this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
3 points (57.9% liked)
Asklemmy
53787 readers
393 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Given the type of people the Pythons were (British Oxbridge men hand-picked by the major producers) and the time period, it has to be, right?
And they'd have a point, if the supposed great development benefits of being a British resource colony had ever materialised.
Sure, they built (limited) railways, but somehow India was never as rich as it was before colonisation. Japan did quite well by contrast. I'll go ahead and say Roman provinces saw more development, mostly because the iron age default was total stagnation and infighting. Even there, it's possible living in Rome was worse in some way which is not visible in the archeological record.