All things considered, what would you say the British influenced most?

Common Law didnt influence the world desu
Napoleonic Law did

Not in this respect. USA is little more than 200 years old and had zero global influence for virtually the first century of that.

If anything usage of English has waned, proportionately, in the time the US has been the world's dominant power.

the financial oligarchy that is currently ruining this planet

*2 nations and 500 odd princely states
FTFY

except for the radically different government, the vastly different transport network, and the sense that it was INDIA as opposed to Bengal, mysore the punjab etc

industrialisation, modern agriculture, and the modern commerce system all stem from the united kingdom from around 1700 onwards

That's ridiculous. It takes incredible levels of American parochialism and lack of knowledge of the rest of the world or history to think the massive influence of the largest empire ever on culture and language and legal systems throughout the world is just down to the post-WW2 dominance of the USA.

Dude what, French was still more relevant than English until WW2, which is when American hegemony begins.

The relevance of English has been exactly proportional to the relevance of America.

Everything that's wrong in this world.

>Dude what, French was still more relevant than English until WW2

Not to the 25% of the world's population who lived in the British Empire it wasn't.

WE
WUZ
RELEVANT

Ah yes, the well known French industrial revolution.

Stay mad.

That's harsh. The french did invent riding around on pedal cycles carrying baguettes and wearing stripey tops.

That's true actually, maybe I'm not being fair.

But that's wrong

Major population centers in india were badly connected to the industrial centers. Most of the rail lines were to exploited mining centers and the ports while older and larger population centers were often bypassed.

The british government and bureaucracy set up was great for exploiting raw resources but not that much as building a nation or providing effective governance. Hell, the Indian constitution is influenced by the american one as much as the british one.

The british left their colony divided into two states with a nightmarish border division that still has exclaves to this day, borders running between villages.

They also left the entire matter of Integrating the princely states to the respective Indian and pakistani governments.

When most of this population is composed of third worlders, it doesnt really affects what language the civilized world will speak
Are we speaking Indian or Chinese right now? Case in point

The Industruial Revolution was nice and all, but it didnt change the international language into English
Just like the Renaissance didnt change it into Italian

Btw, there was no real concept of international language until the recent US hegemony, but the closest thing from that before WW2 was French

That's why German diplomats adressed British ones in French during WW1 ("chiffon de papier") and why US troops had to use French to communicate with civilians in Italy, the Netherlands and Germany during WW2

Literally no one could speak English outside of the British Empire and America until Post-WW2 US cultural hegemony spread the language all over the world using Hollywood, Rock N' Roll and more recently, the internet

Who is talking about language? You don't have to have a monopoly of language to be influential.

>Hell, the Indian constitution is influenced by the american one as much as the british one.

You do realise that the UK doesn't have a written constitution, right? No shit that the American constitution, i.e. a fucking written constitution, impacted them.

If you're trying to set up a state you don't have an unwritten constitution. Only civilised countries can get via gentlemen's agreements and constitutional conventions.

Actually the UK does have a written constitution, just not in one document.

What are you about?

>the civiized world

I thought we were talking about France?

>third worlders

But we are talking pre-Cold War.

You're just gibbering nonsense.

>But we are talking pre-Cold War.
>You're just gibbering nonsense.

Don't be such an uppity faggot
You know very well that third-world is now a generic term for underdevelopped shitholes (and historically, anything that wasnt Europe or East Asia was that)
If you look at the British Empire at peaks, only Britain, Canada, Australia and NZ (relative low population place) were developped
The rest were brown shitholes that didnt matter on the grand scheme of things

>The british left their colony divided into two states with a nightmarish border division that still has exclaves to this day, borders running between villages.

at the insistence of the major arties in the indian independence movement and against the advice of the british who wished to avoid a split along religious lines, but in the face of concerted opposition from muslim political organisations and the majorit of the muslim population retty much had to accede to the request or condemn india to a civil war upon independence

>a shit ton of members of the INC who went to england, became barristers and the like didn't know that the UK had an unwritten constitution

It's not a single document nigel. The parliamentary system of India is directly based on the westminister model, and the federation of states model is based on the United states for example as surface level ideas taken from both the countries.

