Why wasn't india settled by europeans.

Dec 2017
473
Australia
#21
Ir’s easier to tolerate dry climate with temperature +38C having 4 seasons than humid climate with temperature +32C+33C with 2 seasons. Winters are cool in temperate climate. Snow falls in mountains in ACT. Perfect weather is in springs and autumns.
Often we stop in Singapore when we fly in Europe. Singapore is right on equator. I’d never be able to live in tropical climate.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,105
New Delhi, India
#22
If we go by Avesta, some of the Aryan tribes came to India but returned because of heat and fever. India (Hapta-Hendu) is mentioned as the fifteenth homeland of Aryans.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,836
San Antonio, Tx
#23
Because India has a billion people, and Britain does not....

And they couldn't wipe out the Indians in India the way they wiped out the Indians in North America.
Leaving aside, of course, the fact that the Indians in America (native Americans) were not wiped out and are still very much “here”. Most of the “Indian Wars” were actually quite modest, small affairs. I suspect that the vast majority of Native American deaths in the 17th, 18th and possibly the 19th centuries were caused by diseases brought to the colonies by European settlers.

Many Americans - my wife among them - have some Amerindian blood in their veins but do not choose to live on reservations out west because they don’t want to. We had an across the street neighbor in Houston whose wife was majority Cherokee (she was from Oklahoma) but unless she told you, you’d never know it. The movies made by John Ford (sp?) showing US Cavalry outposts in the far west were probably quite accurate in the sense that they were small affairs.


The colonists and later Americans treated the native tribes poorly - actually much worse centuries ago than today. There are not too many instances in recent history where a first world culture collided directly with a third world culture. At the time the European conquest, the Amerindians were basically a Stone Age culture of hunter-gatherers with a few exceptions (such as the Hopi and Navajo). When they got rifles, knives and horses, things changed dramatically.
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,836
San Antonio, Tx
#24
Leaving aside, of course, the fact that the Indians in America (native Americans) were not wiped out and are still very much “here”. Most of the “Indian Wars” were actually quite modest, small affairs. I suspect that the vast majority of Native American deaths in the 17th, 18th and possibly the 19th centuries were caused by diseases brought to the colonies by European settlers.

Many Americans - my wife among them - have some Amerindian blood in their veins but do not choose to live on reservations out west because they don’t want to. We had an across the street neighbor in Houston whose wife was majority Cherokee (she was from Oklahoma) but unless she told you, you’d never know it. The movies made by John Ford (sp?) showing US Cavalry outposts in the far west were probably quite accurate in the sense that they were small affairs.

The colonists and later Americans treated the native tribes poorly - actually much worse centuries ago than today. There are not too many instances in recent history where a first world culture collided directly with a third world culture - Australia is another. At the time the European conquest, the Amerindians were basically a Stone Age culture of hunter-gatherers with a few exceptions (such as the Hopi and Navajo). When they got rifles, knives and horses, things changed dramatically.
 
Feb 2016
4,171
Japan
#25
It was.
About 170 000 people of European birth were based there in 1902. Including many born there.
This does not include mixed race people.

The difference was, India was a huge populated, urbanised and civilised place.. so colonialism did not reshape the demographics of the place as it would have if they were still hunter gatherers.
 
Dec 2017
473
Australia
#26
It was.
About 170 000 people of European birth were based there in 1902. Including many born there.
This does not include mixed race people.

The difference was, India was a huge populated, urbanised and civilised place.. so colonialism did not reshape the demographics of the place as it would have if they were still hunter gatherers.
170,000 is hardly a settlement. Probably most returned home or elsewhere.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,149
India
#27
It was.
About 170 000 people of European birth were based there in 1902. Including many born there.
This does not include mixed race people.

The difference was, India was a huge populated, urbanised and civilised place.. so colonialism did not reshape the demographics of the place as it would have if they were still hunter gatherers.
170,000 came from mainland Britain mainly as an administrator and they would return back to Britain after the completion of their tenure or retirement.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,149
India
#28
Dry, hot summers doesn't mean humid. Very few people living in tropical climate in northern Australia. Likely under 450,000. In Cairns, Darwin, Broome and rural areas. The middle of Australia is empty. Most people living (around 80%) in southern part of the continent where there're four seasons. In Victoria, NSW, SA, WA, Tasmania, ACT, where at most two weeks in a year of hot days (+35C and more) .


They would still miss their cold climate. Beside, Himalayan mountain, many places in North-East India and many places in Burma were quite suitable for British. Some Hill stations like Darjeeling and Shimla were developed mainly to help British escape acute Indian summer. They didn't try even to colonize the mountain areas of India.