I wasn’t trying to give advice. Most people don’t do any critical thinking so I was just wondering/suggesting that it be considered as an option.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I wasn’t trying to give advice. Most people don’t do any critical thinking so I was just wondering/suggesting that it be considered as an option.
Which did not help at all in reducing famines. On the contrary, it worsened them because by connecting all the areas of India to the global market it made sure that in times of scarcity when the peasants (most of whom did not own their land) could not pay the rising prices for grain, the merchants could easily transport it to other areas of India or ship it away overseas. What really did help was the Famine Code, which basically reinstated the old Mughal prohibition against grain export in regions hit by famine, and granted subsidized food or money help by the British Indian authorities. Before that, in all the major famines in XIX century British India, the colony was a net exporter of grain to Britain.
Last edited:
Thank Norman Borlag for the end of natural famine. Now it's just political famine humankind has to deal with.
In times gone by I would've argued that that *is* tentatively giving advice, but I'm not about to start being a quibbling dick over something like that. Just give me the benefit of the doubt
And yet, this was still a measure of famine relief intended to help people.
No, it was a mesure intended to promote British trade in India; if it helped the Indian people that was okay, and if it did not, that was okay too. Just look at the behaviour of the British viceroy Lord Lytton and the State Secretary for India Lord Salisbury during the 1877-78 Deccan famine, and you will see clearly what was the attitude both in Calcutta and Whitehall towards the "Indian people".
To cut it short: any help to relieve the famine had to come from the Indian budget, and only if that did not interfere in any way with the oncoming British invasion of Afghanistan, which was to be paid also entirely by the Indian taxpayer.
I am struggling to see how either of you have proven your conclusions here.
a) According to the Wikipedia article, the Indian Famine Codes were a set of rules created in the 1880s to assess the severity of a famine and proscribe certain government responses to it.
b) @DoomBunny claims the officials responsible intended to help people, but does not provide any evidence.
c) @Semper Victor claims official in the 1870s did not intend to assist people, and helpfully gives a specific example: Lytton in the Deccan famine
d) The NYT summary of Late Victorian Holocausts confirms that Lytton was callous to Indians' suffering, but also says that his policies were in line with laissez-faire consensus and that he was sacked thereafter as possibly insane.
All these claims seem entirely compatible with each other. The conclusions from the 1870s would seem to be: Lytton and laissez-faire both exacerbate disasters. In the 1880s, Lytton has gone and there appears to be a system of government intervention.
Is Semper Victor relying on a hidden assumption that all British officials in India always had the same motivations for their actions at all times? That seems rather a strong assumption.
Or is there some other assumption or aspect that's gone over my head? I don't know a lot about 19th century India.
Last edited:
I do have a citation for this, unfortunately it's from a book I read about a year ago and I've forgotten both the title and the author. Sounds like a cop out I know, but tis true.
Fortunately I think I can remember whereabouts in the library I found it, so if anyone still cares about a minor internet debate in two months time I may be able to find a citation.
As the above notes; you assume a unity of thought through a British administration lasting nearly 100 years, multiple people, and at all levels. This is a generalization and an over-simplification. Some were callous to the suffering, some were not, many did indeed believe in helping the Indian people.
As for the funding of the invasion of Afghanistan, yes, that was how it worked. Troops serving in India were paid by the Indian taxpayer, as one of the few expenses of the Indian government, which taxed its subjects little and indeed decreased its effective taxation rates over time.
Fortunately I think I can remember whereabouts in the library I found it, so if anyone still cares about a minor internet debate in two months time I may be able to find a citation.
As the above notes; you assume a unity of thought through a British administration lasting nearly 100 years, multiple people, and at all levels. This is a generalization and an over-simplification. Some were callous to the suffering, some were not, many did indeed believe in helping the Indian people.
As for the funding of the invasion of Afghanistan, yes, that was how it worked. Troops serving in India were paid by the Indian taxpayer, as one of the few expenses of the Indian government, which taxed its subjects little and indeed decreased its effective taxation rates over time.
I didn't think Semper assume that. That just summarize things! And no need to thank the British for anything in India!
Unity of India, system of governance, modern legal system based on crimes against society rather than personal recompense (including the outlawing of several practices such as widow burning), large railway system, factories, cricket, low taxation, end of famines (bare the Bengal 1942-3 anomaly) in the 20th century, creation of the modern Indian armed forces (including a great many measures taken to accommodate Indian sensibilities), election of Indian MPs in Britain as early as the 1890s, and some truly outstanding architecture. Ultimately, even Indian independence owes something to the British, with the great leaders of the independence movement being British educated.
I'm not suggesting that this was a rosey ride through a country park, but neither was it a case of every Indian who sneezed being beaten to a bloody pulp. As with all empires, British rule of India brought both good and bad in varying degrees, and presented a variety of experiences. As with many things in history, the nuance has since become lost and the thing reduced (in popular conception at least) to a bunch of tropes. Again though, this in itself isn't surprising; history is not what happened, but what people remember, and memory is naturally a condensing of events, often into a particular narrative that makes sense in the eye of the beholder.
Well that's an impressive list at the cost of enormous lives and a whole people keep exploited! The Unity of India is a myth because the British used the policy "divide and rule" and give some privilege to minor peoples to get help from them to rule the larger peoples. They keep India divided to the last minute with British India and 562 princely states and then even divide British India into India and Pakistan. It was pressure of India people that unite the princely states into India, sometimes need military action in the case of Hyderabad State.
Let's see an example when Nazi occupied Europe. There was some good heart Nazi officers and we can thank them individually, but no need to thank Hitler for that!
Who would have gone through much the same thing anyway under their local rulers. Not that I'm suggesting this was a great thing, as above.
Caste systems already existed, indeed, the 'British' merely adapted to them, then capitalized on them.
Proving my point about methods of colonialism/empire building and local cooperation.
Considered necessary in the circumstances of the time.
Indeed so.
Except that this is a case of the odd act of kindness in the middle of trying to exterminate everyone. There is a difference in intensity and intent.
Apart from all of those things already existing in India before the British...
DoomBunny, are you by any chance Fergusson's alt account?
Indeed, that's because the picture originates from a comedy film, Monty Python's Life of Brian, it is highly entertaining, and I suggest you watch it.
Never heard of the dude. If you want to present some factual rebuttals to what I've said, go ahead.
Considering how much flak Russia got for annexing Crimea, despite being a democratic process (allegations of corruption aside) China is not annexing any part of Africa. Puppets? Maybe, in the same way the USA installed governments in Latin America.
But not outright colonies.
I laughed until I wept the first time I ever heard that discussion.
Bag of otter's noses?
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
It was an 'invasion' in the same way Ansculuss was an invasion of Austria by Germany. If the population wants to be invaded and annexed by a larger nation, is it really immoral?
The main difference between Western and Chinese loans are more pre-conditions and moral clauses needed from Western loaners. This created uncertainty Africans would receive their money, and the (probably unintentional) instability would break negotiations and African countries themselves. Moreso European Union - African Union agricultural relations are tense, to say the least, because Europe point blank refuses to compete fairly with African produce.
In contrast China in the initial stages was more willing to cut the check. This resulted in a massive swing towards China. Through my own conversations with Congonese and Nigerians it seems that imported Chinese workers are the main problem, yet they were probably brought in because of the language barrier to finish the projects. Is China getting bellow-market value goods from Africa? Probably. Something the West had access to for the entirety of our living lives. Africans just seem to prefer trading with the Chinese.
In contrast China in the initial stages was more willing to cut the check. This resulted in a massive swing towards China. Through my own conversations with Congonese and Nigerians it seems that imported Chinese workers are the main problem, yet they were probably brought in because of the language barrier to finish the projects. Is China getting bellow-market value goods from Africa? Probably. Something the West had access to for the entirety of our living lives. Africans just seem to prefer trading with the Chinese.