>>15755194>How can you even compare 1750s India to 1950s IndiaEconomists use modern countries all the time even before those countries existed, obviously it's not an exact science to estimate how the past was but there isn't exactly a better alternative.
>Some Indian kingdoms were rich, others weren't.Yes, on average it wasn't far from India in 1950 on many metrics, other than the population being twice as big after British rule.
Either way it wasn't much worse nor much better, the Brits didn't make Indians richer but neither plundered them back into being a poor nation.
>>15755195Ah, the egalitarian early modern Vietnam.
>>15755197There is no difference between colonialism and conquest, you replied to a Vietnamese that was trying to pretend that the conquest of Champa people(which were Austronesian Muslims btw) which ended up with them almost going extinct was somehow much better than French colonialism.
This is pure hypocrisy, at this point I don't care about what you think of colonialism, I care about people applying a single standard to everything.
