The war may have been the British reason for diverting all that food away from Burma, but the famine would not have happened at all that year if it weren't for British colonial control. And the primary reason they were able to have such strong control was because they were so much more technologically advanced (especially in terms of mil…
The war may have been the British reason for diverting all that food away from Burma, but the famine would not have happened at all that year if it weren't for British colonial control. And the primary reason they were able to have such strong control was because they were so much more technologically advanced (especially in terms of military) than the locals. And the reason they were so advanced was because of being one of the first to industrialize. Like much of history, it had a domino effect on a lot of the lands and peoples under British colonial rule. James Burke could have easily done a Connections episode about it, although it would have been pretty grim.
It's my understanding that the Enclosure Acts were instigated by the noble land owners who got tired of 'sharing' their land with the commoners, and sought to use the Crown to help them formalize their embryonic private property rights so they could streamline their acreage for more sheep and wool. And that the new industrialization taking place in English urban centers was ironically one of the things that saved many peasants from starvation due to the enclosures. So it went from largely communal land to largely private land, does that all sound correct?
Interestingly, just found a quote from Marx about this very thing. I'm not a Marxist myself (at least I don't think I am), but it seems fitting for FdB's substack:
"As Karl Marx saw it, the enclosures in England amounted to a 'systematic theft of communal property.' He argued that they served two primary purposes: first, to kickstart capitalist agriculture, and second, to 'set free the agricultural population as a proletariat for the needs of industry.'”
The war may have been the British reason for diverting all that food away from Burma, but the famine would not have happened at all that year if it weren't for British colonial control. And the primary reason they were able to have such strong control was because they were so much more technologically advanced (especially in terms of military) than the locals. And the reason they were so advanced was because of being one of the first to industrialize. Like much of history, it had a domino effect on a lot of the lands and peoples under British colonial rule. James Burke could have easily done a Connections episode about it, although it would have been pretty grim.
It's my understanding that the Enclosure Acts were instigated by the noble land owners who got tired of 'sharing' their land with the commoners, and sought to use the Crown to help them formalize their embryonic private property rights so they could streamline their acreage for more sheep and wool. And that the new industrialization taking place in English urban centers was ironically one of the things that saved many peasants from starvation due to the enclosures. So it went from largely communal land to largely private land, does that all sound correct?
Interestingly, just found a quote from Marx about this very thing. I'm not a Marxist myself (at least I don't think I am), but it seems fitting for FdB's substack:
"As Karl Marx saw it, the enclosures in England amounted to a 'systematic theft of communal property.' He argued that they served two primary purposes: first, to kickstart capitalist agriculture, and second, to 'set free the agricultural population as a proletariat for the needs of industry.'”