>the rest were brown shitholes that didn't matter in the grand schemes of things.
>the Fucking Raj didn't matter to the british empire in the grand scheme of things.

Oh please.
>against the wishes of the british
The british literally divided bengal in 1905 along strictly religious lines.
>muslim civil war
like the one in direct action day where after a few hours of muslims chimping out they were beaten up by bihari migrants in Calcutta?

The british left india divided. Which goes against the initial statement that the they left a united india. The partition was extremely poorly carried out without actually going to on-site locations. This was full on drawing lines in africa tier and it left a large impact on both Bengal and Punjab.

They left the task of integrating princely states to the respective governments post independence which was a clusterfuck

>India and Egypt didnt matter in the grand scheme of things

Those are just two obvious examples you fool. Are you telling me that the place named the Jewel of the British Empire was not important? Or the Suez Canal which linked Europe with the East?

You can do better.

>The rest were brown shitholes that didnt matter on the grand scheme of things

Canada, NZ and Australia have a much high population than the developed countries that speak French, other than France. All French colonies (and France itself compared to the UK) were underdeveloped shitholes,

International diplomacy and Free Trade.

As far as influence in western civilization goes, I'd have to give that to the Italians.

Mostly because through leftovers of Rome's legacy and the light of the Renaissance/Enlightenment, Italy pretty much set the standard for all of European cultural development through leading the rebirth and rebuilding of the West, as well as influencing religion through the Bishop of Rome and having the Latin alphabet be the default system of writing for the West.

If you walk outside in any westernized city, you'll be hard-pressed to not find some Italian influence on any street whether it be int he writing or in the architecture in the buildings.

The beatles, and thats about it.

>muh India
>superpoower by 2020 I swer

Come on now

Of course the British influenced the Beatles more, that's where they are from. Silly!

That doesnt matter, imbecile
Do you unironically that English is the international language because of Canada, Australia and NZ?

Haha. Nice one.

Just because the Indians have fucked things up didn't mean the pommies did.

Also, nothing comes close to what the Brits achieved colonially other than the Spanish in terms of modern development of the countries they left behind.

If the Brits got what they wanted Muslims would rule over the entirety of india. They called hindus the beaten dogs of Muslims and deserved their fate

>That doesnt matter, imbecile

They why were you droning on about it like a tool?

>Do you unironically that English is the international language because of Canada, Australia and NZ?

There's no such thing as "the" international language. And the reason that huge chunks of the world speak English as a first or second language is the British Empire.

>Also, nothing comes close to what the Brits achieved colonially other than the Spanish in terms of modern development of the countries they left behind.

Tell that to Sudan, Bengladesh, Guyana, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, Zimbabwe or even India...etc
Easy to just look at the four British colonies that suceeded because local brown people were genocided and replaced with whites, but if you look at British ex-colonies as a whole, 80% of them are utter shitholes now (on par with French ones and way below the average ex-Spanish colony)

>superpower by 2020
>having anything to do with the raj.

wew lad.
British India stagnated for 150 odd years economically.

Iraq wasn't doing that terribly until it got invaded.

And places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and the Bahamas are doing perfectly fine.

>And the reason that huge chunks of the world speak English as a first or second language is the British Empire.

Bullshit
The reason why America, Canada, Australia and NZ speak English as first language is indeed Britain
The reason why third-world shitholes like Nigeria, Zimbabwe or India kind of speak some stuff ressembling English as more or less first language is Britain too

But the reason why English is widspread in the civilized world (Europe, East Asia, Russia) as second language and used to communicate between educated foreigners is America
Easily verifiable as it wasnt used like that before US hegemony (French was instead, although on a much lesser scale as American is now)

>brits invest more in in colonies that have british settlers going in.
>this means that elimination of brown people makes the colonies better.

Other places just became more economically powerful

>Hong Kong, Singapore
City-states are always a given
Even the French (worst colonizers) managed to have a successful city-state (Monaco)

>Malaysia
Is an utter muslim shithole

>Bahamas
I'll give you that one, but being a tiny country in a very touristic area helps a lot
Nothing to do with British infrastructure

I disagree, I think many of those countries were better managed and had better living standards than many of their European counterparts.

Again, the examples you produced were relatively prosperous compared to what they are now because of their post-colonial governments rather than the direct fault of the Brits.

South Africa and Zimbabwe are good examples of British colonies that were far more prosperous than anything the French or Germans ever managed and no genocide took place there, not to mention India.

Brits invested in India too and had lots of settlers move there
But Indians were too numerous to be genocided and now look at what the place has become...

Yes, the large scale exploitation of India had nothing to do with that. Or the fact that industry in India was largely suppressed in favor of cash crops and raw resource extraction.

If not for the two world wars nearly any colonial heavy industry would have been suppressed.

The major steel industry in India was built during successive five year plans under nehru, and the same goes for the large scale power generation in India.

Let's not even get into the large scale human resource development that independent india did.

Malaysia is scored as high in GDI.

As did every other non Western nation after the Industrial Revolution.

India did relatively well for itself compared to China for example.

Oh that sure must mean it's civilized and rich
Why don't you move there

That's Indonesia, you half-wit.

Childish non-argument.

better all across the board.
Higher literacy rate, life expectancy, purchasing power.
No one on this board cares about the cultural bloom of post independence India or large scale empowerment of common citizens because lol brown people.

No it didn't.
It had a literal stagnant economy while a few british ports became prosperous because they were places of egress for large amounts of raw resources.

Yeah, and this one is Cambodia, right?
Denial is so much easier than facing the truth...

GTFO Molyneux

There'd be no America to spread the English language if it wasn't for British settlement.

No, that is India, not Malaysia.

Are you literally retarded?

I dare you to find a different European countries colony which does not have parts of it that look like your picture.

>we created America therefore their achievment are ours

Rolf, that's like Einstein's dad claiming his achievement when all he did was fucking his mom
The achievement of killing bunch of natives to settle their lands is yours
But everything impressive America achieved after getting rid of your loser influence, that you cannot claim credit for

Las Malvinas argentinas

A lot of things, taking in mind the fact the first fully digital computer was British. Also, British computer scientists did a lot of work in the field, case and point: Alan turing.

I'm not British.

And Einsteins father can certainly claim some form of credit because he raised his son to be a brilliant man. Same analogy works with the Brits and America. The American Revolution was based on British writers ideas on liberty after all.

You mean what india had been known for throughout history. Spices and rubies. The only reason why you poos are so buttblasted over the u.k is because they had the nerve not to be from an inferior culture and intergrate into india

Indonesia was a Dutch colony anyway, his photo isn't of Malaysia, don't even encourage the thick cunt.

blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2015/04/401437/

Villa Miseria's

>integrate
most islamic rulers didn't integrate into India either. They also didn't engage in large scale economic exploitation or engineer famines to fill out balance sheets.

>lol didn't integrate.
Yeah, it's not like the East India company an alarming tendency of going native right until the 1840s and lived like nawabs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Polier

Yeah they did

And calling hindus the beaten dogs off Muslims thst are dumber than an American slave isn't flattering in any sense

I think you are being a bit harsh accusing the Brits of deliberately causing famines for economic gain in India. What would millions of deaths achieve for any administration?

Famines were a result of a mixture of confused economic planning at the time (free trade, or protectionism?) poor transport (alleviated somewhat with the construction of the railways) and in the case of the 1943 famine, the Allies were in a total war with the Japanese. Supplies to the fighting troops on the frontline was mostly dropped by plane, so its easy to see why the famine occured when there was no chance of relief if the Brits wished to continue fifhting the Japanese.

