British vs French Colonization

[hyperbole]

i follow soccer and few other sports, allmost of all the African players I care about speak French(more like mother tongue) and was fascinated by it since they are all from different African countries and all these countries happen to be dirt poor to date. One thing stuck out is colonialism i.e. french colonialism vs British colonialism.

Let’s be clear though, both the French and British colonization was utterly wrong in hindsight.  I am just analyzing based on what meets the eye today. 

The British system was fairly hands-off and worked on indirect rule. The French went for full-on cultural imperialism, seeing themselves as civilizing the savages and imposing their own culture, and ruled their colonies centrally from Paris. 

Ofcourse for ease of trade and systemize things Britain set up industries, infrastructure , economic system, administrative  system etc. It’s largely successful within India, Jordan, Malaysia, Australia, Singapore, Kuwait, Canada, Egypt, UAE, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and Qatar being the most successful ones and when British finally left these nations , they evolved more systematically and grown to new heights independently ; but France had little interests of establishing industrialization, nor even trying to improve education unless it is suit for their climate. As for the result, many of former French colonies suffered economic damages, educational system crippled, infrastructure collapses, wars repeatedly happened like Vietnam, Cambodia, Algeria, Mali, Syria, Niger or Ivory Coast.

The British empire was founded in the main by merchants (in this they followed the example of the Dutch), French colonialising was driven by the state. A major difference was, and is, that France regarded its colonies as an integral part of itself: France.

 

what’s your opinion on this? 

[reality]

British vadu industrialization em chesindu? They looted India and sucked all its resources.

[RoadRomeo]

France has more artists, philosophers and writers i guess more than british

[hyperbole]

22 minutes ago, reality said:

British vadu industrialization em chesindu? They looted India and sucked all its resources.

nothing to deny that British looted India but also put in a system without which our society would still be ravaged as someone worse would have occupied the throne. I am talking in general terms, Mid 1800’s industrial revolution start ayindi Britan lo,  most of the advances were cotton mills, jute mills, steel and ore, sugar mills. Eventually after world war 1 some of these industries started coming to India

[hyperbole]

21 minutes ago, RoadRomeo said:

France has more artists, philosophers and writers i guess more than british

Yes, they believed and still believe their civilization is the best and tried to impose on their colonies too, people in their colonies were thought about great French kings, their heritage etc

[kakatiya]

The entire modern Institution we live in was set up by Napoleon Bonaparte 

He made reality of what Alexander the great could aspire of.. that is why Napoleon is greatest 

 

 

Today you can see the common man able to become a IAS officer civil servant based on merit...these where the principles first started and implemented by Napoleon .... 

 

Made laws equal for both aristocrats and common living peasants..everyone equal before the eyes of law .

 

meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on—were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon.

 

 

even pondicherry , (yanam) are french colonies..

[reality]

4 minutes ago, hyperbole said:

nothing to deny that British looted India but also put in a system without which our society would be still ravaged as someone worse would have occupied the throne. I am talking in general terms, Mid 1800’s industrial revolution start ayindi Britan lo,  most of the advances were cotton mills, jute mills, steel and ore, sugar mills. Eventually after world war 1 some of these industries started coming to India

Its fact that they set up those only for their own benefit. They made sure to persist the divide and rule policy and to keep more than 90% of Indians below poverty line and under illiteracy, for the whole entirety of 200 years.

Whatever those mills or anything of that sort is just a biproduct of their selfishness. Why would you think that someone else would have occupied.  If its not British, all those 550+ princely states would have flourished with their own grandeur. Only British made them vulnerable and conquered.

[ysshakeela]

31 minutes ago, reality said:

British vadu industrialization em chesindu? They looted India and sucked all its resources.

Effect of History education thats developed by Communists and Seculars. They want you to believe that Mughals were the most secular rulers with a small exception of Aurangazeb. And then British were all bad. Its only because of Gandhi that India got Independence.

But the facts are different. The Godavari Anacut was built in 1840s because of which the Godavari Districts became the rice bowl of AP. Sir Arthur Cotton is still given the greatest honour of 'Pinda Pradhanam' annually even today. Thats for a reason.

As soon as Great Western Railways were built in SouthWest England, the British started laying out the Railway Lines in India starting 1850. Shipping Industry was always on rise on the Western Coastal States of Maharastra and Gujarat, the advantage they still have even today over the other states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj#Irrigation

The GDP of India was always on decline whole during the British reign because most of the Accountancy was audited in London. The wealth of India was shown in the accounts of UK and other European partners.

[ysshakeela]

3 minutes ago, reality said:

Its fact that they set up those only for their own benefit. They made sure to persist the divide and rule policy and to keep more than 90% of Indians below poverty line and under illiteracy, for the whole entirety of 200 years.

Whatever those mills or anything of that sort is just a biproduct of their selfishness. Why would you think that someone else would have occupied.  If its not British, all those 550+ princely states would have flourished with their own grandeur. Only British made them vulnerable and conquered.

Thats not true in its entirety. The only two times when worst famines hit India was during WW-1 and WW-2 when all the food production in Indian sub-continent was used as military supplies for the war in Europe.

Otherwise, British were busy with establishing the Civil Laws after 1857 war of Independence.

