Why didn't Britain (or another European country) colonise China like they did India?
India was way more divided, China had a more advanced military, the costs would be too great, it's just a hellhole to administrate
>>916238
England did not "Colonize" India or conquer it at all. It bought the Zamindars using Bengal.
The East India Company lost the Sepoy Rebellion until The Battle Of Delhi brought the Marathas in.
>>916242
>India was way more divided
China would have put up a much fiercer resistance, the costs would not be worth the benefits in the short or long run.
>>916268
Well if Britain didn't colonise India at all I'm confused as to why Indians won't stop complaining to us about how all their problems our are fault for colonising them.
>>916320
Britain hindered their development significantly, but Indians had and have so many internal problems. They still look down on dark skinned indians, even though they're all brown skinned at this point. This singular Hindu Indian society they brag about hasn't existed for centuries.
>>916349
In the end people will scapegoat anything. Minorities, religious/political groups, bordering nations, anything.
Because the Chinese aren't utter failures like the Indians.
>>916320
Imagine being American.(God Forbid)
Now imagine someone bought up all your (temperary) governors and made them supreme overlords of life and death over you and forced you to obey those governors every command.
It was a joint venture between uppercaste Indians and Upperclass Britons.
They did their best even tried paying with drugs a couple time
>>916238
Indians are we wuz tier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv3rAVuBU1s
>>916320
Most of their problems actually are.
Complete deindustrialization of an entire subcontinent was obviously going to have disastrous effects for several generations.
Only now is India slowly crawling back and re-industrializing.
>>916388
>God Forbid
Coming from a fucking Somalian lmao
>>916799
Somali /= Somalian
>>916921
The Somalis come from Somalia don't they? Or am I being trolled?
>>916276
>China would have put up a much fiercer resistance, the costs would not be worth the benefits in the short or long run.
Boxer rebellion.
>>916238
China was stronk
>>916794
Wow India achieved what the Soviets did in 1957!!
>>917123
A very fierce rebellion.
Also 1900 China != 1700-1850 China
>>916349
The nation of India woudnt exist today without Britain
>>916928
I think he's one of the Canadians from /int/
"Somali" just refers to his ethnicity, "Somalian" would mean he's from Somalia.
>>917123
Boxer Rebellion really a poor example, random rebels got that ball rolling without the behest of the Qing state who ended up getting sucked into it. Plus the Chinese were already so badly beaten and broken by that point anyways.
As to why they didn't colonize it like they did India, the Chinese state was a lot stronger and united, it took a while to whittle away at it. Not like India where they could prey on smaller weak statelets.
Plus there were a lot of European states competing for slices of it. No one power wanted to tip things too far and have to fight a war back in Europe, so they generally moved slowly and only took economic concessions for a while...until about 1895 or so when they all went nuts.
The Chinese had a long standing tradition of playing foreigners off against each other. Their foreign affairs department was literally called "Barbarian Management" for the longest time, and this strategy slowed the penetration of China. The Empire was also huge and very hard to reach in many places, like Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Yunnan, and the Siuchan region. Only easily penetrable area was the east coast, unlike India which was easy to get to from damn near anywhere.
>>916238
Because it's a pain in the ass to administer and empire building isn't about "grab all the land you can get." Plus, France, Russia, America, or Germany would have come in demanded a cut or stopped them
>>916242
>China had a more advanced military
You mean the one the British stomped in literally every engagement? The same one that was still using matchlocks?
>>916794
India wasn't industrial before the British empire
