It was colonialism, with all of the attributes associated with it. Irish were seen as a lesser people and various phases and the machinery of empire acted appropriately.
IMO it is a similar story to India in many ways. The Brits leveraged and undermined the existing power structure and extracted value at whatever cost deemed appropriate. Was there some “benefit”… at some level yes. Were there atrocities and disgusting levels of suffering without the consent of the governed? Yes.
That's an interesting contrast, and I'm sure there's academic literature which lays out why that's the case. My personal impression is that this might have to do with the immediate aftermath of Independence, faced with strong internal crises to deal with. British Imperialism & Partition had left the country bereft - food production, economic infrastructure (raw materials & factories separated by hostile borders), & general development (India at the onset of colonialism produced about a quarter of the world's GDP, and at the end was about 2%). We had a host of issues to deal with, and hating on the British was unproductive. Within 25 years, India was in three full on wars with hostile neighbors. The British were a distant enemy.
I suppose the Irish antagonism with the British dates from the much more recent "Troubles", rather than historic English Imperialism.
argument is silly, both Ireland and India were colonized for prolonged periods, both experienced extreme hardships in that time (and some benefits too of British rule)
both became independent roughly around same time, yet now both have very different standard of living for average person
blaming colonization is stupid when there are multiple other variables present
As someone who both has a lot of Irish blood (read: many relatives who hate the British), and someone who considers himself an amateur historian I'd like to make a single point:
"starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks"
~ Churchill 1943
I think this quote captures the ethos of British colonial rule quite nicely.
While the British ruled many of their colonies by a identifiable play-book (i.e. a superiority complex that lead to brutal governance), cultural preference, as it always seems to, lead to favorable treatment of those demographics closest to anglo-saxon / protestant / etc, characteristics.
So I assert while famines were induced by the British in both Ireland and India, the Indians would have been seen as lowlier then the Irish, by a debatable amount.
The Indian population would thus have suffered harsher under colonial rulers.
This is coming from someone who has traced his ancestry back to a British lord, which in all likelihood means a family member (likely 3-4 generations) was raped as a direct result of British colonialism.
History is brutal and everybody likes to call foul. However treatment of different, far off, peoples by colonial powers will never seek to amaze in its vicious and sickening nature.
The British Empire certainly did some awful stuff. Anyone who thinks the British Empire took over other countries purely for the benefit of the locals must be a bit dim. But I'm not sure 'genocide' is a fair accusation. Certainly large numbers of Indians (and Irish and others) died due to their callous policies (e.g. Bengal and Irish famines), but I'm not sure that classifies as genocide.
I'm not for a second claiming that Britain didn't exploit India - I'm merely refuting the idea that all of the British acts were purely negative.
1. Well, I don't necessarily agree that your point c. is the most difficult and I would guess (without knowing) that in many countries the proportion of British-made goods increased dramatically during the 19th century. Is it possible to explain any of the growth in manufactured goods in terms of increased quality, reduced price, improved shipping and transportation and a large immigrant population with massive comparative economic power?
I also disagree with the implication that industrialism and capitalism in the west are purely due to GB's exploitation of India. I'm certain that the influx of money and goods from India to GB helped. I find it beyond reasonable to claim it the sole cause. Britain was already a strong (the strongest?) world power before it became dominant in India.
2. Yes, I agree. The British did the same thing in Ireland. However, as with slavery, the empire seemed to learn from its mistakes and had reversed this inhumane policy towards the end of its life. British rule did unite an historically divided country and thus set the course for a country that looks to ascertain status as an economic superpower today.
3. The fact is that all around the world, being a peasant during the 18th and 19th centuries was awful and that it is only in the last 20-30 years that we have come to understand and abhor racism - in fact, in most countries, that statement is still not true. Blaming the British Empire for racism is misleading - racism wasn't a particular trait of the empire. You'd as well blame the empire for female subjugation. It was specifically bad in India because India was in a unique situation as having a mix of ruling whites and a large population of native peoples, but it could have been worse. See, e.g., America of the same time period.
4. My point was that the division between India and Pakistan was not something that could be laid solely at the feet of the Brits as the OP seemed to do. I accept that it is simplistic to label the divide simply as Muslim-Hindu.
I wouldn't claim that the Brits were hugely beneficial for India. I would claim that they were not entirely negative and that there was some good to the empire as a whole. I'm not regularly exposed to points of view that see the empire as a positive anywhere - quite the opposite, actually. In my part of the world, the empire is viewed as a terribly shameful, hateful thing (something the OP seemed to claim) and I disagree with that.
Well, the 'potato famine' in Ireland wasn't just due to potato blight. The English were ripping heaps of food out of the island. Given that the population of Ireland halved as a result, it seems much of a muchness to me when playing 'oppression olympics' about who had it worse.