N.B: There had never been such a worst enemy than the Secular History writers of India after 1947. These bustards continuously downplay 1857 War as Sepoy Mutiny only to give all Credit of Indian Independence to so called Mahatma Gandhi. Rarely did they mention that Britishers were driven out of Indian sub-continent starting from May,1857 to June,1858 by a handful of farmers. British came with vengeance and  ships loaded with gun powder to kill millions of young men from Bengal to Punjab only to re-capture the power.

 

[ysshakeela]

9 minutes ago, reality said:

Its fact that they set up those only for their own benefit. They made sure to persist the divide and rule policy and to keep more than 90% of Indians below poverty line and under illiteracy, for the whole entirety of 200 years.

Whatever those mills or anything of that sort is just a biproduct of their selfishness. Why would you think that someone else would have occupied.  If its not British, all those 550+ princely states would have flourished with their own grandeur. Only British made them vulnerable and conquered.

In fact they did not have to work hard too much given the divisions within the Indian Society. Every city was divided between Hindu and Muslim groups. Untouchability within Hinduism. Around 540 princely states who were at war with each other over small issues. 

What else? Ignorance, Poverty, casteism....the list is end less.

[hyperbole]

7 minutes ago, ysshakeela said:

Thats not true in its entirety. The only two times when worst famines hit India was during WW-1 and WW-2 when all the food production in Indian sub-continent was used as military supplies for the war in Europe.

Otherwise, British were busy with establishing the Civil Laws after 1857 war of Independence.

N.B: There had never been such a worst enemy than the Secular History writers of India after 1947. These bustards continuously downplay 1857 War as Sepoy Mutiny only to give all Credit of Indian Independence to so called Mahatma Gandhi. Rarely did they mention that Britishers were driven out of Indian sub-continent starting from May,1857 to June,1858 by a handful of farmers. British came with vengeance and  ships loaded with gun powder to kill millions of young men from Bengal to Punjab only to re-capture the power.

 

I will go one step ahead and say our thinking is too centered around India but French, British and Germans abandoned their colonies after world war 2. The loses were massive no one could control their colonies. We just lucked in large scheme of things  

[reality]

@ysshakeela, so are you saying, we are better off under British rule? So all this “fight for independence” is a joke?

If that’s the case, I rest my case.

P.S: History books enthano nuvvu esina Wikipedia links kuda anthe. Wikipedia is even worse evadu padithe vadu edit cheyochu…

[hyperbole]

21 minutes ago, reality said:

Its fact that they set up those only for their own benefit. They made sure to persist the divide and rule policy and to keep more than 90% of Indians below poverty line and under illiteracy, for the whole entirety of 200 years.

Whatever those mills or anything of that sort is just a biproduct of their selfishness. Why would you think that someone else would have occupied.  If its not British, all those 550+ princely states would have flourished with their own grandeur. Only British made them vulnerable and conquered.

Out thinking is too centered around India, there was 10 other countries like India which British was managing . Their modus operandi is trade/money and all subsequent schemes were designed to maximize the loot but to do that they believed in a different game plan  than other colonized powers and we are just discussing was British a better thief than France looking at what had happened in hindsight and all others places in the world.

[ysshakeela]

2 minutes ago, hyperbole said:

I will go one step ahead and say our thinking is too centered around India but French, British and Germans abandoned their colonies after world war 2. The loses were massive no one could control their colonies. We just lucked in large scheme of things  

Yes yes yes..thats what my point is. Its not even WW-2, its just after WW-1 that British understood that they cannot control such a huge Asian Colony with just 10,000 English Army. They know that if all Indians spit at once, they would be wiped out. Knowing this they started promoting Gandhi as Mahatma from 1916 to enforce the concept of 'Non-Violence' so that they can still rule whole India and exploit the resources in a Civilian Way without using force. Just to kill any rising confidence, they have sponsored Jalianwallah Bagh in April,1919 because some NRIs who returned from Britain started propagating the fact that Britain was nearly bankrupted after the end of WW-1.

The losses for both British and French Govts was so huge that tehy literally begged Hitler not to start a war and agreed to repay all the money German was asked to pay to UK and France after Treaty of Versailles in 1918.

Had the British thought the Gandhi could be such a dangerous thing, they would have killed him in 1916 itself when his name first surfaced on National news papers. Instead they choose him as an Agent, facilitated the loot and got all supplies for WW-2

[hyperbole]

27 minutes ago, kakatiya said:

The entire modern Institution we live in was set up by Napoleon Bonaparte 

He made reality of what Alexander the great could aspire of.. that is why Napoleon is greatest 

 

 

Today you can see the common man able to become a IAS officer civil servant based on merit...these where the principles first started and implemented by Napoleon .... 

 

Made laws equal for both aristocrats and common living peasants..everyone equal before the eyes of law .

 

meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on—were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon.

 

 

even pondicherry , (yanam) are french colonies..

Agree, that’s why French claim theirs the best but British too had some thing of this order, same with spanish - California property rights is spanish law for most part. 
 

here the argumnet is was French  right in imposing their culture and beliefs on their colonies? Language, religion etc. British didn’t do forceful conversion or impose languge