None of which in any way, shape or form explains your total lack of unity, industry, government or gives any indication as to how or why you'd suddenly have become something without being ruled by a country who were something.
What miraculous event would have suddenly united India and created the network of railways and infrastructure, government and industry?
How can you sit at your PC and claim India were incapable of such? I mean even China was ruled by separate provinces and they turned out fine...Thats what 'Evolution' is, you might wanna look up its definition
We did not "attack"
We fought there, we fought against other Eurpoeans there and we fought against some indians on behalf of other indians. You really don't seem to know much about it.
We did not "attack"
We fought there, we fought against other Eurpoeans there and we fought against some indians on behalf of other indians. You really don't seem to know much about it.
No you read up on it. They were not "stolen". They were given under Royal Decree.
I wonder what you are going to try and tell me next? Do we really owe Tower Bridge to the Americans because when they bought London Bridge they were under the mistaken impression that Tower Bridge was London Bridge?
I knwo it is trendy these days to teach kids in school about how Evil Britain enslaved the world, to ignore William Wilberforce or who actually sold who to the traders, to pretend that Islam never took anywhere by conquest and that only the UK was involved in any overseas colonisation but you really, really need to learn a lot more before you spout this rubbish.
Property and land has passed hands by way of conquest for hundreds of years, many "treasures" in many museums around the world come from origins outside the lands in which they now reside. The world isn't a very nice place. Deal with it.
I do think Britain are making great amends, perhaps taking it too far now. I do feel they are paying for their old mistakes now though, and probably rightly so relatively speaking.
Can't say too much about the Greece thing since i'm fairly clueless about it. As for the kohinoor, it was essentially stolen it was basically a case of "give us the diamond as a 'present' or we kill you"
How can you sit at your PC and claim India were incapable of such? I mean even China was ruled by separate provinces and they turned out fine...Thats what 'Evolution' is, you might wanna look up its definition
Point being, it's happened may times before that the entire country was united and prospered greatly, which is one of the reasons it was so profitable for the British anyway. It can easily enough happen again.
So we should rewrite history because your mother "practically" spent half her life there? Is that even English? Comments like that are just begging for some patronising response.Please dont patronise me, my Mother practically spent half of her life there, and I very well know what went on in the real world
Oh dear, the "Royal Decree" was given by the Ottomans not by the British Monarchy....... So who was being cheeky....Royal Decree? That old chestnut , Yes a very clever way just to legalise something so they can 'steal' it and not give it back to where it belongs as they then claim they have legal ownership, the cheek!
MMmm like the syrians, egyptians, aghans, spanish, north africans etc who all suffered islamic invasions....that's life I'm afraid, powerful nations take advantage of less powerful ones. Dog eat dog.No the world isn't a very nice place, especially for the ones on the receiving end of such Crusades
Time they got over it then Or should we resent the present day gauls, vikings, romans, saxons, celts and so on?I'm just offering an alternative view of why many people around the world resent the English because of old times (not talking about Muslims). If you read news and articles carefully enough you will see it everyday.
I have zero interest in football and no idea what you are talking about.For example in football, UEFA's stance against Liverpool in the AC Milan game. People shouldn't be surprised where a lot of the resentment stems from. You seem smart enough to notice it yourself.
Exactly, The word should not be taken so literally. It was just cunningly called a Treaty by the Crown Colony while holding them at gunpoint and saying "sign here please".
Why would the British need to cunningly do anything? The most powerful nation in the world at the time were not exactly afraid of upsetting people or sweetening deals. If you need any further proof of that look at what we did to China when they stopped buying our opium......
Yes they united under a conqueror and united under British rule......
India was prosperous for the UK because the UK knew how to turn all those assests and that potential into wealth. Something the Indians clearly did not know how to do, possibly because they were too busy infighting.
Why would the British need to cunningly do anything? The most powerful nation in the world at the time were not exactly afraid of upsetting people or sweetening deals. If you need any further proof of that look at what we did to China when they stopped buying our opium......
Right or wrong, India would not be in the place it is now if not for British infrastructure.
Very true. But you cannot assume that it would automatically in a worse position than it is now. It could well be in a far better position. Yes, possibility exists that it could be worse off, but you gotta look at both sides
India have benefitted plenty from UK rule. The UK benefitted tremendously from Roman and Norman conquest. Neither of whom conquered the UK for the benefit of the UK.Yes, but that conqueror worked for the benefit of India. Not for the benefit of another nation entirely. That is the key difference. And that conqueror was Indian. he was just the leader of one of the regions and then eventually became the leader of all of them.
Sounds a tad xenophobic and racist.....There is a fairly big difference if the person whose in charge is your own rather than a foreigner.
It was a brief and clearly not welcome union is that what you mean? India were never a world power were they. India never had industry or Government or infrastructure or anything remotely close. I think you're letting a little pride in your origins cloud reality.We did know how to do it, and proof lies int he example that it had happened earlier. Just because taht was not it's state at that point of time, does not mean that it had not happened earlier and will not happen again.
The words "which was taken" doesn't scream out that Ranjit Singh was the rightful owner either does it..... Who do you think it belongs to precisely?According to wikipedia,
The gem called the Koh-i-Noor which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk by Maharajah Ranjit Singh shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England.
The word surrender doesn't exactly scream out present now does it? And it's not cunning as much as brute force. "give it to us. or die"
I have looked at both sides and there is nothing to indicate that India would be better off in any way.Very true. But you cannot assume that it would automatically in a worse position than it is now. It could well be in a far better position. Yes, possibility exists that it could be worse off, but you gotta look at both sides
Indeed.
I dont condone the Brittish rule of India. Their actions where discusting, its a dark chapter in English history.
When one group of people think their better than the rest the result is always the same.
Heres another question, if Britain or other European nations had not conquered much of the world, would have the problems we have today, and would we have the benefits we have today, obviously we can never know, but it would be interesting to see what the world be like.
From a personal POV I would not be where i am for sure.
India have benefitted plenty from UK rule. The UK benefitted tremendously from Roman and Norman conquest. Neither of whom conquered the UK for the benefit of the UK.
Perhaps But can you say you would have nothing against an indian/chinese etc king or queen?Sounds a tad xenophobic and racist.....
It was a brief and clearly not welcome union is that what you mean? India were never a world power were they. India never had industry or Government or infrastructure or anything remotely close. I think you're letting a little pride in your origins cloud reality.
The words "which was taken" doesn't scream out that Ranjit Singh was the rightful owner either does it..... Who do you think it belongs to precisely?
I have looked at both sides and there is nothing to indicate that India would be better off in any way.