Would Qing China done better as a colony by foreigners?

[Burton K Wheeler]

I believe this sort of information is kept in bound packets of paper which are related to particular topics.

Something like a wikipedia article, then?

 

[Faeelin]

The british did treat subjects like 2nd class citizens- my question is why is Japan better when it was similar

The argument of everyone cheering for British rule is that Britannia would do the best job improving the colonies and modernizing them.

If we're going by OTL colonies, then everyone should yearn for Dai Nippon to stretch from Vladistovok to Jakarta.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I think the victims of the Nanking Holocaust and Unit 731 would beg to differ.

 

[Faeelin]

I think the victims of the Nanking Holocaust and Unit 731 would beg to differ.

Japan between 1890 and 1920 is a very different beast than Japan in the 1930s and 1940s.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Yeah, I guess so. But didn't they try to rigidly enforce the adoption of Japanese culture in its colonies, like in Taiwan?

 

[Darkling]

Japan between 1890 and 1920 is a very different beast than Japan in the 1930s and 1940s.

The problem of course being that one evolved into the other so having a lot of people under their yolk would eventually end up with various colonial women being pressed into servicing the Japanese troops etc.

 

[Faeelin]

The problem of course being that one evolved into the other so having a lot of people under their yolk would eventually end up with various colonial women being pressed into servicing the Japanese troops etc.

Only if you believe in a deterministic universe where Japan always goes crazy in the 1930s.

 

[Darkling]

What was India's growth rate in the 19th century, and what efforts did the British take to provide India's farmers with new crops and credit?

I don't know what India's growth rate (from what I recall it wasn't all that stellar but that is vague recollection, (I will have a look later to see if I can get had figures) I can tell you however that India was host to the world biggest University in the latter part of the 19th century.

As North Korea was occupied by Soviet armies, this may be a special case.

Vietnam played host to a foreign army (excluding the French) or three, Burma got the Japanese marching over it shortly before independence.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

No, you can't.
China's bigger - 9 million sq km vs. the half (incl. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Birma)
India was split for most of its history into many states which you can conquer one after another - China only was split for short episodes in its history.
India's split in many other ways too - religiously, culturally, and so on. Quite useful if you want to play "divide et impera". China's culturally united.

That is not true. China was POLITICALLY united, not culturallly, and it was also practically fragmented as local potentates held lots of power in the provinces.

Various areas of China speak mutually unintelligible languages, and large swaths of the Chinese Empire were distinctly non-Chinese, like Chinese Turkistan, for example. So while the existence of a single state helped, there were other reasons why China never became colonized. The two that strike me the most:

- Faeelin is quite right, size matters. So does location (far away) and and terrain. All parts of India are pretty easily accessible from the sea; that is not true of China.

- Timing. The British dominated India at a time when they had total and undisputed sea supremacy and were the only real industrial power. By the time China was ripe for colonization, there were too many competing powers established on the scene for any one to dominate.

 

[Max Sinister]

When I was writing about being culturally united, I meant:

- They're using the same script, which helps for mutual understanding
- They share the same philosophy of Confucianism - which, by accident, was also helpful in governing such a vast empire
- They have a long history when they were united, as opposed to India.

I'm not completely clueless, I know that Northern Chinese have difficulties understanding Southerners and vice versa, f.e.

And areas like Turkestan, Mongolia and Tibet look big on the map, but aren't the most important part of china, really

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't know what India's growth rate (from what I recall it wasn't all that stellar but that is vague recollection, (I will have a look later to see if I can get had figures) I can tell you however that India was host to the world biggest University in the latter part of the 19th century.



Vietnam played host to a foreign army (excluding the French) or three, Burma got the Japanese marching over it shortly before independence.

If you think being conquered and dominated by a foreign power for the purposes of extracting as much wealth as possible from you is a good thing, then you are welcome to try it. Otherwise, I suggest you consider this before defending imperialism. An enormous number of people were slaughtered in the process of conquest, the economy terribly disrupted as it was reoriented to pour resources and wealth out, and British consumer goods in, and the locals had no participation in the decisionmaking of their own government.

