They tried doing that to the native people living in North America too. The only difference is that they largely succeeded.
Me, a Canadian full blooded Ojibway/Cree on all sides of my family joining this conversation ...
"They" started the job, then the US had a war of independence and then kept the job going.
The only reason the US isn't solidly in the first camp is because they really nailed the genocide over here. Just look at, say, this meme for an example of how they were so effective people don't even remember it happened to us.
Less it happened to us, and more we were still calling ourselves British when we started doing it to the people that weren't.
Dont forget that one of the big "unforgivable" laws to the proto-USA wasnt just taxes.
But that the colonies had to respect the existing borders of the colonies to existing native groups
They didn't just try in NA
1770 The Great Bengal Famine occurs killing 30 million thanks to extractive taxation by England.
1775 America violently rejects extractive taxation policies and goes on to win independence from England.
1845 The Great Irish Famine kills 1 million with at least 2 million fleeing as refugees due to extractive policies on food. Which had Ireland continue to net export food during the famine.
The difference is America knew what came next and acted accordingly.
Well, I'd point at the difference being "America was organized and ready to take advantage of anti-British sentiment, while the other two were not".
People often want to think it's the scale or intensity of the injustice which triggers revolutions, but it's really not - it's the chances of success. People can suffer almost infinitely if they don't believe they can win. Britain's policy of 'benevolent neglect' bit them in the ass, because it forced us to organize ourselves, including in local companies, militia units, and colonial representative bodies, which came in handy once we realized that not being represented was a really shit deal.
America was organized and ready to take advantage of anti-British sentiment, while the other two were not".
I'd agree having knowledge of what happened in India enabled the Americans to foresee the inevitable outcomes of ignoring the taxes and take early action to organize and resist. 1770 and 1775 were very close in time. If not for the Great Bengal Famine perhaps the American Revolution would have gone much differently.
If the result of fighting and failing and not fighting are both the same suddenly 1% sounds like great odds.
What bit Britain was two things the excessive spending on the French Indian war and the fact that we weren't forced to have representative bodies and militias we wanted them. American considered themselves Englishmen and to have all the rights afforded to Englishmen. Americans fought most of 1775 and into 76 not fighting for independence but for the respect of those rights after England tried to dissolve our legislative bodies.
England had no more a right to tax the colonies than Russia has to tax a Frenchman. If America didn't reject a tax on tea (even though it actually made tea cheaper) they'd be accepting the notion that it was a just authority of England to tax them. And if they had authority to tax a penny they could tax a pound. As shown in Bengal the power to tax was the power to destroy.
Left side clearly shouldn't have waited that long SMH my head
You forgot the no representation part.
We had representation. In each colony's own legislature before they started shutting them down. Representation would never happen in British parliament as it'd establish precedent for other colonies and Britain would soon be out numbered. Americans didn't want representation we wanted to prevent a precedent that we could be treated as an economic resource tile for the British to suck dry and abandon starving and sick.
