Did the British do more damage to China or India?

[Ian the Admin]

I'm of opinion that generally the people ( or nations for that matter ) are main reason for their own problems and that other people/nations just use your own weakneses...

Checking your history you've got a previous kick for liking the genocide of Chechnya and your signature is a nationalist insult toward Italians.

Now you're blaming India and China for British colonialism.

It seems you're pretty generically racist and have recently been making a point of showing that. Banned.

 

[scholar]

I voted India because a large part of the disasters China suffered were self-inflicted or inflicted by other powers than Britain. Mao inflicted 30 years of communist madness to China. Japan did terrible things against chinese people, and France, Germany and the US to a lasser extent.

France was a lesser evil in China compared to Britain, and the US and Germany couldn't hold a candle to either. Japan came late, and Mao came after. Japan was at its most egregious after it assumed all of the colonial privileges held by European Powers when they left in recognition of the new Republic after World War I.

 

[Indicus]

I would say India because even though without Britain it would be as divided as Germany, it would be richer.

 

[DAv]

China: started the opium wars after introducing opium to the country, forced open many ports to foreign Europeans, sacked and burned down the Imperial Summer Resort.

India: set up the British raj/ East Indian Company.

Opium was actually present in China long before the British arrived. It was just the stuff the British were selling was of a much high quality and they made the problem much worse.

 

[Badshah]

India was a pretty balanced thing, if we're talking about the British empire period then positive, before that....way too big and complicated a period of history for a simplistic decision one way or the other, though probably negative.

It most certainly was not, but definitely, freezing feudal systems in the Princely States on one end, divide et impera through the creation of martial and criminal castes and the Imperial Censuses, negligence leading to major famines, and let's not forget the relatively minor (with regards to the millions of dead due to famine and what not) racism and discrimination or that it was a colony that was seriously taken advantage of. British rule in India was not a balanced thing. It was bad. And that a few elites managed to come out of it richer does not erase these facts.

Unless you've bought into some sort of British civilisational superiority that the brown man so sorely needed, that is.

 

[Joe_Ladder]

I think that we should have the option of "neither one" in that poll too...

The Bengal Famine of 1943 killed as many as Holodomor.

 

[Indicus]

It most certainly was not, but definitely, freezing feudal systems in the Princely States on one end, divide et impera through the creation of martial and criminal castes and the Imperial Censuses, negligence leading to major famines, and let's not forget the relatively minor (with regards to the millions of dead due to famine and what not) racism and discrimination or that it was a colony that was seriously taken advantage of. British rule in India was not a balanced thing. It was bad. And that a few elites managed to come out of it richer does not erase these facts.

Unless you've bought into some sort of British civilisational superiority that the brown man so sorely needed, that is.

But he does hold a point in that Britain most certainly did help in unifying India, as prior to their arrival India was a broken mess of countries less unified than eighteenth-century Germany. Britain did, in many ways, brutally destroy India, but ultimately it was unified, which let it stand on the world stage.

Of course, though, the effects were ultimately tremendously negative.

 

[Badshah]

But he does hold a point in that Britain most certainly did help in unifying India, as prior to their arrival India was a broken mess of countries less unified than eighteenth-century Germany. Britain did, in many ways, brutally destroy India, but ultimately it was unified, which let it stand on the world stage.

Of course, though, the effects were ultimately tremendously negative.

Prior to their arrival India was divided into fairly large states that were nominally part of the Mughal Empire, which is the closest you get to eighteenth century Germany. It was not 'broken' in any sense of the word.

 

[Pangur]

I would argue yes, but that's a different debate.

I won't deny that what the British did in India was bad, it was horrible. But Britian did more harm to the nation of China whereas the nation of India emerged from the UK.

Though what happened in India is worse then in China.…

I misinterpreted the question.

Your post contradicts itself

Are you saying Britain didn't damage China and India? Because they certainly did so from destroying Indian textile proto-industrialization, causing famines, deliberately pitting native populations against each other and general exploitative resource extraction. And China is pretty well covered in the OP.

I would say India since British Rule Directly caused a lot of Famines not to Mention played Religions againts each other resulting in the 1971 Genocide
While Britian Humiliated China and created a Opuim addict problem the Qing Dynasty was going to fall regardless, The Opuim war was caused by Chinese Weakness but Chinese Weakness wasn't caused by it.
Although the one could argue that Japan wouldn't have dared to attack China like it did if it wasn't for China's Humiliating Defeats
the Unfair traities wouldn't have happened either

All the above are why I picked India

 

[ZhugeLiang]

I would say that they did damage to both, but in the end, the most lasting damage went to China. They were bankrupt for almost a whole century, and only the revolution managed to fix that.