As for education, the universities of India were established BEFORE British rule, and the literacy rate DECLINED under the British as they totally destroyed the indiginous education system, as education gives people dangerous ideas. Gandhi famously called the old education system as a "Beautiful Tree" systematically destroyed by the British.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

When I was writing about being culturally united, I meant:

- They're using the same script, which helps for mutual understanding
- They share the same philosophy of Confucianism - which, by accident, was also helpful in governing such a vast empire
- They have a long history when they were united, as opposed to India.

I'm not completely clueless, I know that Northern Chinese have difficulties understanding Southerners and vice versa, f.e.

And areas like Turkestan, Mongolia and Tibet look big on the map, but aren't the most important part of china, really

It's easy to dismiss areas like Mongolia, but you may recall the Manchu dynasty wasn't Chinese - some of those outlying areas were disproportionate in their impact due to factors like having a larger precentage of the population available for military purposes or being in strategic buffer areas.

India had a fairly recent history Mughal domination, and is not particularly more fragmented in any of the cultural senses either.

But I think all this pales comared to the accessibility of India from the sea and the issue of location and timing.

 

[Tyr]

Treating its subjects like 2nd class citizens? Man, it's a good thing the British never did that!

Some British people treat the natives as second class citizens.
In the eyes of the law they were equal.

However if the British treat Indians as second class citizens then the Japanese treat the Koreans like 5th class citizens at the very least.
And this was enshrined in law as well as with the people on the ground.

If you think being conquered and dominated by a foreign power for the purposes of extracting as much wealth as possible from you is a good thing, then you are welcome to try it. Otherwise, I suggest you consider this before defending imperialism. An enormous number of people were slaughtered in the process of conquest, the economy terribly disrupted as it was reoriented to pour resources and wealth out, and British consumer goods in, and the locals had no participation in the decisionmaking of their own government.

If the purpose was solely to 'extract wealth' then the way to do it was definatly not to conquer other nations.
Have you ever read anything on the British empire? Even some of the revisionist bleeding heart rubbish agrees with me there.

As for education, the universities of India were established BEFORE British rule, and the literacy rate DECLINED under the British as they totally destroyed the indiginous education system, as education gives people dangerous ideas. Gandhi famously called the old education system as a "Beautiful Tree" systematically destroyed by the British.

There was no 'indiginous education system'. The parts of India Britain took over were mainly under the control of other foreigners before hand.

don't know what India's growth rate (from what I recall it wasn't all that stellar but that is vague recollection, (I will have a look later to see if I can get had figures) I can tell you however that India was host to the world biggest University in the latter part of the 19th century

India-
1820/1850 GDP pc: 533
It then goes up and down a little bit though by 1910 its hovering around 700.

China meanwhile began at 600 in 1820 and by 1910 had dropped to 550.

Okay, let's debate.

What is going on in China?

British conquest, as the title implies?

The British ruling through warlords, as Leej implies?

What?

The thread merely states its part of the empire not how its ran, it would probally be a mixture. And 'warlords' is a innacurate word.
It would be a impossibility for the lot to be directly ran by Britain. People saw it as a miracle that we managed to run half of India.

 

[Faeelin]

I don't know what India's growth rate (from what I recall it wasn't all that stellar but that is vague recollection, (I will have a look later to see if I can get had figures) I can tell you however that India was host to the world biggest University in the latter part of the 19th century.

As a nation with hundreds of millions of people, is it that surprising?

Vietnam played host to a foreign army (excluding the French) or three, Burma got the Japanese marching over it shortly before independence.

My point was that North Korea, as a Communist state led by a Stalinist leader, may not be an ideal representative for the legacy of Japanese rule.

 

[Faeelin]

India-
1820/1850 GDP pc: 533
It then goes up and down a little bit though by 1910 its hovering around 700.

China meanwhile began at 600 in 1820 and by 1910 had dropped to 550.

What's the source?

And I can see a couple reasons why China might be poorer by 1910 that British rule wouldn't help.

 

[Tyr]

What's the source?

And I can see a couple reasons why China might be poorer by 1910 that British rule wouldn't help.

China's low point is 530 in 1850 (no figures for during/after Taiping though its probally worse). So no not the direct after effects of the rebellions.


