Noseal never lies....he said so. lol
Bame people
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Noseal never lies....he said so. lol
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
You prefer the history that absolves UK from the poverty and misery endured by the people of the colonies. Poverty and misery that continues to this day caused by the appropriation of the wealth of the colonies by the UK. Not just the UK, other colonial countries were as guilty of causing the misery and poverty that continues to this day.
It's there for you to read, you say you have an interest, but you refuse to believe it. Instead you accuse those that are aware of such history of being right wing trolls.
Economic impact
A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today. Indeed some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty.
— Jawaharlal Nehru, on the economic effects of the British rule, in his book The Discovery of India[123]
Historians continue to debate whether the long-term impact of British rule was to accelerate the economic development of India, or to distort and ret@rd it. In 1780, the conservative British politician Edmund Burke raised the issue of India's position: he vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this line of attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of the Mughal Empire.[124] Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and of imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible Bengal famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal
A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today. Indeed some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty.
— Jawaharlal Nehru, on the economic effects of the British rule, in his book The Discovery of India[123]
Historians continue to debate whether the long-term impact of British rule was to accelerate the economic development of India, or to distort and ret@rd it. In 1780, the conservative British politician Edmund Burke raised the issue of India's position: he vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this line of attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of the Mughal Empire.[124] Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and of imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible Bengal famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal
P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy.
Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still highly controversial among many historians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still highly controversial among many historians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Edit: I see ret@rd doesn't pass the auto censor these days.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
No idea I've seen it used. Were the snowflakes offended, so it was added to the censor?
Sponsored Links
No.
Perhaps m-itch can spell - perhaps not. All that extra testosterone takes away those crucial brain cells.
You prefer the history that absolves UK from the poverty and misery endured by the people of the colonies. Poverty and misery that continues to this day caused by the appropriation of the wealth of the colonies by the UK. Not just the UK, other colonial countries were as guilty of causing the misery and poverty that continues to this day.
It's there for you to read, you say you have an interest, but you refuse to believe it. Instead you accuse those that are aware of such history of being right wing trolls.
A counter view, in the same articleEconomic impact
A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today. Indeed some kind of chart might be drawn up to indicate the close connection between length of British rule and progressive growth of poverty.
— Jawaharlal Nehru, on the economic effects of the British rule, in his book The Discovery of India[123]
Historians continue to debate whether the long-term impact of British rule was to accelerate the economic development of India, or to distort and ret@rd it. In 1780, the conservative British politician Edmund Burke raised the issue of India's position: he vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this line of attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of the Mughal Empire.[124] Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and of imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible Bengal famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal
Deny it all you want, but that is the history that you refuse to accept.P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy.
Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still highly controversial among many historians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj
Edit: I see ret@rd doesn't pass the auto censor these days.
Robert Mugabe would love your logic.
Certainly not me. In fact I've never heard of a Natzi party. Have you m itch?
Noseall
D
dontbelieveawordofit
nothing ever gets resolved here
Have you ever heard of the Natzi party? I doubt it.
Nonsense.
B
Bodd
There was never a Natzi party dummy.
B
Bodd
Sponsored Links