Remember also that the English didn't conquer India just with their own armies. They used allies and puppets; England didn't have the sheer manpower it'd take to conquer India alone. Basically their tactic was find a small power and give them advanced weapons. The small power then enjoys becoming a big power... but is then dependent on England for the arms supply, and so becomes a puppet. The English were very good at politics, playing people off each other.
However British government developed institutions in England and Ireland which eventually led to overall greater wealth and equality for most of the population. Whereas in India these institutions were systematically short-circuited to create inequality and a locus of power/wealth that favoured British colonialists.
I’ve noticed in conversations with my Indian friends, in general they seem very pragmatic with respect to the British Colonial era. Personally, I expected an outlook closer to my Irish relatives, which usually were more negative.
That’s not to say that I’m projecting the feelings of a billion people from a sample of a handful of folks, and my family certainly had some strong bias wrt the Brits. My academic exposure of Indian history basically consisted of a reading about the Indian Mutiny, a bit about Ghandi, and casual mention of partition. It’s a story and history that should be told.
Or go back further, to the Great Bengal Famine of 1770, where 10 million died in British India because the Brits had replaced too much of the food crop with cultivation of Opium to sell to China. Instead of relief from Britain the locals received aggressive tax collection to make up for the losses due to the famine.
Absolutely monstrous. But also not something that commonly comes up when people talk about Britain or even about the legacy of British Colonialism. Too often the face of Colonialism is modernity, efficient legal institutions, railroads, etc. Not these horrors, which continued in various forms up until the end of empire after WWII.
The British empire was extractive and exploitative in nature. They didn't just rule over these people, they ruled with the aim of extracting as much wealth and resources as possible.
Many people wouldn't mind living under an oppressor who only imposes their ideologies/religion/way of living on you. e.g. the Mughal empire in the subcontinent might have imposed their religion in many instances but they treated the country like their own home. It is the stunted growth and several famines under the British empire that made many regions more prone to extreme poverty and conflicts.
Thanks for the corrections, It’s nice to know the English were starving the Irish and subjugating India purely for fun and games not for any material gain.
Why is this comment down-voted? It is absolute truth. British empire was racist, made Indians slave, and was imperialist murderous entity. Good riddance to it. I hate that India was ever colonized by Britishers. They brutalized the population and plundered the wealth.
1) The British GDP increased dramatically with the (British-led) industrial revolution, regardless of any effect the British had on India. Comparing the two and claiming that it is entirely due to Britain's involvement with India is ridiculous.
2) Famines have a long history in India. During the British-led period, they were particularly bad. However, the strong system of government instilled by the British did pave the way for an organised, united Indian government that heaped resources into agricultural research in the post-war period.
3) It's not just British people that are racist. That's a feature of almost every culture and society. This is pretty much beyond dispute - take a look at the Indian caste system, for example.
4) This was done pretty much at the insistence of contemporary Muslims and Hindus. That it was done poorly is not disputed - that it is entirely the fault of Brits is a ridiculous proposition. India and Pakistan have been free from British rule for decades - there doesn't seem to have been any increased tendency for detente and diplomatic relations now that the British are inconsequential, does there?
You are also completely ignoring any effect that British rule had outside of the Indian region, aren't you? British ships were instrumental in stopping the slave trade in Europe, and British rule brought all kinds of scientific, engineering and medical progress to countries that, at the time of arrival, were still practising human sacrifice and had life expectancies in their mid-30s or younger. I think that you have a rather one-sided view on the matter.
Europe has not given itself a free pass when it comes to colonialism.
For example, at the moment they're hiding a bell in Cambridge University lest it turns out to have formerly been used on a slave plantation.
There was no government organised genocide in British colonial history that I know of, not even in Ireland in the 17th century where arguably the worst atrocities were carried out.
Saying Britain killed millions in India in WW2 is complete hyperbole.
I Was born in India, and my grandfather lived through this oppression, and told me about the things the brits did; it's kind of ironic and funny how not a lot of people talk about it.
If the point is that colonialism isn't the only variable that exists, then we are all on the same page. That was explicitly stated in the thread.
India was colonized and India has access to better technology and medicine compared to the original industrialized nations during their time to industrialize. Both are facts.
Regardless, India does not have an incentive to care about Ireland's or anyone else's path to industrialization. This is important if you want to convince India to adopt emissions standards.
About your argument, it is very easy to assume you are implying something very sinister. You mention that two countries had roughly the same colonial past and gained independence at roughly the same time, but one country is 30 times more productive per capita.
It is reasonable to expect someone to assume you are implying that one country's people are 30 times better than the other's. That is obviously putting words in your mouth, but you left a lot in your argument to the imagination.
IMO it is a similar story to India in many ways. The Brits leveraged and undermined the existing power structure and extracted value at whatever cost deemed appropriate. Was there some “benefit”… at some level yes. Were there atrocities and disgusting levels of suffering without the consent of the governed? Yes.
reply