India lost its cotton industry (which was a huge thing), but the British at least build railroads and accepted Indians to their universities.

China... China lost literally everything to the British. Even if it was their fault (I blame Cixi because I don't like her), Britain still did more damage to China. Apart from their independence (which was still violated upon), it's almost impossible to name one thing China didn't lose.

They literally bankrupted China and refused to let them up. China didn't get any 'free' railroads like India.

For people saying that China was better off because China is more successful nowadays - that has nothing to do with this. Japan was nuked - they're successful nowadays. They had lots of damage done to them, though.

You can harm a country a great deal, only for another country to pick them up (Soviet Union helping China out).

 

[Matteo]

Well, don't blâme Cixi too much. When her ruled came, It was far too late.

The problem is that China had to a large extended self-frozen due to closent on itself while It should have been the world superpower instead of Europe if It had been well gouverned. Then came Britain who took profit of an already decayed China and made China's problems far worse.

For India things were different. India's economy was very rich and developed by the early 18th century's standard. Britain deliberately destroyed the indian economy in order to subsidize its own nascent industry with looted indian capital and captive indian market. So long for british so-called economic liberalism and for Adam Smith's causes for the wealth of nations.

The fact is that Britain just had a big gun and that it use dit ruthlessly to ransom the world. It was like playing Monopoly with Britain holding the bank and able to take fresh money whenever It needed to outbid competitors.

The lesson is there is no morals in history. Only results matter and there rarely is a nice winner. England was the best at ugly-winning, as Rome had been.

 

[Sior]

Fixed that for you. Seriously.

India, by far, in my humble opinion.

The economy was absolutely wrecked, several large to huge famines were very badly handled. I've seen people try to claim some sort of mitigation for the 1943 one, what with there being a very bloody war with the Japanese distracting the authorities, but several of the others have much shoddier excuses. I seem to remember relief for one of the 1870s ones being gutted simply to please the Laissez Faire Liberal orthodoxy of the Governor General, the Sec State and his other masters back in Whitehall.

Of course there were never any famines in India before the British!

 

[Geordie]

Of course there were never any famines in India before the British!

I didn't say that. To do so would be utterly foolish. It doesn't stop the fact that the one in the 1870s saw people who were trying to help stopped thanks to crappy political dick swinging in London.

 

[Tyr]

I didn't say that. To do so would be utterly foolish. It doesn't stop the fact that the one in the 1870s saw people who were trying to help stopped thanks to crappy political dick swinging in London.

Because of an often forgotten famine several years earlier where relief efforts were too big, resulting in a large amount of waste.
Doesn't forgive the great famine of course, but it does make for a more accurate and fairer context than one might be led to assume looking at it in isolation and helps to explain why the government chose such a poor course of action.

It most certainly was not, but definitely, freezing feudal systems in the Princely States on one end, divide et impera through the creation of martial and criminal castes and the Imperial Censuses, negligence leading to major famines, and let's not forget the relatively minor (with regards to the millions of dead due to famine and what not) racism and discrimination or that it was a colony that was seriously taken advantage of. British rule in India was not a balanced thing. It was bad. And that a few elites managed to come out of it richer does not erase these facts.

Unless you've bought into some sort of British civilisational superiority that the brown man so sorely needed, that is.

Yes. Exactly. It is purely because of a feeling of racial superiority that I feel that way. There can be no other explanation.

I see a lot of people mentioning the famines here. But did you stop to consider the reasons why those famines occurred? Yes, yes, in some cases the government failed rather horribly to do much about them, they should have made more efforts to avoid them even happening, etc....... (however; do you really think a native ruler would have been able to do much better?). Try and look at things neutrally for a minute and work out why they happened.
The Indian Empire was a major period of population growth and economic upheaval in India. Conflict drastically decreased, land clearances reached new heights, industrialisation was beginning to take root, old businesses declined, new businesses grew.... In any country these are conditions for insecurity. In India, a land with a large population where famine has been pretty common throughout history.... Even a more competent administration would have been hard pressed to avoid any trouble.

