FYI it was socialism that held back the Indian economy during the 70s and 80s.
And it was colonialism that drained the country's wealth for over two hundred years.
Here, Mr. Andreessen, educate yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=bengal+famine
The Iranian people finally rose against the imperial influence of the British and ejected all British citizens in the early years of the fifties. Mossadegh, the prime minister, rose to prominence on an anti-english platform, initially demanding a 50% share of profits and reasonable treatment of Iranian labour. The British, under Attlee as well as with Churchill back in control, selfishly rejected all attempts at comproimise, and produced several internal reports that spoke of how inferior the Iranians were as a race.
Finally, having lost their influence, the English turned to the US for assistance in overthrowing the democratically elected government. Truman resisted, but Eisenhower relented, with John Foster Dulles enthusiastically moving forward with a coup. The Shahs absolute power was reestablished, and his oppressive rule paved way for the Islamic revolution two decades later.
One of many illustrative examples of how the English could never be considered benevolent rulers.
(As described in All the Shah's men, by Stephen Kinzer)
The Shah was not a puppet. Puppets dance to the tune of puppet master & master would not replace said puppet with Ayatollahs.
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was an Iranian Nationalist and the story of 20th century in Iran is far far more nuanced than the caricature painted by (very interested) partisans such as Kinzer.
Do the research. This [2] is the Iran that the "puppet's" father, Reza Pahlavi ("the Great") inherited. Exceptional moves by the "puppet's" father began with establishment of an independent National Bank (which did not please "master" in City of London). And continued until Iran was actually considered a geopolitical threat to the gang that started the Trilateral Commission [3].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company
[2]: http://www.chaonix.com/DL/National_Geography_April_1921.pdf
[3]:https://youtu.be/DqrHQpRHwws (Don't be confused. Jimmy here is saying Iran is /too/ stable and my friend Zibig & our friends like to see massive instability in this region until "the great game" is won.}
[minor typo edits; link fix; final edit note corrected NG pdf link.]
Having said that, I think Kinzer do your view more justice than I did in my summary. I do apologize for over simplifying things.
Britain Does Owe Reparations https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4
Indian share of world economy went from 23-24% before colonialism to less than 4% under colonialism. India's share of World Trade went from 27% to 2% under colonialism.
India's healthcare worsened during colonialism because all the resources were exported to Europe for cheap and in abundance
India's literacy was worsened during colonialism and was just close to 10% during Independence.
India's revolutionaries who opposed colonialism and raised against the British were brutally killed or hanged under British rule.
Anyone who spoke against the colonialism were jailed.
British Divide and Rule policy still affects India today.
Whether the economy would have declined less in the absence of colonialism is really impossible to answer. But to cite colonialism as the only reason is wrong, especially since the decline coincides roughly with the scientific and industrial revolutions that occurred in Western Europe and later, America.
Also India pre 1947 was a civilization; a 2000+ year old one. Closest analogy is Europe. Do people vex about the existence of Belgium (a small country)?
India went from exporting finished goods to exporting raw materials from the 1780's to the 1860's. Coincidence?
To repeat what I said below:
the industrial revolution in textiles kicked into high gear in England in 1822, a good 50 years or so after India was under effective company rule. And textiles was an industry where India had a comparative advantage before company rule. Wonder where Britain got all that raw material to make textiles from?
From wikipedia: During the period, 1780–1860, India changed from being an exporter of processed goods for which it received payment in bullion, to being an exporter of raw materials and a buyer of manufactured goods.[20] More specifically, in the 1750s, mostly fine cotton and silk was exported from India to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa; by the second quarter of the 19th century, raw materials, which chiefly consisted of raw cotton, opium, and indigo, accounted for most of India's exports.[21]
Starting in the 1830s, British textiles began to appear in—and soon to inundate—the Indian markets, with the value of the textile imports growing from £5.2 million 1850 to £18.4 million in 1896.
Right around 1830 was when the American Southern cotton plantation system took off, and more or less completely displaced Indian cotton on the world market[1] because it was cheap, cotton gins were efficient, and it was a whole lot closer to ship it from Mobile or Charleston to Birmingham, than to go all the way down around the Cape and back.
Opium became a huge export for India because it was the only thing other than bullion the Brits (and Americans, and Dutch, and Portuguese) could hit on to trade profitably in the China market. Then, later, that cash crop was undercut by cheaper product produced in Turkey, and by Chinese domestic production.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin#Effects_in_the_Unit...
There is about 70 years from the start of company rule to the 1830's. If you're not allowed to manufacture textiles in that time period, what exactly do you think would happen? You'd maintain a comparative advantage?
On opium: In India, its cultivation, as well as the manufacture and traffic to China, were subject to the British East India Company (BEIC), as a strict monopoly of the British government.[7]
Opium, like most industries, only benefited the British. So it would be more accurate for you to say the British used the Indians to start exporting opium.
