Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: AnAmericanMother
This is the same argument between capitalism and socialism.

Not really. A better analogy would be to state that blacks in America today have benefited from the slavery of their ancestors. That does not make slavery right, but if it had not happened there would be very few blacks in America and they would conceivably have been born in Africa instead of America.

Throughout history, anything related to humans have had good and bad sides to it, as did British imperialism.

If the East India Company hadn't been able to make a profit, it would have gone home.

The East India Company not only traded with India, it ruled India. They never planned on going home, and made their profits by taxing the native population. They were at war in various regions of the country the whole time they were in charge. After a rebellion in the 1850s, the British government took over the country, but the East India company ruled parts of India with their private army for 100 years.
15 posted on 08/20/2012 1:18:53 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: microgood

Why do you think the Marxists have been calling working people “Wage Slaves” for 150 years? It’s a false analogy, but they want to make it stick.


16 posted on 08/20/2012 3:19:53 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: microgood
The East India Company not only traded with India, it ruled India.

Which it took over from the Muslims. India was going to be subjugated to someone at that point. It was far better that they were ruled by Britain than the Moghuls or France.

Britain brought many benefits to India and helped to make her the competetive giant she is today. And just as the US has fiscal/altruistic motives mixed as we help open emerging markets across the globe, so was it with Britain.

17 posted on 08/20/2012 4:55:56 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: microgood
The East India Company not only traded with India, it ruled India. They never planned on going home, and made their profits by taxing the native population. They were at war in various regions of the country the whole time they were in charge. After a rebellion in the 1850s, the British government took over the country, but the East India company ruled parts of India with their private army for 100 years.

So? In order to have a profit, it's necessary that production be possible. You need healthy workers who are not in continual fear of being robbed or killed. You need good roads to get goods to market. You need reasonably competent and honest local government. All these things benefit the common people.

You know who hated the Brits the most? The local elites who wanted to rule over the people in place of the Brits, and exploit them far more than the Brits ever would.

19 posted on 08/20/2012 5:10:00 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (A deep-fried storm is coming, Mr Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson