The Most Evil Person In History.

[Mitchymo]

Oooooo

It a minimum, the British brought order to the chaos. And you can hardly blame them for wife cremations since 1947.

I liked Nothardup's sanskrit proverb. The British empire was no different than any other empire before it, or after. Some good, for some. But exploitation was the motivation, not trying to make the world a better place. Its fortunate that there was a silver lining to our empire building, that we had influence and support from the commonwealth that enabled us to punch above our weight in WWII for example.

 

[Latimer]

Henry VIII is estimated to have killed, proportionately, as many of his own people as Hitler or Stalin: a million or so from a smaller population.

Do you have a source on Henry VIII? (I'm not a great fan, in any case.)

 

[zoltanspawn]

But exploitation was the motivation, not trying to make the world a better place.

Although it's very hard to gauge these things in retrospect, I disagree. The Raj intended to profit, but by making the world a better place.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

lucky sun no power hungry
_haaa_

anyway

on wit a show

tinku

 

[kallipolis]

Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
Henry VIII is estimated to have killed, proportionately, as many of his own people as Hitler or Stalin: a million or so from a smaller population.

Do you have a source on Henry VIII? (I'm not a great fan, in any case.)

Of coure he doesn't...it's called propositional logic....an assertion, masquerading as fact....

 

[kallipolis]

Quote Originally Posted by Mitchymo View Post
But exploitation was the motivation, not trying to make the world a better place.

Although it's very hard to gauge these things in retrospect, I disagree. The Raj intended to profit, but by making the world a better place.

The original motivation was profit...but, as you correctly remind us, the end result was to make the world a better place...with the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand a few examples worth noting.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

The original motivation was profit...but, as you correctly remind us, the end result was to make the world a better place...with the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand a few examples worth noting.

Basically ones where the local populations were sparse and generally nomadic, making it easy for us to harry, kill, and move allowing for white populations to come in. These white populations were then allowed to keep more of the wealth in the nation.

Where we had countries around the world with larger populations, we instead moved less in and just stole everything that wasn't nailed down. India's share of the world economy before we came along was 23%, by the time we left it was below 4%.

 

[kallipolis]

Basically ones where the local populations were sparse and generally nomadic, making it easy for us to harry, kill, and move allowing for white populations to come in. These white populations were then allowed to keep more of the wealth in the nation.

Where we had countries around the world with larger populations, we instead moved less in and just stole everything that wasn't nailed down. India's share of the world economy before we came along was 23%, by the time we left it was below 4%.

Bear in mind that when the British merchants arrived in India it was a country already under the administration of the Mughal Empire, Persian Muslims imposing a feudal system on India's population. Further, the Dutch, French, and the Portuguese had already set up trading colonies in India long before the arrival of the British. Pondicherry remained a French territory, and Goa a Portuguese colony while the British administered India...in fact most of India remained under the control of its rajahs, until independence when the Union of India government simply marched its armies into the princely provinces, imposing direct rule from Delhi.

Prior to the arrival of the British, India was a vast sub continent of provinces ruled by despotic princes...there was no central government, nor a national statistics office to register India's share of world trade.... and the GDP of many countries has expanded rapidly over the past 70 years...meaning...that India's share of world trade since 1947 has shrunk in relation to the development of other countries.

Since the year dot tribes have been conquering other tribes, evolving into nations, then into empires....the history of the human race has been thus....empires rise, empires fall...In 1945 the United States was the pre-eminent nation on this planet....the result of the Vietnam War proved that even the mightiest of nations has its limitations.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

^ I am not really sure what your point is? Yes I am aware other bad empires have existed, but does that mean I should ignore the crimes of my own?

This is meant to be a thread naming the most evil people in history, the fun is destroyed if we all go your route and say everything is evil since day dot.

 

[Benvolio]

I liked Nothardup's sanskrit proverb. The British empire was no different than any other empire before it, or after. Some good, for some. But exploitation was the motivation, not trying to make the world a better place. Its fortunate that there was a silver lining to our empire building, that we had influence and support from the commonwealth that enabled us to punch above our weight in WWII for example.

Actually, the British Empire, or much of it, was acquired defensively. The Portuguese and Spanish began the age of exploration and colonization. (Philippa of Lancaster played a part by encouraging her son Henry the Navigator). Then France joined in, grabbing much of North America. Falling behind its traditional enemies Britain began with colonies in the New World. When France started the French and Indian War, Britain was able to take Canada and in the Peace settlement acquired morse Islands in the Caribbean. The Portuguese and
French acquired parts of India first, and the British took them away. It early become a competition among traditional enemies and continued to be so in large part. Germany came late to the table and as late as WWII, the competition in the acquisition of colonies by Germany, Japan and Italy was a part of their motivation.
It largely greq out of the European idea that a king owned his country, and by extension, countries could own other countries. That thinking continued until very recently. Certainly, it came from the Romans, but the idea is older even than that.

 

[kallipolis]

^ I am not really sure what your point is? Yes I am aware other bad empires have existed, but does that mean I should ignore the crimes of my own?

This is meant to be a thread naming the most evil people in history, the fun is destroyed if we all go your route and say everything is evil since day dot.