So lets recap. People that mostly export textiles suddenly finds themselves 1) unable to make their own textiles, 2) forced to plant cotton and other crops for sole benefit of the British. So you have a whole civilization barred from selling finished goods. Gee wonder what happens to them.
[1] Taxation of salt has occurred in India since the earliest times. However, this tax was greatly increased when the British East India Company began to establish its rule over provinces in India. In 1835, special taxes were imposed on Indian salt to facilitate its import. This paid huge dividends for the traders of the British East India Company. When the Crown took over the administration of India from the Company in 1858, the taxes were not replaced.
The stringent salt taxes imposed by the British were vehemently condemned by the Indian public. In 1885, at the first session of the Indian National Congress in Bombay, a prominent Congress Leader S.A.Swaminatha Iyer raised the issue of the salt tax.[1] There were further protests throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries culminating in Mahatma Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha in 1930. This sathyagraha was followed by other sathyagrahas in other parts of the country.
After the arrest of Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu lead the sathyagrahis to Dharasana Salt works in Gujarat and was arrested by the police. C. Rajagopalachari broke the Salt Laws at Vedaranyam, in Madras Province in the same year. Thousands courted arrest and were imprisoned in large numbers. The administration eventually relented and invited Mahatma Gandhi to England to attend the Second Round Table Conference. Gandhi's Dandi March got wide news coverage and proved to be a turning point in the history of India's independence movement.
The salt tax, however, continued to remain in effect and was repealed only when Jawaharlal Nehru became the Prime Minister of the Interim Government in 1946.
Now imagine an alternate scenario where America comes along and says, no China, you can only make plastic and metal parts. I have the machines that can make components. You have to sell these parts to me at fixed artificially low prices. I will then finish them in my factories and sell them to you. No other country can sell in your market. Suddenly you have 1BN people you can practically shoot smartphones at and make money.
70 years later Brazil starts making tons of smartphones. Great. They still can't sell in China. Brazil wins, America wins, China loses.
Please cite this very interesting piece of information.
Est. world GDP, 1750: $128 billion - India @ ~22% = $28 billion
Est. world GDP, 1950: $4 trillion - India @ ~ 4% = $163 billion
You would enjoy this as well -https://www.change.org/p/british-government-england-uk-india...
America was last a British colony, but it was far from a uniform culture of expat British. And it reinvented itself violently upon rebellion. Into something quite new in the world. Or at least not seen in a long time. And definitely not British.
Yes, the American government was a new thing, but it was built on a foundation already understood by the founding fathers.
I often wonder about the world in the British had given seats in the House of Commons to its bigger colonies. Distance and communications speeds were problems as well as the government's attitude toward the colonies. It probably would have been cheaper than the world spanning war they ended up fighting with France during the American Revolution.
Ironically the representative would have spoken in favor! But because he was not heard at all (and his objection dismissed as irrelevant), that put colonists in the same bucket as slaves and women - those who were not heard in government. That was what was intolerable.
No, a true sentiment always.
I am talking about actual MPs from the colonies not the consult after the fact system and definitely not the way they ignored and ridiculed Benjamin Franklin.
Apart from that, I agree wholeheartedly. The US phenomenon cannot be reduced to "some rogue British colony that stroke it rich".
The 'Americans' were the occupiers. Native Americans have quite a tale to tell about brutality.
It seems to be conveniently forgotten that many tribes were complicit in aiding and abetting Europeans in exterminating their rivals as well. Cortez conquered the Aztecs with 600 Spaniards... and 200,000 Tlaxcalans. The Iroquois confederation did most of the work of exterminating other native populations throughout the Great Lakes region.
-that said lets not sweep the brutality against native Americans under the rug.
The criticism of FreeBasics would have gone to Reliance (an Indian company) if Facebook hadn't started this high-decibel campaign with two full pages of ads with heading "What Net Neutrality activists are not telling you". FB wanted the attention so they got it.
Which is exactly what he says he meant:
The original was catastrophically dumb. Was it because it's what he actually believes, or because he didn't spend more than fifteen microseconds considering his words? Beats me. Fun to watch, though.
The original statement may have different interpretations, but none of them result in mapping "anti-colonialism" to "socialism." There's just no way to get from A to B actually looking at what was said.
Then he comes along and says he meant something completely different. No relation to the original statement. Apparently a moment of total brain confusion.
Do we take him at his word? I suppose we could, but then we're basically giving everybody a free pass to retroactively alter any statement they've made in any way if they don't like the reaction.
For what it's worth, I don't dislike Mr. Andreessen and have only a vague idea of who he even is (something to do with Netscape, right?).
And only a single stupid interpretation results in mapping "against anti-colonialism" to "pro colonialism", but you chose exactly that one.
And now, apparently a self-righteous hypocrite who is arguing against net neutrality because it suits his financial interests in Facebook.
