 Bob Barker passed away. Today? Just now. Just saw the news. Old Bobby B? Old Bobby B, 99. If you don't know who that is, he was the host of The Price Is Right for half a century, maybe, maybe longer. I don't see it. Go to TMZ. Where is it? It's there, headline, front page. Bob? On TMZ. Bob? So a huge animal activist. Huge. I love the microphone he used on The Price Is Right. It was one of those long, skinny, teeny things with a little teeny, tiny microphone top. Kind of like your penis? No, nothing like that. But kind of like that? No, nothing like that. You see it? I do. Yeah. 99. But they've gotten stuff wrong in the past. He's dead. What makes you think that? Because he's 99-year-old Bob Barker. Yeah, he is old, for sure. Hey, we'll go back to our stupid reactions you did some time ago. I am not Bob Barker. That's true. You can follow us on Instagram, Twitter, for more juicy content. Thank you to everybody. Support us on Patreon. Follow us for your Twitter account. Subscribe to the like button. Subscribe. Like. Be. I just sent it to my wife. She likes Bob Barker. She likes all old men. Yeah. That's not her favorite old man, but she likes old men. No, no, no. Is Dick Van Dyke her favorite old man? Probably. For sure. I don't know if it's her favorite man ever. Yeah. She also likes, I mean, all old men. But like in terms of like show host, I think Alex Trebek was her favorite. Ah. He was an old, though. He was 69, I think when he died, right? Yeah, that ain't an old. That's pretty old. Said the 30-year-old. Yep. And today, what are we doing, Rick? I have a foggiest idea, but if you'd like, I could pee in the chair. This is from one of those animation channels that goes over like history and stuff like that. Ah, yes. And they made it was always good. It's just about a month ago. They just made this one. This is actually the unmaking of India. How British improvised the world's richest country. We know this already, but I'd be interested to see if there's more information we'll find out that'll make us even angrier. Yeah. And obviously, their videos is from Odd Compass, which we've seen videos from them before and you'll recognize it's animation and his voice. But they're always good information and also cool videos, the way the anime is, this is a lot of fun. Yeah, which was one of the things that was a salient point on the moon video. Yeah. That while there was a lot of things that were problematic, there was one truth in there that can be over exemplified by the fact that here are some British people asking India why they're sending stuff to the moon and not using that money to help the poor when you guys are the primary reason India had poor. Yeah. Yeah. I texted my wife and she said, quotes, remember to spay and new to your pets, cry. That's Bob Barker. He said it at the end of every price was right show. Yeah, here we go. The year 1700, India's share in the world's economy was an astounding 27%. I remember it. More than all of Europe combined. 250 years later, India's share, India's share had dropped to less than 3% and its people were left impoverished. What happened? Strap it. The British. We're about to die. The British happened. Dark and messy history. Welcome to 18th century India. In 1707, see he, the death of Mughal Emperor, Aurangze, sends the empire along spiral. In his wake, an endless parade of weak princelings forced themselves upon the peacock throne. I hate weak princelings. The empire teetering on the brink of collapse, regional powers jostle for supremacy, land grabs and title claims, infighting and betrayal. India is vulnerable. The situation is so precarious that in 1739, Persian emperor Nathir Shah invades North India and sacks Delhi. During this period of disorder, the British sensed opportunity, leveraging their unique advantages as a foreign power, they bribed and blasted their way into a dominant position in the subcontinent. India was no stranger to dealing with foreign aggression, but the British were not like those who had come before. No, they were not like Nathir Shah, who looted and civilly left, nor were they like the Huns, who, while shedding good the blood, became Indian themselves. Yes, the British were different, for they saw India as an inexhaustible goldmine, whose resources were to be forever extracted. By the time India won its independence in 1947, its native institutions had been demolished, its economy deindustrialized, its trade network severed, and its people more deeply divided by caste and creed. In just 200 years of colonial rule, the India that once inspired the world was unmade. The Halcyon days of India are over. She has been drained of all the wealth she once possessed, and her energies have been cramped by a sordid system of misrule. The deliberate bleeding of India by the British was so extreme that famed American scholar Will Durant referred to it as the greatest crime in all of history. So let's pull back the curtain and see what India was like before colonialism. In the 19th century, the American J.T. Sunderland wrote about the India that the British found when they arrived. India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or Asia. Her textile goods were famous all over the civilized world. So was her exquisite jewelry and her precious stones. So was her pottery, her porcelains and ceramics. So were her fine works and metal, iron, steel, silver and gold. She had great architecture, equal