?
The Egyptians saying they were better ruled by the British than by successors has cmore supporters ....
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
@AOG
The author will have to do lots of arm-waving about this, then.
https:/
5.5 million dead. Grain *exported* to England in the midst of it all. Cotton, indigo plants and tea are all inedible and taking edible crops would be treated as theft of the Empire's goods. This is why people moan about Imperialism.
The author focuses on the 20,000-odd miles of railways built from 1840 onward but seems to forget that these were originally built to move cargo. People worked within walking distance of home and had no need of commuting. If your cotton fields are a long way from a decent port, you need something cheaper than hundreds of horse-and-cart folk, demanding payment. Railways were not built to benefit the population but to benefit the Empire.
So, in short, we might have arrived there too late to loot it but we didn't half farm the place.
The author will have to do lots of arm-waving about this, then.
https:/
5.5 million dead. Grain *exported* to England in the midst of it all. Cotton, indigo plants and tea are all inedible and taking edible crops would be treated as theft of the Empire's goods. This is why people moan about Imperialism.
The author focuses on the 20,000-odd miles of railways built from 1840 onward but seems to forget that these were originally built to move cargo. People worked within walking distance of home and had no need of commuting. If your cotton fields are a long way from a decent port, you need something cheaper than hundreds of horse-and-cart folk, demanding payment. Railways were not built to benefit the population but to benefit the Empire.
So, in short, we might have arrived there too late to loot it but we didn't half farm the place.
Hypognosis
It was the British who introduced tea to India, so we had every right to take it if we wanted to.
*** As you are waiting for the kettle to boil, you could reflect on how it was the British who introduced tea to India, turning the country into the biggest tea producer in the world in little more than a century. ***
*** And from there you might go on to chalk up a few other achievements: the introduction of coffee, sugar, fresh drinking water, public toilets... ***
It was the British who introduced tea to India, so we had every right to take it if we wanted to.
*** As you are waiting for the kettle to boil, you could reflect on how it was the British who introduced tea to India, turning the country into the biggest tea producer in the world in little more than a century. ***
*** And from there you might go on to chalk up a few other achievements: the introduction of coffee, sugar, fresh drinking water, public toilets... ***
sorry AOG read you URL again
d-a-i-l- ...... etc
and so are you saying the Daily Mail wasnt saying that ?
or are you implying the Daily Mail is a passive mouth piece for the words of the babu ?
and readers dont have to go back to the famine of 1876 the British mismanaged ( or indeed the Irish Famine ) there was one in 1942.
I have to say altho', my family ( ICS ) when confronted with accusations they had looted India, said look around the house - where is the evidence ? There is of course none....
but hey it is a good social construct innit ?
d-a-i-l- ...... etc
and so are you saying the Daily Mail wasnt saying that ?
or are you implying the Daily Mail is a passive mouth piece for the words of the babu ?
and readers dont have to go back to the famine of 1876 the British mismanaged ( or indeed the Irish Famine ) there was one in 1942.
I have to say altho', my family ( ICS ) when confronted with accusations they had looted India, said look around the house - where is the evidence ? There is of course none....
but hey it is a good social construct innit ?
There is no denying that the British united and modernised India. But their rule was often sullied by mismanagement and poor treatment of its peoples.
The famine of 1944 killed an approximate 2 million people. The effects of that famine were worse than any previous or since famines because British policy at the time exacebated the food shortages. The relief efforts were minimal, and supplies that could have saved many of the victims, were never sent. It probably excelerated Indian Independence by many decades.
The famine of 1944 killed an approximate 2 million people. The effects of that famine were worse than any previous or since famines because British policy at the time exacebated the food shortages. The relief efforts were minimal, and supplies that could have saved many of the victims, were never sent. It probably excelerated Indian Independence by many decades.
Gromit, I could be wrong, but wasn't there a rather more pressing issue occupying the minds of the British authorities in 1944? an issuie that went on to kill 30 times more people than those who succumbed in the Indian famine in the 1940s? was your accusation really all that fair, under the circumstances?
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.