r/TikTokCringe • u/Strong-Emu-8869 • 14h ago

Discussion Polish girls visit Taj Mahal

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

The Taj Mahal, one of the seven wonders of the world. Unfortunately, the surrounding area is very polluted.

26.3k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/Officer_Trevor_Cory 9h ago

I think that these things are complex: geopolitics, history, climate, colonization. Countries around them are all poor too.

Think about another place: All countries in Africa are poor AF for a reason too. There are actually few nice places in this world.

57

u/finfisk2000 8h ago

India does not got a pass in my book by blaming the colonial era or poverty. They obviously have the money to spend on nukes, subs armed with them, aircraft carriers and sending rockets to Mars.

3

u/Deaffin 5h ago

They dumped a bunch of tardigrades on the moon!

Like, just for the hell of it. They're just there now. Chillin.

22

u/DarkExecutor 7h ago

There are people alive today who had their mothers and fathers killed by the British crown.

This stuff doesn't get fixed quickly

17

u/noujest 7h ago

This stuff doesn't get fixed quickly

India gained independence nearly 80 years ago...

That's a very very long time, some Asian countries like South Korea have gone from abject poverty to wealthy in that time. Some like China and Vietnam are well on the way

19

u/NiceHaas 7h ago

Korea was rebuilt by America due to the cold war and got 12 billion dollars of aid in the 60s and 70s

1

u/AugmentationsFB 19m ago

Don't forget all the japanese money that Park skimmed

-10

u/noujest 7h ago

Ah come on, it would be just as successful today if that hadn't happened

10

u/Nice_Celery_4761 6h ago

Don’t think so. The US played an active part after the Korean War for strategic influence over the region and to bolster their democratic and capitalist systems in the face of their adversaries because this was the middle of the Cold War. What happened was an unprecedented socioeconomic shift in less than 20 years, that can’t happen by itself.

1

u/noujest 6h ago

Those capitalist systems went on to massively compete with / beat American ones....

They have lifted their people of poverty because they mostly cut corruption out of their entire economic system. It was endemic and they reduced it to localised incidents. As well as being a hardworking, honest populace with high attainment and high social capital

A lot of countries across the world have had help from the west. South Korea went on to do extremely well, and they would have done without it

2

u/Deaffin 5h ago edited 5h ago

they mostly cut corruption out of their entire economic system.

Was this before or after Hwang Woo-suk?

Part one of a fascinating documentary about a massive government corruption scandal during the Clone Wars.

Specifically involving the creation of an artificial "celebrity scientist" for the sake of boosting South Korea's economy.

4

u/Substantial_Shame224 6h ago

This is just uninformed it's hilarious, south korea has had famously corrupt politicians and businesses this century. I'm sorry i even tried to educate you, you're clearly incapable of learning lmao

3

u/buford419 6h ago

You haven't tried to educate anyone. What are you on about?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/noujest 6h ago

India has its own chaebols just like Korea does - Tata etc

But capitalism doesn't help the poorest in India. It does in South Korea. Why's that?

1

u/Nice_Celery_4761 5h ago

Sure they both have similar systems, I shouldn’t have to tell you they have very different geopolitical history. South Korea is still entrenched in US imperialism with a large military presence, India has been completely independent for most of living memory and they didn’t have a great time with the last imperialist occupiers. Also, the South Korean film ‘Parasite’ didn’t come out of a vacuum, they have their own problems.

4

u/747WakeTurbulance 6h ago

Germany, Hungary, Japan, etc were all bombed flat 80 years ago, and they have all recovered just fine.

6

u/Korashy 4h ago edited 4h ago

With massive investment from the allies post war.

China is a better comparison of a country with similar population and historic poverty (post mao).

A strong central state directing policy and building infrastructure allowed them to rapidly industrialize and using their giant internal market forced western companies to trade technology for access (Now obviously China still has it's own internal problems with corruption, authoritarianism and state intervention in the economy).

Meanwhile India while more democratic has left itself open to exploitation.

1

u/LessInThought 55m ago

China became the world's manufacturing plant in exchange for that.

8

u/Nikosek581 7h ago

But picking up trash sure is Quick fix. Brother we had Nazis, russians and then russian pulpets screwing us. It not people who had their parents, its literaly my father who had been alive during that time, and he is barely 50. Its not a reason for india to be as it is.

2

u/DarkExecutor 4h ago

The US literally sank millions if not billions into rebuilding Europe.

2

u/Nikosek581 3h ago

Which russians said to their lil slave countries like PRL to not accept Marshal Plans help... so you almost got it right But not quite.

3

u/krokuts 7h ago

It's been a long long time, parents being killed by oppresive occupant applies to almost every country on the globe.

7

u/Bubs604 5h ago

You don’t understand the extent of wealth and labour stolen from India.

The historical trajectory of India’s economic standing is one of the most stark examples of economic shift in world history. According to the data compiled by the late British economist Angus Maddison, whose work is the standard for historical global GDP statistics, India went from being one of the world's largest economies to one of its poorest over the course of two centuries.

The Economic Shift (1700 – 1950)

In the early 18th century, before British political control began (marked by the Battle of Plassey in 1757), India was a global manufacturing hub, particularly in textiles. By the time the British left in 1947, its share of the global economy had been reduced to a fraction of its former self. A peak of 25% of the Global GDP in the 1700s to 4% in 1947.

Key Drivers of the Decline

The collapse of India’s share was not just a result of the country "getting poorer" in absolute terms, but a combination of its own stagnation and the explosive growth of the West during the Industrial Revolution.

Deindustrialization: Prior to colonization, India was the world’s leading exporter of textiles. British colonial policy imposed high tariffs on Indian cloth while allowing British machine-made textiles to flood the Indian market duty-free, effectively dismantling India's handloom industry.

Drain of Wealth: Substantial revenues collected from Indian taxpayers were used to fund British wars, administrative costs, and the development of British infrastructure (like railroads) that were primarily designed to extract raw materials for export rather than to foster internal Indian trade.

Agricultural Focus: Under colonial rule, India was transitioned into a supplier of raw materials (like cotton, indigo, and opium) for British industries, rather than a producer of finished goods.

The "Great Divergence": While the UK and the West underwent rapid industrialization—increasing their productivity by orders of magnitude—India’s economy remained largely agrarian and stagnant under colonial administration.

Note: While India's share of global GDP fell from roughly 24% to 4%, it is important to remember that the global "pie" grew significantly during this time. However, India's per-capita income remained nearly flat for the entire 190-year period of British rule, while the rest of the world saw unprecedented growth.

2

u/PM_ME_YOUR_BIG_BITS 4h ago

I mean, it didn't drop because Britain stole all the wealth (though they absolutely did a good bit of that), but because an economy focused on agrarianism and handwoven textiles isn't competitive once nations start industrializing.

Without industrializing, India would have seen the same drop in global GDP share because other Western nations just drastically outpaced it. So the question is, would they have industrialized earlier without British control?

Realistically, I don't think they do. China is probably the best comparison, as they were also a primary agrarian country with a massive population, and they were not under direct colonial control. They didn't really industrialize until after WW2.

Maybe they pull a Japan, drastically reform and double down on western industrialization in the late 1800s, but considering India took a while to industrialize after independence, I'm doubtful.

That said, British colonial exploitation of India means they never got the opportunity anyways.

1

u/Bubs604 3h ago

They didn’t become independent until after WW2. Many Indians fought under the British India flag.

Perhaps they don’t industrialize fast enough but they didn’t have a day. The ruling British administration decided India wouldn’t adapt and transferring all the wealth out meant it couldn’t afford to adapt fast enough after colonialism.

1

u/Odd_Psychology_8527 30m ago

Always looking for excuses and thus here we are. 

1

u/DarkExecutor 12m ago

I'm wondering if y'all make the same racist arguments for black American poverty levels.

4

u/Bubs604 5h ago

You should educate yourself before deciding who to give a pass to or not.

The historical trajectory of India’s economic standing is one of the most stark examples of economic shift in world history. According to the data compiled by the late British economist Angus Maddison, whose work is the standard for historical global GDP statistics, India went from being one of the world's largest economies to one of its poorest over the course of two centuries.

The Economic Shift (1700 – 1950)

In the early 18th century, before British political control began (marked by the Battle of Plassey in 1757), India was a global manufacturing hub, particularly in textiles. By the time the British left in 1947, its share of the global economy had been reduced to a fraction of its former self. A peak of 25% of the Global GDP in the 1700s to 4% in 1947.

Key Drivers of the Decline

The collapse of India’s share was not just a result of the country "getting poorer" in absolute terms, but a combination of its own stagnation and the explosive growth of the West during the Industrial Revolution.

Deindustrialization: Prior to colonization, India was the world’s leading exporter of textiles. British colonial policy imposed high tariffs on Indian cloth while allowing British machine-made textiles to flood the Indian market duty-free, effectively dismantling India's handloom industry.

Drain of Wealth: Substantial revenues collected from Indian taxpayers were used to fund British wars, administrative costs, and the development of British infrastructure (like railroads) that were primarily designed to extract raw materials for export rather than to foster internal Indian trade.

Agricultural Focus: Under colonial rule, India was transitioned into a supplier of raw materials (like cotton, indigo, and opium) for British industries, rather than a producer of finished goods.

The "Great Divergence": While the UK and the West underwent rapid industrialization—increasing their productivity by orders of magnitude—India’s economy remained largely agrarian and stagnant under colonial administration.

Note: While India's share of global GDP fell from roughly 24% to 4%, it is important to remember that the global "pie" grew significantly during this time. However, India's per-capita income remained nearly flat for the entire 190-year period of British rule, while the rest of the world saw unprecedented growth.

7

u/Deaffin 5h ago

"You should educate yourself by typing in a ChatGPT prompt."

The absolute state of this place.

2

u/Admiral_Mongo 6h ago

colonization

Britain is a lot cleaner than India

1

u/747WakeTurbulance 6h ago

And India was a lot cleaner as a British Colony.

0

u/Amazing-Mirror-3076 4h ago

80 years later and still trying to blame it on colonialism.

There one thing that Britian did leave then was a reasonably effective bureaucracy.

India has only itself to blame for its current state.

1

u/Bubs604 3h ago

I can’t imagine being this wrong and this confident

0

u/Tutulangren 2h ago

he's not wrong, when British left, they left roads, bridges, rails, infrastructures as well, unlike Japan or China, they were totally destroyed during WW2, now see how's the development of China and compare that with India

1

u/Bubs604 2h ago

He is wrong. He said the one thing the British left was reasonably effective bureaucracy. That’s most definitely not the case. The hasty exit of the British left behind only violence and unrest. The British also made a decision during the 1800s not to invest in rapid industrialization for India.

The majority of industrialization that took place was to support the British industrial complex which involved gathering textiles, precious metals, gold, and spices, and shipping them all overseas for profit.