There isn't a charitable interpretation to what he said. There's only a "damage control" interpretation. And that one doesn't really fit well with the fact that he blocked people who retweetted (and hence gave more prominence) to his original tweet.
Any other (more sane) interpretation might be a really, really profoundly stupid statement, as well. I don't care and am not qualified to argue those.
The point is that we can't have meaningful conversations when so many people jump immediately on the misinterpretation of a statement that is most useful for bringing out the hate for the one who spoke it.
Agreed.
The exercise in measuring charitability is merely academic in this instance. The bottom line is a VC has said a really stupid thing which goes against his earlier pronouncements on NN, because he literally has money on the line as an FB investor. Which ever way you look at it, he sounds like an out-of-touch corporatist.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073021
The exercise in measuring charitability is merely academic in this instance.
If we value having any kind of meaningful discussion then does it really not matter that we criticize on the grounds you mention and not just seize on the opportunity to mischaracterize a statement as pro-colonialist?
It's not a mischaracterization. Just because he now regrets calling his opponents "anti-colonialists" (or rather because the internet made him regret it) does not mean I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Did he explicitly state that he thinks India would be better off under colonial rule? No.
Did he call opponents of Free Basics "anti-colonialist"?
If he's uninformed about what colonialism did to India, then he should shut his mouth about it. But that would be too hard seeing as he has personal interest in Facebook getting a monopoly there and offering a second-class internet experience without having to invest anything into bandwidth (which would be paid for by the state).
Besides, the so-called "explanation" of his views in further tweets makes it look even worse because "anti-colonialism" is apparently very close to "nationalism". So those filthy Indians are actually being nationalists for telling poor little Mark to go fuck himself and his idea of a cheaply done monopoly.
... which is still different from being in favor of or somehow defending colonialism (leaving aside the notion that he must think of them as "filthy" Indians).
We can criticize Andreessen for any among a giant pile of good reasons for doing so, while understanding that in this instance he was talking about something like anti-Westernism and should have used something like that phrase instead of the one he did.
100% of your dislike for him remains and is well-founded without undermining your argument with the belief that he really thinks those "filthy Indians" ought never to have escaped colonial rule.
(I have zero motivation to defend Andreessen on anything he's actually said or done -- I just object to the misinterpretation and mischaracterization going on here because it destroys valuable conversation and debate.)
Those are not my words -- I am responding to those words.
@pmarca referred to the post-colonial anti-colonial mix of nationalism, socialism, abuse/power that afflicted many ex-colonies
is itself pretty obtuse -- it's basically saying that post-colonial societies like India still haven't quite "grown up" yet, and don't really know what's best for them. Hence, their rejection of the wondrous gift to humanity that is Free Basics.
Instead of implying that Marc Andreessen is uneducated or ignorant, explain your disagreement civilly, without name-calling or mud-slinging. If the issue is too sensitive for you to do that, it's probably best to refrain from replying until you've cooled down enough to remain civil and present a legitimate counter-argument.
So the previous comment was quite accurate. The Mughals of Babur were far removed from the Mughals of Bahadur II.
People were glad to get rid of them and their wars which crippled India.
Britain kicked them out and (mostly) unified India.
Not to say I have any idea what would have happened without colonialism, but thinking that India would have retained their share of world GDP is naive.
Owning India is what allowed Britain to fund its own development (as well as all its international wars). The british destroyed india's local textile sector (which was world-famous), shipped all the cotton to Britain, and sold clothes BACK to Indians. That's how this industrial revolution happened.
This is what Mahatma Gandhi opposed and encouraged Indians to make their own yarn. That's where his association with the "charkha" and swadeshi movement comes from.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying pace of development wasn't seriously set back through colonialism, I'm questioning specifically this percentage of GDP argument.
If India wasn't a colony, wealth would not have concentrated in GB, likely slowing Down their development and Maybe even making them more open to local conflicts.
Provided the French or Dutch didn't conquer more of India, and, it's hard to argue that wealth remaining in India would have not have resulted in more trade and local development.
We can definitely say that having someone come to your country, and clearly stop you from building the best product you can build, sell or pruchase, impoverishes your country.
You can see in Russia, in the absence of any colonialism, the enormous struggle which there was to transform an economy dependent on manual labour, and with an elite dependent on feudal social structures, into a modern economy. I would separate the issues of abuses/crimes and the issues of development in the sense that the abuses were perpetrated due to moral failings, of power-hunger, racism, and greed, but development is not just about morality, it's about having the right policy and the right trajectory for society. In terms of development, the really damaging attitude was that India's ancient culture should not be disturbed to make way for industrialization, and this was an opinion shared by many well-meaning British and also Indians, pre and post independence.
Ah, that's so much better. /s
If you understand the affects of colonialism of 200 years - economic and other exploitation - sluggish is pretty much the best case you can expect after freedom. Comparing to other colonies India has done fairly well for having being nearly destroyed and rebuilt.