in beauty to any in the world. She had great merchants, businessmen, bankers and financiers. She was not only a great shipbuilding nation but had commerce and trade which extended to all civilized countries. That may seem like heavy handed praise but the record does show that pre-colonial India was a dominant manufacturing economy. Let's take a closer look at the textile, shipbuilding and metalworking industries. India was a textile superpower for most of its long history. There were many textile centers in the subcontinent. Coastal Andhra was a block printing hub for example while Ghadrat and Bengal were known for their high end woven products. There was global demand for these items. In fact, India enjoyed a mind blowing 25% share of the global textile trade by the mid 18th century. This thriving textile trade had knock on effects for the entire economy. For example, the popularity of Indian textiles led to the creation of stable international distribution networks. By piggybacking on these networks, other Indian artisans could sell their goods worldwide at a reduced cost. As a result, many different industries flourished alongside the Indian textile industry. We know that international trade was conducted primarily along maritime routes and so the Indian shipbuilding industry had developed into a behemoth too. A significant number of Indian ports were engaged in the shipbuilding industry. Dhaka, Maslapatnam, Surat, Calicut, Quilon and many, many others. Entire rural communities were involved in the production and processing of materials used to construct ships. Quality was paramount. Consider the Bengali merchant fleet in the early 17th century. The fleet consisted of nearly 5,000 ships, each capable of carrying up to 500 tons of goods. These ships were constructed in Bengali ports by native artisans who had the skills to craft elaborate wood, iron and brass. Did I use about tons? According to one British maritime observer, India was the most refined, elegant and utility in our models of... A ton is yes, T-O-N-S. I don't know what that is. Yeah, I don't know. I'm stupid, let me know. Bengali ships had an average lifespan exceeding 20 years while English ships were not known to last more than 12. Quite a difference. India was a long-time pioneer in the global steel industry. As early as the 6th century CE, crucible-formed steel, which came to be known as woots or Damascus steel in the West, was being produced for export by Indian blacksmiths, particularly along the Malabar coast and in the Deccan. Arab and European officers regularly imported blades from India. While these blades were purchased as wartime implements, they were so robust and beautifully crafted that they also served as a mark of high status in times of peace. Though we've barely scratched the surface, it should already be clear that India was a manufacturing juggernaut, a thriving exporter of high-quality goods to markets throughout the world. How did the British manage to unmake all of that? The fundamental principle of the British has been to make the whole Indian nation subservient to the interests and benefits of themselves. And so, once the British took power, they changed the entire dynamic of the Indian economy to suit their own interests. The first step, dismantling all native industry. To start, they established a legal monopoly over Indian textile goods and cut off the export market, which immediately disrupted long-standing trade links. Having now made themselves the exclusive buyers of Indian textiles, the British then changed the way that they paid for those goods. Instead of using foreign currency, they paid using the tax revenues extracted from India. The Indian economy stagnated and prices collapsed. Skilled artisans, who once fueled the vibrant Indian economic engine, were now significantly poorer and more restricted than ever before. And it didn't stop there. Soon enough, British manufacturers lobbied their government to completely eliminate the competition from the Indian textile industry. See, despite the restrictions imposed on Indian industry, British manufacturers were still finding it difficult to compete with Indian products. Company soldiers were sent to smash Indian looms. According to several different accounts, they even went around breaking the thumbs of weavers so that they could no longer ply their trade. But that's not all. To ensure that the Indian textile industry could not recover, adapt, or innovate itself back into relevancy, the British imposed an absurdly harsh 80% tariff. This had an immediate catch-22 trap effect. Exporting goods from India to the UK was now economically unbiable. But remember, Indians were restricted from selling to anyone else. Similar restrictions were imposed on nearly every branch of manufacturing in India. India was reduced to being a mere exporter of raw materials like cotton and metal ore so that the British could sell finished products back to Indians at a premium. We conquered India as an outlet for the goods of Britain. I'm not such a hypocrite to say that we hold India for the Indians. The colonial deindustrialization process was so complete that by 1947, only 0.7% of India was employed any form of manufacturing. But skilled workers had to go somewhere, do something. The British monopoly on industrial production drove Indian artisans, merchants, builders, and others into agriculture and mass. In the words of Dr. Charles