I think India would have been overall poorer if it remained in the hands of the Mughals and various Princes. Although this is obviously subjective opinion.

I dont know what the other user was talking about with regardsto the Brits not integrating. There are numerous accounts of Brits going native, one kf Englands greatest writers in the publics eye of today was born in India and grew up there (Kipling)

>what would they achieve
short term profits mostly.
the 1770 bengal famine, Crop failures due to indigo cultivation and opium cultivation. Forcibly tying down peasants using the Ryotwari system and the like ended up compounding local food shortages into vast famines that killed tens of millions in areas directly administered by british officials and later the british crown.

>1943.
And yet, the GIs in calcutta were well supplied. Colonial troops along assam were well supplied via mules and roads.

>they were supplied by air.
Only during the battles of imphal where british indian troops were otherwise cut off.

That goes without saying was that churchill coordinated with the red cross to send food to axis occupied greece from Australia and canada while whining that why gandhi wasn't dead.

>india would have been poor.

India absolutely stagnated while it was ruled by the british. What you are suggesting is that the indian economies would actually have *contracted* if it had continued to do what it was doing under the mughals and later petty rulers.

Having small and well run kingdoms during the time would have been much better for your average person in India since the entire economy wouldn't have been siphoned off to the UK.

Oh and for the anons using the
>but muh railways connected India like never before and made life better for natives

The railway system was overdesigned in what it was supposed to do. It was largely privatized until ww2 made most railway operatiors go bankrupt.

Most coaches, locomotives and tracks were shipped from abroad for much of the 20th century. The railway companies were based in england and siphoned their money off to the UK, leaving little to no investment in the indian railways itself.

By the time India became independent, there were 42 Railway networks operating in India, 32 of which were in princely states. Integrating them into a unified industrial system, increasing manufacturing and all the while making sure that travel was subsidized for Indian citizen was a herculean fucking task

So no, British Railways benefited britain, not India seeing as it was a net drain from India's economy.

>Ryotwari system

Sounds Indian to me. Seems like they used the same systems that the locals were using

>sounds indian to me
socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/dutt/EcHisIndia1.pdf

>Associated with Sir Thomas Munro, who was governor of the Madras Presidency in 1820.

Here is the British Zamindari (land owner) system and a contrast with the ones used by local rulers

In Bengal and Northern India the zamindari system was as follows:

To collect tax from a land, the British had zamindars bid for the highest tax rates; i.e., zamindars quoted a tax rate that they promised to obtain from a particular land.
The highest bidder was made the owner of the land from which they collected the taxes.
The farmers and cultivators who owned the land lost their ownership and became tenants in their own land.
They were to pay the landlords/zamindars the tax for the land only in the form of cash and not in kind.
If a zamindar was not able to collect the quoted amount of tax, he lost the ownership.
By comparison, this is the way taxes had been collected by the king:

The tax could be paid either in cash or in kind.
Payments in kind were mostly in the form of land which was given to the king.
The king never made use of those lands, which could be bought back by the farmers after they got back some money.
The farmer owned his land.
Tax rates were reduced in case of a famine, bad weather or other serious event.

So he got the idea from the madras. Again that's not a English area or term

So he got the idea from the madras. Again that's not a English area or term

He got the idea from Southern india

> case and point

He instituted it with a cash basis and the idea was to auction off land to whichever person promised the highest amount of taxes per year you dumbass.

It was supposed to be paid in coin instead of produce and with the currency crisis in India and the total control of mints farmers often had no actual money to pay.

It was a vicious system that permanently made landed farmers become landless laborers in their own fucking land.

There were never any provisions for repurchasing the land or relief for famine.

