Yeah for the ones who get colonized, western ones were better than eastern ones. Japanese ones would've made Britishers look like kids when they were occupying eastern India.
You just put Russia and Japan as "Eastern"; they have nothing to do with each (and I would consider both as more Western than Eastern regarding imperial/colonial matters) other nor with China. China is a massive country that has always been massive and rich. Their style is more like the tribute systems they had before, as it is being observed in the BRI and other projects.
I understand China but in no way were japan and Russia close to western. IJA, MAO and soviet union makes westerners look like chuds. Russians still have the wagner group shit which is nowhere near what western countries have currently.
First, sadly, the west is full of similar examples, like Leopold II in Congo, Nazi Germany, the Bengal and Irish famines in the British empire, transatlantic slave trade... Not to talk about similar genocides perpetrated by third nations but with the support of the west like the Indonesian mass killings of 1965-66. I see quite a lot of similarities. The West is not a moral example of anything at all, but the opposite.
But second, Russia is not Eastern, it was more European than anything else until the Soviet Union. And Japanese Empire drew inspiration in the Western nations, even if they took it a even more horrible twist. So blaming this on "the East" is racist and reductionist.
Western countries have good internal competition that the atrocities they commit can be stopped by themselves whereas middle eastern/eastern ones needed external support for reformation famously hiroshima, deng reforms, soviet dissolution, korean war.. west is superior in terms of liberalism and capitalism that any successful country you can think of now has roots in utilising its ideas.. this is not to downplay atrocities committed by westerners but to think that somehow western nations are worse than eastern is being in denial. Russia was more european before the communists started their revolution and made themselves anti-west. They support many kinds of anti western movements like their war crimes in Africa, support for iranian/Islamist regimes, support dictatorship of china etc. these are all happening right now.. you are talking as though churchil wantedly cause famine in India when there's limited resource and he had to take care of his country before shipping to India and there was some amount of corruption too in Bengal at that time.. I'm not saying that they're blame free but it's a complex issue with multiple causes..
even the AI that was trained on mostly using western data and infrastructure that chinese models distill and all..
I did not say Eastern are better, but rather that they are not worse. And having good economies (that started with colonization, slavery and imperialism) has nothing to do with morals, rather the opposite. You can be extremelly efficient at exploiting people. Western genocides are complex, but Eastern ones are pure evil? That is what I mean, this is just racism.
Then you mean they are equal right? Which is also blatantly false. Capitalism and liberalism alone would compensate for many of the drawbacks caused by western atrocities. You talk as though colonisation, slavery, imperialism was only done by western when eastern/non-capitalist countries do that routinely since ancient times. Those are human nature and any system u can imagine has its traces rooted in ancient civilizations. I'm also from India and I know what the British did was bad but even before that there were issues within ourselves. But it was nothing to what the Japanese alone did when they occupied just a few parts of India. Exploiting people lol.. as though there aren't different levels of exploitation between now and then and the freedom to choose to work in different places now.. this is just plain old Marxism.. i must have internalized racism jz cz West is better in terms of liberalism and prosperity and reform than East..
Even with all the downsides of being colonized by Britain, it was still far better than being colonized by Belgium. Heck, being colonized by pretty much anybody but Belgium was better than being colonized by Belgium. Read up on the Belgian Congo sometime: it was a parade of horrors.
GP was making a relative comparison; pointing out that both were bad in absolute terms does not negate the point. -2 is still greater than -17.
For the love of God, you guys are brain broken.. there's a limited resource and churchill didn't want to provide to India because of that and add that there's some major corruption in Bengal at that time that caused it.. you guys don't see nuance at all..
India had a system in place to handle famines, Brits decided to do away with it setting the stage to allow millions to die. Was it also just corruption that caused millions to die during the Irish famine?
How do you not know about the policies like prioritising calcutta and ignore other regions of Bengal, surrounding states restrictions to supply food to bengal, price controls, local shortages + 1942 cyclone + british prioritizing their own citizens all caused such issues.. jz doing a cursory research would have provided you these details.. if churchill wanted to intentionally induce famine, how does that explain him asking FDR to provide as they surplus and why FDR had to not do that.. please jz do a cursory glance regarding irish famine too.. some folks jz can't do pros and cons of their own views as well which is a shame..
What a disingenuous question. Par for the course for the likes of you. Just because I view the west as less evil than the east doesn't mean we like to get colonised. These are my views:
1. We would not like to get colonised.
2. But history shows that the world was a place where you conquer or be conquered.
3. Mughals first invaded and as they were falling then, Europeans occupied, which is par for the course if you view the world history at those times.
4. It would've been better if they left early but they were better than japanese imperialists and nazis who bose was cozying up to.
5. The japanese were super violent to indians. I can't imagine the nightmare scenarios if japanese enacted what they did in nanjing/Andaman/few east indian places but they were weak at that time and British + indian army repelled them which is good.
6. After colonisation, nehru, being fabian, failed to open up the economy and he sympathised with soviets/china which exacerbated many economic and military issues at the border.
7. 1991 reforms changed india for the better and it would be better even if they pivot to green energy so that they can pivot off of Russia and Ally with west which biden and dems were trying but now trump worsened the relationship.
