• PugJesus@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The Chinese Communist Revolution took place over a long period of time but was pretty well concluded by 1949. India got its independence in 1947, at a very similar time. Ten years later is roughly the period we’re talking about, but ten years after that China has pulled well ahead of India.

    “Pulled ahead” might make more sense if they were at the same position in 1950, around when they got their independence. They were not. There’s a 7 year gap between them in 1950, and by 1965 there’s a two year gap. Great success, China! Really pulled ahead by (checks notes) letting India catch up.

    Life expectancy was flat and only started going up toward the end of the Communist Revolution.

    As did life expectancy everywhere else in the world at the same time. Must be that worldwide revolution I keep hearing so much about. Thonking

    In India, under British rule, it was even worse.

    1945 life expectancy in India: 32, according to the source you provided.

    1945 life expectancy in China: 33, according to the source you provided.

    Fuck’s sake.

    You know there are easier ways to critique colonialism and capitalism than trying to bootlick Mao and the CCP, right?

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      There’s a 7 year gap between them in 1950, and by 1965 there’s a two year gap.

      1965 is again the one point at which they actually overlap in any meaningful way. Let’s look at that 20 year time period: in 1950, India was at 34, in 1970 it was at 46. In other words, from approximately 20 years after India gained independence its life expectancy increased by 12. In 1950, China was at 40, in 1970 it was at 55. In approximately 20 years since the Communist revolution, life expectancy increased by 15. I think it’s relevant that India was starting from further back but i don’t think that’s the only thing that mattered

      As did life expectancy everywhere else in the world at the same time. Must be that worldwide revolution I keep hearing so much about.

      Both India and China came a long way from the start of the 20th century and it’s a little insulting to suggest they have not. Looking at the statista numbers again, the global average was an appalling 31 in 1900. India was an even more appalling 22, by comparison China was actually doing well at 32. By 2020, the global average has risen to 73 while China is now beating that even more at 76.6 and India is not quite there at 69. (An increase of 44.6 for China, a comparatively better 47 for India, and 42 for the world.) For comparison to that, the United States was at 46 in 1900 and rose to 79 in 2020, a lesser but still not bad 33 years improvement. Western Europe is similar.

      Life expectancy has improved globally, but both India and China have beaten the average.

      1945 life expectancy in India…

      Try looking at, say, 1900 or any of the period prior to that. It was below the global average, it was bad and it was bad for a hundred years. In fact, comparing a hundred years back to 1900 it was actually decreasing in India over those hundred years. China wasn’t doing great, but it was doing better prior to the Communist Revolution than India was under Colonial rule.

      I’m licking any fucking boots, here, and i’m not about to overlook the evils of colonialism. I am dealing with the numbers.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        In other words, from approximately 20 years after India gained independence its life expectancy increased by 12. In 1950, China was at 40, in 1970 it was at 55. In approximately 20 years since the Communist revolution, life expectancy increased by 15.

        “In 20 years, the historically developed ethnostate increased its life expectancy three (3) more years than a country which, to this day, lacks a common ethnicity or language and whose development has been uneven at best”

        Wow, great work CCP, I bow before the Great Leaps Forward of Mao.

        I think it’s relevant that India was starting from further back but i don’t think that’s the only thing that mattered

        You thought it relevant enough to completely ignore it until it was pointed out, how sweet.

        I’m licking any fucking boots, here, and i’m not about to overlook the evils of colonialism. I am dealing with the numbers.

        You quite clearly are licking boots in trying to justify the horrific crimes of Mao and the CCP by playing some “Life expectancy went UP” game while ignoring contemporary trends and trying to play ‘whataboutism’ games with India using some dubious reading of life expectancy statistics to try to prove that Stalinist-style totalitarianism of the kind that even the Soviet Union had abandoned by that time was actually A Net Good™.

        Both India and China came a long way from the start of the 20th century and it’s a little insulting to suggest they have not. Looking at the statista numbers again, the global average was an appalling 31 in 1900. India was an even more appalling 22, by comparison China was actually doing well at 32.

        Would you kindly read aloud for the class what your own source says is the life expectancy of the two countries at 1900?

        I also love how the argument goes from “Life expectancy went UP when the Communist Party came into power! Correlation is causation!” to “Well, they beat the average world life expectancy 40 years later!”

        We’re fucking done here, bootlicker.