For fuck's sake even local british officials complained that it was way too much, since the british taxed the "potential value" of the land, not the actual goods produced.

They kept the name and made literally everything about the system different.

>undevolped shitholes
>t. World Bank
Those shitholes are a big part of what allowed for your cushy, un-human life style, you faggot. Show some respect
Undevopled "shitholes" are better as they are emergent systems and not shitholes created by economic intrests to exploit the natural and social capital out of traditional socio-ecological systems, aka the "devolping world"

Paying with goods was common throughout the world. It wasn't conceived in London as a way to fuck over Indians.

Again you are only bootyblasted because the Brits didn't intergrate into Indian culture.

>with goods

They forced people to pay with cash you dumb pikey. At values that were already estimated before instead of the actual produce during the year, which was often around or over 50% of the total produce due to large scale cultivation of single crops.

At the same time the cash crunch caused by the usage of bullion to buy goods created a scarcity of actual money in the markets of both Bengal and Madras.

Sports

>creating the world's first stock markets
England didn't have a stock market before the Dutch. In fact law an Scottish banker that lived in London had to move to Amsterdam to study the stock market and develop his economic thesis

>it wasn't made as a way to fuck over indians.
Read page 155/156 of the pdf I posted.
The board of directors specifically write to the governor warning him that the Ryotwari system that he implemented doesn't have any safeguard for either the people or for any corrupt officials who try to get extra profit off them.

Happens all over the world and happened in Europe before the Brits got control of the Bengal. Your complaining about economic stagnation when the Brits were exporting what india was known for. The reason heavy industry didn't spring up there is because they thought hindus were dumber than blacks

>happened in europe.

artifical famines happened in europe regularly?
Taxing over half the potential value of land on a yearly basis happened regularly?

>it's just india couldn't industrialize.

That is where you are fucking wrong. The zamindari system tied a huge number of peasants to the land.

British tariffs at indian products largely destroyed the indian export market before the british even started pushing their mill made cloth into india.
By the 1870s the thing had come full circle. Indian traders who had made money off the opium trade with china reinvested the money into opening mills in bombay because it was cheaper to buy cheaper english looms there.

After that time the british textile industry regularly began to get phased out, especially as Indian textile mills began to buy more expensive and higher quality american looms.

You were just crying that the Brits didn't allow india to industrialize. Now you say that they did with cotton mills. Which is it

>a billion poo in loos speak English, we global language now

lmao

>didn't allow.

Indian entrepeneurs did with their own money. The british didn't provide any supporing capital or infrastructure net at all, but kept india as a completely captive market to dump huge amounts of their produced goods at premium prices while receiving raw resources for practically free (since they were subsidized by the indian economy)

When Jamshedji Tata opened his steel mill in India, he didn't receive any capital from the british raj. All they agreed to do was buy extra steel he couldn't sell in India because britain was slowly losing the industrial base it had to Germany and the United States.

Does no one in this board understand nuance or how history works?
All I see are people shitposting all day. I finally manage to provide an actual online source about the attitudes of actual british officials in their own fucking letters and people act like it doesn't exist.

Hiroshimoot should change the board's name to Veeky Forums - history flavored shitposting

>a group of bumfuck no one nig nogs in western africa speak french and their numbers will increase in the future.

>honhonhon, world becoming francophone again mon ami.

You said in an eariler post that the Brits didn't allow it.

Now I'm just gonna say this again you are butthurt thst the brits didn't intergrate into indian society. While you say nothing about the muskims that killed over 500 million hindus and actively tried to destroy your culture. You really are the beaten dogs of Muslims

are you some sort of iodine deficient person?

British policy was active suppression of indian industry during the 18th century and the conversion of the indian economy to a mixture of both spices and manufactured products like textiles to a producer of raw materials like cotton and opium.

Indian entrepeneurs set up mills with their own funding and without the safety net and government backing that british owned comapnies operated with in India.

Beaten dog fuck back off to your kennel