Source:

Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992, OECD, Paris 1995; The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, OECD Development Centre, Paris 2001; The World Economy: Historical Statistics, OECD Development Centre, Paris 2003.

And then most British improvements were less tangible in pure numbers with the modernising of local cultures.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

You need to do some basic research on this subject before you can debate this. If you don't think there was an indigenous education system in India before the British, there's no point to this.

Also, if you think during the Raj Indians were equal to the British, again, there's no point in this discussion. And that period was downright saintly compared to the EIC's rule.

If you think that the British took the time to conquer India for the sole benefit of its inhabitants, again, wtf. Google "East India Company". All those huge estates in Britain weren't built off the profits from Newfoundland fisheries.

Some British people treat the natives as second class citizens.
In the eyes of the law they were equal.

However if the British treat Indians as second class citizens then the Japanese treat the Koreans like 5th class citizens at the very least.
And this was enshrined in law as well as with the people on the ground.



If the purpose was solely to 'extract wealth' then the way to do it was definatly not to conquer other nations.
Have you ever read anything on the British empire? Even some of the revisionist bleeding heart rubbish agrees with me there.


There was no 'indiginous education system'. The parts of India Britain took over were mainly under the control of other foreigners before hand.



India-
1820/1850 GDP pc: 533
It then goes up and down a little bit though by 1910 its hovering around 700.

China meanwhile began at 600 in 1820 and by 1910 had dropped to 550.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What's the source?

And I can see a couple reasons why China might be poorer by 1910 that British rule wouldn't help.

You mean like two Opium Wars the Boxer Rebellion, the Sino-French war, and the Sino-Japanese war, all of which extracted truly enormous reparations, a concerted and relentless effort to undermine Chinese central control, the ruthless exploitation of the Chinese economy, and the seizure of all of China's useful ports by foreign powers?

Actually, China might actually HAVE been better off if conquered by a single power, but certainly not better off than being left alone.

 

[Faeelin]

You mean like two Opium Wars the Boxer Rebellion, the Sino-French war, and the Sino-Japanese war, all of which extracted truly enormous reparations, a concerted and relentless effort to undermine Chinese central control, the ruthless exploitation of the Chinese economy, and the seizure of all of China's useful ports by foreign powers?

Don't forget the Taiping rebellion, and the Nian Rebellion....

But yes, they all played a minor role in China's troubles.

 

[Tyr]

Are you kidding with this? I'm sorry but that is just astonishing in its insensitivity. The "rebels" who wanted their own country back from an invader from halfway across the world who was sucking them dry are as bad as self-same invader who made "rebels" LAP UP HUMAN BLOOD?

I have never heard this 'lap up human blood' story.
The most famous 'example of British brutality' is the attaching of some of the traitors to a cannon and firing.
This however was copying common practice of the enemy and it only happened in a few isolated incidents.
The actions of the rebels during the mutiny where were far worse then those of the loyalist forces.

I wasn't referring to Iraq at all, I don't know what you mean. I was referring to the Indian Mutiny in the mid 19th c.

I said LIKE.
It was a comparison.
Soldiers on the ground often do pretty bad things that are not at all sanctioned by the high ups even today.

And how on God's Green Earth do you classifty IRELAND as a COLONIZER?!?!?!?!?!? They were conquered and ruled by the British! It's STILL a mess in N. Ireland because of that.

The Irish WERE the British.,

You need to do some basic research on this subject before you can debate this. If you don't think there was an indigenous education system in India before the British, there's no point to this.

Also, if you think during the Raj Indians were equal to the British, again, there's no point in this discussion. And that period was downright saintly compared to the EIC's rule.

If you think that the British took the time to conquer India for the sole benefit of its inhabitants, again, wtf. Google "East India Company". All those huge estates in Britain weren't built off the profits from Newfoundland fisheries.

Don't be childish.
Some of us know more about various areas of history then others, that's just the way things are. Repeating people's advice back at them...Its just silly.
I'm sure there are a fair few areas in which you know more then me (Turkish history?) however its clear here you are the one who needs to read up on Britain.
Hell with that middle paragraph its clear you haven't even bothered to read what I said.