Hall, India's population has been thrown back upon the soil because Britain's discriminating duties have ruined every branch of native manufacture. Rural wages cratered to historical lows and in fact, the land itself could not sustain the influx of newly disenfranchised workers. Poor seasonal harvests and droughts gave way to catastrophic famines and mass poverty. With most Indians now converted into peasant cultivators, the British sought to exploit them further. They began to tax cultivators as the primary revenue source for the administration. Most taxes were extreme, pegged at 50% to 80% of gross income and calculated before the harvest. The result? Indian cultivators often owed more in taxes than they earned as income. The British knew how harsh this really was. They openly conceded that they were imposing the highest tax rates in the world and that taxes were more than three times higher than they had ever been under Indian rulers. To add insult to injury, the British even bragged about it in Parliament. The Indians have been taxed to the utmost limit. Every province has been made a field for higher exacting and it has always been our boast how greatly we have raised the revenue above that which the native rulers were able to extort. Colonial taxes were so burdensome that two thirds of the population in directly ruled British areas fled to the hinterlands where native Indian lords could at least minimally protect them from financial depredation. The millions who stayed behind could hardly afford to pay taxes and the situation was worsened by the fact that the British did not negotiate tax payments. Horrors were perpetrated under the guise of sinless mathematical neutrality. Tax defaulters were confined in cages and exposed to the burning sun. Fathers sold their children to meet the rising rates. Vulnerable peasants were physically tortured to pay up and when they didn't have the means to pay, the British confiscated their farmland for themselves. Tens of millions of landless peasants were created for the first time in Indian history. By the end of the 19th century, India was Britain's largest source of revenue by far. Its largest purchaser of exports and a source of highly paid employment for both British civil servants and soldiers and they were all paid for by Indian taxes. Many British officials freely acknowledged the exploitative nature of the colonial enterprise. In fact, a prime minister of the UK, the Marquez of Salisbury, himself admitted, as India is to be blood of money, the Lancet should be directed to those parts where the blood is congested. And just like that, India and its people were blood dry. The fundamental issue of British overlordship was the fact that the British had no intention to become one with the land or to rule it as their own. The British saw India as innately and eternally foreign and this justified their creation and maintenance of what scholars have referred to as an extractive calling. For comparison's sake, considered the Turkic peoples who invaded India and eventually formed the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire. Look, the Mughals were no heroes. They imposed unequal taxes, engaged in religious discrimination, plundered local treasuries, visited great violence upon their enemies and exhibited a Persianized racial arrogance. But one thing is clear, India's wealth was preserved at a foundational level. After nearly two centuries of Mughal rule, India was still a dominant economic power responsible for 27% of global trade. There's a simple reason for that. See, the Mughals had a foreign place of origin, Fregana, but they did not repatriate India's resources to their original homeland. India may not have been Fregana, but it had become their new home and so their loyalties and energies were owed solely to India. Meanwhile, the British ruled India as disconnected tyrants. The bulk of the revenue from India wasn't reinvested in India. No, no, no. It was extracted and repatriated to their distant, foggy home land. Right. How much modern economists have estimated that the total amount of wealth that the British extracted from India is in the ballpark of $43 trillion. Yes, $43 trillion. That's probably conservative, honestly. When taxes are not spent in the country from which they are raised, they constitute an absolute loss and extinction of the whole amount withdrawn from the tax country. The money might as well be thrown into the sea, such as the nature of the tribute we have so long exacted from India. Apologists for colonial rule often point to the railways as some sort of extravagant counter to the argument of extraction and divestment. But as modern scholars have pointed out, the railways serve as evidence for how exploitative and inefficient British investment in India really was. First, there's the bold assumption that Indians would not have built railways, like the Japanese or others, either by importing the technology or by cutting the consumption. India had been far too advanced in cutting edge of civilization to not keep up had it been given the opportunity to do so. When the British came to India, the country was the leader of Asiatic civilization. Japan was nowhere. Now, in 50 years, Japan has revolutionized her history with the aid of modern arts of progress. And India, burdened by 150 years of English rule, is condemned to toodaloo. But let's ignore that for now. Initially, the