Personally, I think this thread has be me seriously derailed. People are attempting to explain why China/India actually didn't suffer from the British in an attempt to prove that India/China did suffer.
Let me say it now.
India suffered a lot (understatement of the year). China also suffered.
Because I'm fairly certain that we all know how much India suffered (do I even have to mention the famines), I'll talk about China and why China suffered a lot too.
China had been a prosperous empire before the British - the most prosperous in the world (not an exaggeration). They were getting silver from everywhere.
The British began using India to grow poppies and opium, ruining China for the next century. China became bankrupt to the point where they would not recover until the REVOLUTION. MORE THAN A CENTURY.
The effects of this bankruptcy were huge. China simply couldn't afford modernization after that. The Qing slipped into debt...which spiraled and became worse and worse.
Britain ruined China's opportunities for a whole century. Those famines China suffered from later? Cause they were bankrupt, so they kept increasing taxes. Boxer Rebellion? Happened because Britain almost literally controlled China.
Personally, I think this thread is kinda pointless. Yes, imperialism is bad - does it matter where it was worse at? It just means that we have to learn from the past and make sure imperialism doesn't return.
FINALLY: someone said that Britain didn't have a legal obligation to return Hong Kong, but they still did it anyways.
I have just one thing to say. Before making assertions like this, know the facts.
Britain stole Hong Kong from China during the first Opium War, and later took a LEASE on the New Territories for 99 years. I don't know about you, but you're supposed to RETURN LEASES after it's over. The problem is that Hong Kong can't survive without the New Territories, so...
If India has the right to take Goa back from Portugal by military force, when Portugal hadn't even stolen the land from a predecessor to India, I fail to see why the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong was not right.
Let me say it now.
India suffered a lot (understatement of the year). China also suffered.
Because I'm fairly certain that we all know how much India suffered (do I even have to mention the famines), I'll talk about China and why China suffered a lot too.
China had been a prosperous empire before the British - the most prosperous in the world (not an exaggeration). They were getting silver from everywhere.
The British began using India to grow poppies and opium, ruining China for the next century. China became bankrupt to the point where they would not recover until the REVOLUTION. MORE THAN A CENTURY.
The effects of this bankruptcy were huge. China simply couldn't afford modernization after that. The Qing slipped into debt...which spiraled and became worse and worse.
Britain ruined China's opportunities for a whole century. Those famines China suffered from later? Cause they were bankrupt, so they kept increasing taxes. Boxer Rebellion? Happened because Britain almost literally controlled China.
Personally, I think this thread is kinda pointless. Yes, imperialism is bad - does it matter where it was worse at? It just means that we have to learn from the past and make sure imperialism doesn't return.
FINALLY: someone said that Britain didn't have a legal obligation to return Hong Kong, but they still did it anyways.
I have just one thing to say. Before making assertions like this, know the facts.
Britain stole Hong Kong from China during the first Opium War, and later took a LEASE on the New Territories for 99 years. I don't know about you, but you're supposed to RETURN LEASES after it's over. The problem is that Hong Kong can't survive without the New Territories, so...
If India has the right to take Goa back from Portugal by military force, when Portugal hadn't even stolen the land from a predecessor to India, I fail to see why the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong was not right.