Keeping the princely states in place- wait? What? So imperialism is bad, Britain shouldn't have took over India!..... but local rule also bad! Britain should have took over the whole of India! This is why I tend not to go too deep into these discussions.

Racism- a critically misunderstood issue in this context. Way too many people project 20th century ideologies into time periods where they do not belong and as a result put the cart before the horse.

Really. The British period in India gets way too black a reputation. As the jewel of the empire the UK is only too keen to make it out to be a horrible thing, accept all accusations coming their way, say sorry, etc.... whilst in India...well its typical of a lot of nations that used to be ruled by others; nationalists really don't like the idea that their nation was number 2 to someone else, and nationalists tend to be particularly mouthy in nations that feel they have something to prove.
More people need to take a step back and examine it with their eyes open, considering the bigger picture than the simplistic black and white one we are usually presented with. Little in history is so simple.

 

[guinazacity]

India by a mile.

I mean, just get a calculator and sum the body count of the famines during the british raj, it gives Mao a run for his money, not counting the division of its society, the collapse of its economy, gunning down its citizens, supporting tyrannical petty kings and so on and so forth...

And some people say it was a net positive because sati and railways.

 

[AussieHawker]

The Indian Empire was a major period of population growth and economic upheaval in India. Conflict drastically decreased, land clearances reached new heights, industrialisation was beginning to take root, old businesses declined, new businesses grew.... In any country these are conditions for insecurity. In India, a land with a large population where famine has been pretty common throughout history.... Even a more competent administration would have been hard pressed to avoid any trouble.

Really. The British period in India gets way too black a reputation. As the jewel of the empire the UK is only too keen to make it out to be a horrible thing, accept all accusations coming their way, say sorry, etc.... whilst in India...well its typical of a lot of nations that used to be ruled by others; nationalists really don't like the idea that their nation was number 2 to someone else, and nationalists tend to be particularly mouthy in nations that feel they have something to prove.

Aside from the famines which have been mentioned by at least half the posters and the other stuff I mentioned earlier, the British rule also helped solidify and define the caste system in India which is still a major problem for India today. Also your claim that Industrialization was beginning to take root ignores the destruction the British made on India industries to make it a captive market that would largely stay medieval.

Also in the famine during World War 2 the British refused foreign aid to feed the starving populations to instead divert food to fronts that were food secure. During the total British rule in India there were approximately 25 major famines altogether, between 30 and 40 million Indians were the victims of famines in the latter half of the 20th century. Hardly a competent administration and other regions had economic upheaval (like I don't know Europe) without suffering famines to such a degree.

And you finish it with a spiel about modern 'nationalistic' rhetoric giving a foreign invasion and exploitation to much of a bad reputation. That is like saying Communism was good because the nations industrialized (at the cost of millions of lives).

 

[Avrorrange]

Aside from the famines which have been mentioned by at least half the posters and the other stuff I mentioned earlier, the British rule also helped solidify and define the caste system in India which is still a major problem for India today. Also your claim that Industrialization was beginning to take root ignores the destruction the British made on India industries to make it a captive market that would largely stay medieval.

Also in the famine during World War 2 the British refused foreign aid to feed the starving populations to instead divert food to fronts that were food secure. During the total British rule in India there were approximately 25 major famines altogether, between 30 and 40 million Indians were the victims of famines in the latter half of the 20th century. Hardly a competent administration and other regions had economic upheaval (like I don't know Europe) without suffering famines to such a degree.

And you finish it with a spiel about modern 'nationalistic' rhetoric giving a foreign invasion and exploitation to much of a bad reputation. That is like saying Communism was good because the nations industrialized (at the cost of millions of lives).

Bravo！This！

 

[guinazacity]

Bravo！This！

Seconded.

The fact that people can really think of the british rule in india (or any colonial rule anywere) as anything but horrifying and inexcusable keeps surprising me, even if it's so common.

 

[gianni_rivera]

I would say that they did damage to both, but in the end, the most lasting damage went to China. They were bankrupt for almost a whole century, and only the revolution managed to fix that.

India lost its cotton industry (which was a huge thing), but the British at least build railroads and accepted Indians to their universities.

China... China lost literally everything to the British. Even if it was their fault (I blame Cixi because I don't like her), Britain still did more damage to China. Apart from their independence (which was still violated upon), it's almost impossible to name one thing China didn't lose.

They literally bankrupted China and refused to let them up. China didn't get any 'free' railroads like India.