Indian railways were positioned as a grand investment scheme for British shareholders. The government guaranteed substantial returns of at least 5% per year. And when the revenues were not enough to pay out these returns, Indian taxpayers covered all the losses. Because of these taxpayer-backed guarantees, construction of the railways was extremely inefficient. Here's a fun stat. Every mile of Indian rail cost 18,000 pounds to construct as compared to 2,000 pounds for the same mile built in the United States. All the elements of railway construction, steel, wagons, gears, engines, and more, were produced by British manufacturers. Indians weren't even given an opportunity to produce their own manufactured alternatives because the British government imposed restrictions that prevented Indians from competing. Worse still, the essential purpose of the railways was to assist the British enterprise in the exploitation of the natural resources of India. In fact, the railways made it possible for the British to export enormous amounts of grain and other agricultural products which sparked and exacerbated famines. Over the course of British rule in India, an estimated 35 million preventable deaths were caused by famines. That's millions more than those killed under Stalin or Mao, and that's five times more than the Holocaust. The British were directly responsible for this. They mass-exported Indian foodstuffs to Britain and other countries in Europe. Even during drought periods, food in India became too expensive for peasants to afford. According to Dr. Charles Hall, India stars so that its annual tax revenue to England may not be diminished by a dollar. There's plenty of grain in India. The trouble is that the people have been ground down till they are too poor to buy it. The British had no interest in provisioning for Indian lives. Famine non-intervention was official government policy. How ironic, given that heavy-handed British intervention and market manipulation is what sparked the famines in the first place. And when good people, Indians and foreigners, worked together to help... They had a policy not to help famine. ...the efforts to stop them. They were furious that the government's own failures were being highlighted. Don't believe me? Listen to this British officer in his own words. Scores of corpses were tumbled into old wells because the deaths were too numerous for the relatives to perform funeral rites. Mothers sold their children for a single meal. Husbands flung their wives into ponds to escape the torment of seeing them perish from hunger. But amid these scenes of death, the British government in India was unmoved. Newspapers were persuaded into silence. Strict orders were given to civilians. Do not acknowledge that civilians are dying of hunger. And if you think that Indians would have done a worse job, consider this. There hasn't been a single large-scale Indian famine in the 70-plus years since British rule ended. Not one. Independent India has its flaws, but it has been overwhelmingly better in providing for the care, safety, and prosperity of its own people. Well, yeah. And now you know. Yeah, most famines are politically created. Yeah. And sustained. Great video, as always. Great video from Odd Compass. Obviously, go check them out. Subscribe to them. They always make good content. It's infuriating. And the fact that it's not taught. That's exactly what I was thinking about right now. It's still not taught. The fact that, because the reason the British and America were able to have the Industrial Revolution they were able to have was not because we had all the supplies. Well, we did. But they weren't our own supplies. Yes. Exactly. So that's all that's taught, obviously, in England and America is the Industrial Revolution. We stole the supplies and enslaved the workers. That's how America and England kind of blew up into world superpowers. Because they were making all this stuff. But there's a reason they were able to do that. Correct. And it's not taught. All we're taught is Industrial Revolution, America, England, great. No, I had somebody, the most recent thing of asking me any question on Instagram. I had somebody ask me the question, is poverty required for capitalism? And my reply was no, greed is. It's putting the, yes, poverty is required, but you're putting the horse before, the cart before the horse in that regard is that it's created by it. And it is, we've said it before on videos like this. Why it's taking so long? I understand it, I don't agree with it. I understand why the British don't teach it because it's to their shame. Why America doesn't incorporate this or even more of anything Eastern? I understand where we come from, but in this day and age, it makes no sense to me why education isn't more well-rounded and that we learn more about everything from the East, let alone things that are of this importance regarding the history of what happened in India. But even, for example, the approach to the arts is definitively Western. It's all from the Greeks, through the Romans, through Europe to here, as if everybody in Asia just is so far behind us, it's not even worth talking about. Yeah, I mean, I'm not shocked that we don't teach it because we don't even teach our own history correctly. Right, that's true. That's true. History, as everybody knows, written by the victors. But what's great, what's great is in the day and age of technology we have it, and a lot of people is that the current generation and the generation following is of the recognition of what you just said. But unfortunately, the people that are in charge of the education system are old fucks who... And the political system. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because we don't like... We have our, obviously, this is a, it might even be what that one guy said, the greatest atrocity in mankind because of how many people were killed. You know, we're talking about the Holocaust, six million Jews, which is awful and that should be taught about and it's horrific. I think it was 30, 40 million. Close to 40 million. Caused by the British. Yeah, multiple famines, let alone the one that happened in Bengal that was specifically created during the war. The fact that we don't even like America, we don't teach the genocide that happened to the Native Americans, that we did, which is a genocide is not taught. Exactly, we don't even teach what was done to German civilians by the British and the Americans. We went to the West and it was all great. We got here and we do this for friends, that's how Thanksgiving happened. We've only recently begun to teach accurately what the hell Christopher Columbus was and did. When I grew up, he was a hero. And there's a reason for this, like there's a whole reason behind the education system in America and why we're taught certain things. It goes back to the Dixie Crats in their offspring and it's fucked up. Yeah, the point of it is not education as much as it is indoctrination. No, and it's really unfortunate. Yeah. Because not only that, obviously we're barely, we're taught about slavery, but we're taught about it from a nice white person point of view. Yep. Martin Luther King came and got rid of it all. Yeah, exactly. It just, he came and he gave, racism ended and everything's great. And it's just a terrible thing. No, and to show you how ingrained it is, this is a small example of the racism aspect, which is encapsulating all of this, went to Universal Studios with Valerie on Thursday and when you stand on the line for the tour, there's posters all along the way as you go in this covered thing, as well as videos that are shown of the history of Universal Pictures. And this has happened to me the last time I went, but I pointed it out to Andrani and to Valerie and I said, notice while we walk, all of the movie posters in the history of Universal, it's just a parade of white people. And growing up as a kid, for me, I didn't think anything of it necessarily because it's just what was normal. But had I grown up black or Asian, I would have felt very left out or as if there's something wrong with me because the predominance of everything that I'm being shown in the school books and in my education and in my entertainment and in my politics is not me, yeah. And anytime we do this stuff, it's always shocking to me that there hasn't been a movie about this subject. Like there, and I say it every time, there needs to be a Schindler's List style film. A movie here. They're made in India, have a Hollywood film. I mean, I would love to be made in India, obviously, but I think in order to get the global and the budget it needs probably, have a Hollywood film, hire Indian actors. And you can hire an Indian director as well. But fund it in Hollywood, just like the RR2 is probably gonna be. With notable names from people that American audiences would wanna see their film just cause they made it. Yeah, yeah. But about the, you could just make it about the famine if you just wanna do one thing because you could be encapsulated a lot now but the entire British rule of India. Yeah, somebody right now, there are some people with enough inroads and predominance like a Rajmoolie who could do that. Cause one of the reasons Schindler's List had the impact it did was twofold. It was the name and the notoriety of Steven Spielberg combined with his Jewishness. It was a Jew telling the story. And I really wish there would be someone who has a passionate, well done story to tell that would bring some level of education. It would need to be obviously, and like I said, I would love it to be an Indian production but I would also, I need it to have the funding for it as well. And it needs the name. And it needs the name. And it needs to be done by an Indian. So like, I don't know, I mean, I would love for like an Anya Ragh or the guy who did Sardar Udam. Yeah, that's the movie I was thinking of with Sardar Udam is perfect. What's his name? We've seen a lot of his films, Hiku, right? He's the same director. He's a great director. That'd be a great choice, I think. Yeah, Sardar Udam is exactly the kind of film that we need. The problem with that is it wasn't, didn't have enough names that are noticed here in America. One encouragement, though, would be there are a lot of people like us. I mean, and I was this way before the channel in recognizing aspects of American education and politics that need to be changed. And the best way to go about doing that is to raise your kids with an understanding of that, which is what I did for Ashley Alexis and Micah. And we're doing for, I mean, they're just getting started with Evie and Leviella. And I'll know that you guys will do for your kids. Anyways, great video, it's always great. Let us know what you think about it in any other videos we can react to down below. Juice!