We cannot change history....and we should never subscribe to the idea that a revisionist political agenda, that attempts to rewrite history should not be challenged....fortunately, the history of India is open for all to read....try the India Office, Library in London to begin with.

Interpretation of historical events, such as wars may well be a matter of whether your tribe was the victor, or the vanquished.

I've not said that everything has been evil since the year dot...I have written that since the emergence of tribal communities, human beings have sought to dominate other human beings with slavery a factor that remains a fact of life today.

 

[Benvolio]

One source for this comparison is Henry VIII by Jasper Ridley p281, although I misremembered the million figure. The usual estimate is 72,000. Ridley's estimate is 60,000, which is over 2 percent of England's population of 2.8 million, which he compares to the 6 million Jewish people executed by Hitler out of the population of Europe. It is shy of Stalin's 10 million Russians executed. It was remembering from a different source, but have not been able to find it.

 

[kallipolis]

One source for this comparison is Henry VIII by Jasper Ridley p281, although I misremembered the million figure. The usual estimate is 72,000. Ridley's estimate is 60,000, which is over 2 percent of England's population of 2.8 million, which he compares to the 6 million Jewish people executed by Hitler out of the population of Europe. It is shy of Stalin's 10 million Russians executed. It was remembering from a different source, but have not been able to find it.

This is guess work that has no basis in fact for the estimates are simply not supported by any available information put to paper, or even anecdotal evidence drawn from a reliable source.

Henry V111 was credited with being an intellectual who spoke five languages, and you correctly remind us wrote a defence of the Catholic faith, in response to Luther's criticisms. Naturally Henry V111s womanising tends to warp the picture of his rule...

The dissolution of the monasteries, and the execution of Thomas More will inevitably divide allegiances with the resultant speculation.

 

[Latimer]

One source for this comparison is Henry VIII by Jasper Ridley p281, although I misremembered the million figure. The usual estimate is 72,000. Ridley's estimate is 60,000, which is over 2 percent of England's population of 2.8 million, which he compares to the 6 million Jewish people executed by Hitler out of the population of Europe. It is shy of Stalin's 10 million Russians executed. It was remembering from a different source, but have not been able to find it.

Thank you.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I'm skeptical of any history of the Raj which doesn't account for both its goods and its evils. Mr. Tharoor is absolutely correct to point out the crimes of the British in India. But consider the example of the railways, which he maintains were constructed to siphon the wealth out of India through its ports. True enough, and yet in 1929 that same network was transporting a mind-boggling 620 million passengers a year. How did the industrialist raiders' plans for plunder go so far awry?

 

[JohnnyAnger]

I'm skeptical of any history of the Raj which doesn't account for both its goods and its evils. Mr. Tharoor is absolutely correct to point out the crimes of the British in India. But consider the example of the railways, which he maintains were constructed to siphon the wealth out of India through its ports. True enough, and yet in 1929 that same network was transporting a mind-boggling 620 million passengers a year. How did the industrialist raiders' plans for plunder go so far awry?

The tracks of the Indian Railway system were built on a scam though. The British government guaranteed the price per mile (double that of the railway in Canada and Australia), gave all the contracts to British companies, but laid the cost of the Indians. The fact that the British also refused to ever transport food on trains did not aid any of the famines that occurred during the Colonial rule. Nor in the long run were the Indians left with much as the British stopped investing in it, and ended up taking 40% of all rolling stock was taken to the Middle East during WW2 and not returned.


Its good that the Indians gained train travel, but no one wonders how the rest of the world got trains without the British doing it for them.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

This is guess work that has no basis in fact for the estimates are simply not supported by any available information put to paper, or even anecdotal evidence drawn from a reliable source.

Well you can go look at works like The World Economy: Historical Statistics if you want to have a look at what has been done in the past few years by the OECD (Angus Maddison wrote the book). Its a decent piece of work that goes into what we can work out from the past. It paints a similar image as the one put forward in my linked video.

 

[mikemizanin729]

This woman is responsible for Fifty Shades of Grey and the horible fad that had this rubbish talked about everywhere.

 

[Benvolio]

This is guess work that has no basis in fact for the estimates are simply not supported by any available information put to paper, or even anecdotal evidence drawn from a reliable source.

Henry V111 was credited with being an intellectual who spoke five languages, and you correctly remind us wrote a defence of the Catholic faith, in response to Luther's criticisms. Naturally Henry V111s womanising tends to warp the picture of his rule...

The dissolution of the monasteries, and the execution of Thomas More will inevitably divide allegiances with the resultant speculation.

History records that Henry executed protestant heretics before the divorce and then thousands of Catholics who resisted the change. Look up pilgrimage of grace for an example. Ordinary thieves and other criminals were often executed. Forcing a nation to abandon their religion upon pain of death should be enough to get him on the evil list without absolute proof of the exact numbers. Henry was an extreme believer in the divine right of kings, believing that if he wanted to kill some one or an entire group, it was ipso facto Gods will.

 

[kallipolis]

Well you can go look at works like The World Economy: Historical Statistics if you want to have a look at what has been done in the past few years by the OECD (Angus Maddison wrote the book). Its a decent piece of work that goes into what we can work out from the past. It paints a similar image as the one put forward in my linked video.

I am referring to Benvolio's claims on death rates in England, and Wales during the reign of Henry V111

Nothing to do with the British administration of India