Insane that this whole thing never mentions once the legions of servants who did their laundry, cooked their food, poured their Port and generally did all the work.
The industries in Britain had access to such huge monopolistic markets, so not really a surprise.
A navy is, effectively, mulitpurpose when it comes to trading and colonies and such in a way that an army is not. Therefor countries that can invest only in a navy are at an advantage.
Also, while it is true that the british empire was very large and impressive by almost any measure, and I don't want to downplay it too much, it's worth remembering that a very, very large portion of that empire was made up of the indian subcontinent, and while they certainly had political control over the place, the actual reality was a (very) tiny elite who replaced the previous group of rulers.
Also this empire as described lasted barely 100 years.
If you compare Thailand (never colonized) with India pre-independence, they look about neck-and-neck in terms of development. At a glance, it seems Britain "looted" India to about the same degree that the Thai monarchy "looted" Thailand.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/augmented-human-developme...
I don't think comparing an already declined India to Thai is a fair comparison.
See https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-maddison-project-data...
Based on the Maddison Project data, it looks like India's economy never had a huge shrinking event. It was just outgrown by other economies.
In 1700 India was by far the world's most populous country (using modern borders): https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?tab=map&time=1...
High population probably explains India's high GDP share in 1700.
India was always populous, so that was a constant.
You may also like to read about increasing famines in British controlled regions, how food crops were forcibly replaced with cash crops and so on. E.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394628864_An_analys...
Unfortunately not many people understand or appreciate how colonialism destroys a country and they just see the end result and claim that the citizens of the country were incapable of developing by their own.
Not only economical, but also psychological (as in lose of self confidence) and cultural (assuming own culture is somehow inferior to the rulers) destruction happens. It is not much different from abused people losing self confidence and blaming themselves and additionallyhaving to suffer victim blaming from others - just at a nation scale.
Before getting absorbed by East India company, some native kingdoms/empites did start with modernizing their military which indicates there would be a strong effort towards industrialization if it weren't for the British regulations.
Sure, the British aristocratic class did exploit the working class. But then we're no longer talking about geographies.
So why was India's development status comparable to Thailand in that case?
"A good counterpoint to Thailand is Britain becoming insanely wealthy by contemporary standard during Victorian era."
Britain was the first country to industrialize. Switzerland and the US also industrialized early, and did not have a massive colonial population to exploit. But you can see their per-capita GDP was still in the same neighborhood as the UK in the late 1800s:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p...
A lot of stories that Indians tell about their history fall apart when you look at the data. You can argue that Britain delayed India's industrialization, but since most of Asia was not industrializing at the time, it's a bit of a dubious argument. I have little doubt that Britain exploited India, but I don't think it was a historically exceptional type of exploitation.
A debate does exist around the how much of India's decline can be attributed to the British as fragmentation of central political authority started long before British arrival.
US and Switzerland had their respective advantages like large domestic market and high value industries. The population of these nations had the time to learn and adapt. The familiarity to western education obviously helped as transferring IP was relatively easy. These opportunities were absent in company ruled India(things did improve marginally once the crown took over). I would largely agree British colonial rule was not exceptional when compared to other mercantile colonies. But I do not see the similarities to Mughal rule of India where the wealth stayed in-house and was even invested locally, the key difference being assimilation vs extraction.
While they maintained control over those, they engaged in war and looting against the established Spanish empire. They managed to entice the Indian elite by being extremely effective at paying back loans using the loot they got during the Spanish era. Internal division among elite in India meant that the bankers in bengal thought they could use the British for deposing a king they did not like and at the same time handle the raids that the Marathas were performing. The British essentially used the money to bribe the king's army and took control of Bengal (which was the ricebasket for one of the largest empires of the time and the largest cloth producer). Unfortunately for said bankers, once the British took control of bengal they betrayed the bankers who lent them money. They raised an army of local sepoys and went on to take the rest of the subcontinent (although this was a slow painful process).
Even as the US revolted and gained independence, the British found themselves with a growing colony in India where civil wars and divisions between kings made it easy for the British to move in. One thing to remember is that when we talk of a British army at this point it really is an army where the lower ranks are made of Indians who were trying to make a living (as it turns out British were just better paymasters than their local counterparts).
Once they conquered India, they moved east and use Indian soldiers to take on Chinese while waging the opium war (and making a tonne of money from the trade of drugs).
