this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
608 points (95.6% liked)

Greentext

4348 readers
1160 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] r_se_random@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Are we talking about the multitudes of manufactured draughts?

Or the genocide of the colonised population?

Fuck right off with colonial apologism. Colonisers have built their wealth, by exploiting countries, deepening existing social fractures, and leaving the countries worse than they found them in most aspects. The technical growth or industrialisation that the colonising powers purport to have shared (such as trains), was largely possible on the backs of the economic leverage they enjoyed on the back of the excessive taxation of the colonies^[1]^. The Indian region for all it's social issues, was a contributor to about 25% world's GDP before the stabilising force of the various colonisers arrived. In 1947, that was 2%.

Learn your history before you talk out of your ass.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The industrial revolution really had a huge affect on gdp around the world. That solved the issues of famine within india. But will probably lead to more with climate change now.

[–] InfiniteStruggle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My god man, just sign up for some history classes at your nearest university. Or maybe just listen to some podcast or something. This is just horribly insensitive, and I don't even think you know why it is so.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

The gdp of the west exploded because of the industrial revolution. To claim that wasn't the largest force for changes in gdp is madness. It separated gdp so directly from labour that gdp stopped being so heavily related to population.