For people saying that China was better off because China is more successful nowadays - that has nothing to do with this. Japan was nuked - they're successful nowadays. They had lots of damage done to them, though.

You can harm a country a great deal, only for another country to pick them up (Soviet Union helping China out).

China mostly lose a lot of prestige, some money, give some countries a bit privilege, and a little bit land.

I do not consider Boxer's Uprising to be foreign aggression, it is hugely self-inflicted. If any country massacre foreign citizens like that, it is inevitable to lead to foreign intervention. After 1895, most foreign aggression is from the Japanese.

I would say, the Japanese inflicted more damage to China than the British, a lot more.

 

[Badshah]

Because of an often forgotten famine several years earlier where relief efforts were too big, resulting in a large amount of waste.
Doesn't forgive the great famine of course, but it does make for a more accurate and fairer context than one might be led to assume looking at it in isolation and helps to explain why the government chose such a poor course of action.



Yes. Exactly. It is purely because of a feeling of racial superiority that I feel that way. There can be no other explanation.

I see a lot of people mentioning the famines here. But did you stop to consider the reasons why those famines occurred? Yes, yes, in some cases the government failed rather horribly to do much about them, they should have made more efforts to avoid them even happening, etc....... (however; do you really think a native ruler would have been able to do much better?). Try and look at things neutrally for a minute and work out why they happened.
The Indian Empire was a major period of population growth and economic upheaval in India. Conflict drastically decreased, land clearances reached new heights, industrialisation was beginning to take root, old businesses declined, new businesses grew.... In any country these are conditions for insecurity. In India, a land with a large population where famine has been pretty common throughout history.... Even a more competent administration would have been hard pressed to avoid any trouble.

Keeping the princely states in place- wait? What? So imperialism is bad, Britain shouldn't have took over India!..... but local rule also bad! Britain should have took over the whole of India! This is why I tend not to go too deep into these discussions.

Racism- a critically misunderstood issue in this context. Way too many people project 20th century ideologies into time periods where they do not belong and as a result put the cart before the horse.

Really. The British period in India gets way too black a reputation. As the jewel of the empire the UK is only too keen to make it out to be a horrible thing, accept all accusations coming their way, say sorry, etc.... whilst in India...well its typical of a lot of nations that used to be ruled by others; nationalists really don't like the idea that their nation was number 2 to someone else, and nationalists tend to be particularly mouthy in nations that feel they have something to prove.
More people need to take a step back and examine it with their eyes open, considering the bigger picture than the simplistic black and white one we are usually presented with. Little in history is so simple.

As the ruling power in charge, generally speaking, it is quite alright to hold it responsible for not acting when a famine hits, especially when the destructiveness of post-British famines were not present at least in Mughal times (record keeping being really well done during that era).

You've also overlooked peasant history and living... And their lives changed incrementally at best. It's funny how the whole system of governance was feudalised in Northern India and peasants lost ownership of their land in favour of zamindars. Not to mention as others mentioned, the creation of the modern caste system was under British rule.

You've also overlooked the whole problem of colonial anthropology being created during this time, what with Indians apparently being scientifically inferior to the white man. Not to mention the arbitrary distinction between martial and criminal castes- their only difference? One was loyal during 1857. And that meant whole villages had to report to a police station once a week because of 'natural criminal orientations'.

Local rule backed by imperial guns is not real local rule- giving a bunch of aristocrats the ability to do whatever they want in their territories with essentially a blank cheque isn't local rule- it's simply a different facet of imperialism.

Imperial racism was wrong. We don't say that the anthropology or treatment of blacks in the antebellum south was right, and when similar anthropologists are used to describe Indians, it somehow is? Bullshit.

I'm not looking at this through a black and white lens, and I know certain Indians benefitted from the system. The elites who led the independence movement did, and so did the princes. But the common man, and by extension, the country lost out through colonial policies, not to mention the economic misrule that kept India down.

You're damn right countries don't like being number 2. Number 2 when it comes to being treated as second class citizens in your own home. When a group of people who initially are just another Indian arrival start announcing their race superiority and the infeasibility of the people to rule their own land all the while plundering it of resources and dividing society. Very few people would give a damn if Britain treated India as an extension of Britain; I most certainly wouldn't. But that's not what the British Raj was. The Company Raj less so, but whose existence led to the British Raj.

So you'll excuse me if I do think there are civilisationally chauvinistic undertones to the apologism of imperial rule in India.