Ive glossed over a bunch of things but honestly the success of the British in the 1800s is built over many many years of multiple investments some of which started in the 1500s (for instance their acquisition of Mumbai was entirely by sheer dumb luck as it was part of a dowry given by the Portuguese, who in turn received it as part of a peace treaty with a local ruler)... Many of the things that brought them success was a result of fairly immoral behaviour. And while their governing class in Europe is fairly small they had massive local administrations run by locals reporting to them.
This is just a restatement of "they were successful". Yes, but why?
In most cases, the indigenous populations signed their rights away first through clever negotiation and the companies subsequently used force to enforce their contractual rights. Over time, the companies themselves could not muster sufficient force to maintain status quo as they relied mainly on mecenaries who could only be sourced from the local populations and were notoriously fickle, so the Crown inevitably took charge.
The Navy was the best in the world.
There was a capitalist investment culture which linked elements of the aristocracy with inventors and traders, so ventures were relatively easy to fund.
The Royal Society helped spread scientific research and insights.
Private military ventures like the East India Company were closely linked to the state and 'too big to fail' (at least for a while.)
The educational system produced administrators, adventurers, soldiers, and politicians with an unshakeable, almost cult-like, sense of patriotic entitlement.
Britain was isolated physically, which meant the possibility of a distracting land war stopped being a risk after Waterloo, and sea war more or less after Trafalgar.
Basically England was a mature nation state with stable borders and a workable (if brutal and very imperfect) investment-oriented economy, while the other European powers were still fighting each other and - in many cases - trying to self-organise a national identity.
The article says.the education they received was less rigorous than schools in France, Germany or Italy. Despite this and the educational focus on the classics Britain made huge contributions to science and technology. Maybe schools did not matter that much educationally, but did, as you say, create loyalty and character.
That being said, mercantile navy based nations never really last beyond a few hundred years compared to the nations near the Steppe.
This is certainly in contrast to something like Norman invasion of England or Mongol invasion of China where the invaders fused with the local culture.
it was a lot more complex than "natives" vs the East India Company. In many places they replaced Mughal rulers who were not natives either. Some groups of natives supported them in order to get rid of rulers or existing oppressive systems (or they did not care because it made little difference to them).
> Norman invasion of England or Mongol invasion of China where the invaders fused with the local culture.
The Normans fused gradually, over time. Longer than British rule in India lasted. There were many cultural influences both ways, as can be seen in language, cuisine, political and legal institutions. British people who remained in India became Anglo-Indians, and much the same happened elsewhere in the Empire.
The key difference I was trying to highlight with my comment was assimilation vs extraction. By early 19th century, it was pretty clear among British polity that India is to be treated as a colony for resource extraction and nothing more.
OK but we're talking about a period where the UK was the world's first superpower.
I understand you want to portray the despicable conditions of servants living in rich people's houses in Victorian britain but...
Wanna have a talk about the living conditions of people in, say, Eritrea at the same time? (Eritrea has never really been colonized btw so the whole "it's because of colonialism" angle doesn't really work).
Or even just the living conditions of poor people in Britain who happened to not have jobs as servants for the rich?
My great-uncle (a radiologist) and my great-aunt (she had a pharmacy) had a servant during a bit part of their lives, Tess: and she was basically part of the family. Sure she did the laundry and cooking and cleaning but she never struck me as some oppressed human being living in misery. What I remember from visiting them was my uncle in his office, always working (analyzing radio from patients, writing (snail) mails to other doctors, etc.) and Tess always working too: just a different kind of work.
People getting paid to work for other people doesn't imply slavery. We could of course also have a talk about actual slavery, what were the last countries to officially abolish it, who were the biggest slavers in the world, which countries still have actual slaves (and sex slaves) today, etc.
I'm really not sure the "legion of servants" of Victorian-era elites were the people experiencing the worst living conditions on earth.
Indeed not. Being in service provided one of the most desirable careers you could hope for as a working class Victorian. When your options look like pit, mill, or factory, cleaning floors in a nice warm house is a good alternative. And that was just the foot in the door: there was progression available. Those jobs were hard to get, prestigious, came with their own status hierarchy, and could keep you set for life.
England at its Victorian era looks like an overpowered Brazil than anything even close resembling the US now.
> There is a longstanding view that the prosperity of Britain’s elites came at the cost of the hundreds of millions whom they subordinated and oppressed, and no doubt that is at least partly true.
"Maybe the Victorian elite succeeded in spite of being feckless and incompetent: the Industrial Revolution created great wealth, which they enjoyed passively and parasitically."
He didn’t do very well in his 7 minutes in politics, so maybe that’s part of it.
The great famine of Ireland, The great famine of India, and even The late Victorian Holocaust is a thing.
It is also well documented where other empire wanted to help the starving people, but denied because it would make them looked bad.
I really can not see that they are not lack of morality.
Those famines were not created by the Victorians. They were all originating in natural disasters that the locals were unable to handle for themselves. The claim that the Victorians did something immoral is an ideological one, as it's effectively a claim that even though they did try to help they could have tried even more - and not rising to that level of assistance (determined arbitrarily by moderns who were not there) was somehow evil.
This view is usually also implying without stating that it is uncharitable or morally wrong for governments to not suspend free markets and impose a communist planned economy the moment there's a natural disaster. That's a highly controversial view (and a wrong one if you want something that works), but it gets slipped into criticisms of the Victorians all the time.
This is the same logic that says shutting down USAID killed people. It's an attempt to convert the possibility of charity into a hard moral obligation - but if accepted, that would make it no longer charity.
Specifically:
• The Victorians did provide aid to Ireland during the potato famine.
• In India they did also provide aid, organized relief camps, suspended tax collection, and spent large sums of taxes and Victorian Brits made large numbers of charitable donations. It didn't look so different to the various aid campaigns for Africa in the 20th century.
• There is no such thing as the "late Victorian Holocaust". That's a concept from a book written by a Marxist in 2000 that argues that capitalism is the same thing as genocide, and frankly seems incredibly offensive to survivors of the actual holocaust.
So we can take a look at it with 21st century eyes, and consider that actual control is a nebulous thing, and that the absentee landowners were protecting their interests, while some at least of the local ones, including anglo-irish intervened to try and help the people on their estates. but then we also have to dig into the fiasco that is the 1847 Poor Law extension relief act, which sets up systems for relief that effectively dispossess people of their land, and makes the entire thing much worse.
Did the people creating the act understand systemic behaviour well enough to predict the consequences? Do we even understand these things well enough now? The interaction between debt and market pricing, and its inevitable consequences are playing out in real time now with AI.
Ireland produced more food than it needed, even if we don't count potatoes. It was exported, mainly to England, as other markets could pay more. Plenty of other things the victorian's did to make the situation worse. Mainly thanks to free market idealists.
Pre colonial India had famines and many ways to handle them, the British did away with them. The system they set up and replaced made it a lot worse and whatever small trickle of help they provided clearly wasn't enough.
I don't know why you're trying to whitewash colonialism. That it's immoral is pretty simple, they let millions of people die for profit.
The one in Ireland certainly was. The famine was an outcome of the exploitative economic system that they imposed on the native Irish population. The problem wasn't that there wasn't enough of food available in Ireland (or that it didn't have the capacity to produce enough food). Rather the people living there couldn't afford to buy it and due to free trade/laissez-faire policies imposed by Britain that food was exported to England.
> • The Victorians did provide aid to Ireland during the potato famine.
Yes they gave back a tiny fraction of resources they extracted from Ireland back. Fact is that if Ireland had its own government and wasn't an exploited colony the outcome would have been very different.
Also, why can't capitalism be capable of genocide?
Are there empires you would rather have lived in?
> There is a longstanding view that the prosperity of Britain’s elites came at the cost of the hundreds of millions whom they subordinated and oppressed, and no doubt that is at least partly true. But on their own terms, the British ruling class enjoyed a victorious century.
> Maybe the Victorian elite succeeded in spite of being feckless and incompetent: the Industrial Revolution created great wealth, which they enjoyed passively and parasitically. We cannot run controlled experiments on Victorian Britain, so this thesis is hard to test. But I want to explore the possibility that a relentless focus on soft skills, team building, and intra-elite networking actually worked rather well.
The essay is intentionally exploring an alternative to the obvious one. I think the essay does brush off the cruelty of the empire too quickly, but cruelty isn’t inherently profitable, so there’s still some explaining to do.
This led to their decline within 200 years, compared to China or the Roman Empire. The Chinese had to deal with the incompetent Qing, but luckily they survived as a culture, and learned a lot from Deng Xiaoping.
agreed. But it takes tremendous amounts of stupidity to not be profitable while cruelly exploiting millions of people and their resources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
This is why economics is called "the dismal science"; slaveowners got mad that economists told them having slaves was inefficient and decided the economists were bores.
Brought peace!
Perhaps not blaming everyone else for their misfortune also helped the British succeed?