It often comes across as people getting personally offended by this stuff. There is nothing wrong with saying your country did some horrific stuff, it's not an attack on each individual citizen living here today.
That was an analysis of some texts you suggested (and others I found myself). And if I recall it was more concerned with the debate surrounding the factors which caused the famine, rather than the numbers game. I only did it to show that there was no grand consensus among those who have researched the topic, that it’s an ongoing debate in which alternative conclusions may be reached by reasonable analysis rather than solely by jingoistic pride.
So the British conquered a subcontinent with religious extremism, they kept that in check while exploiting it, they were asked to leave and did and religious extremism flared up again and you blame the British for the problems with religious extremism?
The nature of religious conflict in India (generally referred to as ‘communalism’) changed under British rule. Religious identities hardened through imperial processes such as census enumeration. Previously flexible and fluid methods of elaborating religious law became rigid as laws were codified/set in stone. The British arrived with their own ideas of what real religion should look like and favored some groups over others on that basis, which in turn fueled communal competition in various spheres of life such as access to government jobs, university places, and ultimately politics.
You should read a book. Why did people on both sides commit genocide? Land grabbing. It had FA to do with religion. South Asia has been a thriving multi religious, multi cultural, multi ethnic society for hundreds of years. It was a land at peace and of vast wealth before the British looted it.
That seems a bit rosier than I remember, but I'd have to look that up which I don't because it's not the point. You said your parents had to flee religious extremism, that's in no way caused by colonialism but by religion and extremism. No matter how poorly the British handled the split up, they didn't bring the religions and they didn't create the extremism. Colonial powers are responsible for their own evils and so are religions.
I think you haven't read much about the history of India.
The British exploited it. Look at the history of random cities in Pakistan or India. It used to be a mix of Hindu and Muslims. Brits came in and separated the two. Again, it was a smart plan for their benefit. I'm not saying anyone else wouldn't have done the same but it was exploitation.
Divide and conquer is a common theme among colonialist powers. They often emphasize differences for some purposes of their own, and then those live on after decolonization. You're right that people will find things to fight over anyway, but if colonial powers would have left countries behind with more geographic sense (look at those borders in much of Africa), less internal strive (another example: the definition of Hutus and Tutsis is a Belgian invention), and better governmental structures (why do all the former colonial powers have stable democracies with strong institutions, but few of their formal colonies do?), you'd be looking at very different and much more positive post-colonial histories today.
As I said, they're different in scale. Do you really think Ireland would have behaved any differently in the same situation? Looking at our past, I have no reason to think we wouldn't have done the exact same kind of thing as the British empire if there was an Irish empire.
Dont forget Shaka Hislop! My Gran came from San Fernando to the UK in the 1950s.True
The beautiful twin island republic of Trinidad and Tobago. Home of Dwight York and the Caf’s favorite doctor (me).
Car crash of a post. Demonstrates a massive lack of understanding.
Nice to see someone with similar blood on here mate!
Good question, I often feel Britain romanticises the British Empire. Probably because it is standard practice for an Empire to push rose-tinted versions of itself to inhabitants over the years. Without any significant defeats impacting British residents directly to trigger a period of reflection. Like, for example, in Germany post WW2.
Yes mate!
@KirkDuyt responded to a lot of that for the Netherlands. I would add that the realization has only really been dawning in the past decade of so that Dutch history had a dark side - but it's still doesn't get anywhere near the attention it deserves. For example, there isn't enough attention to the big role of Dutch slave traders (there weren't many slavers, but lots of traders), and their importance to the flourishing Dutch economy of the time. It's coming though; attention to all these aspects has really been ramping up in recent years.
Horror show of a response. It demonstrates an inability to properly comprehend the post without pre-existing bias. I'm not denying any atrocity carried out by the British Empire. I haven't in any way defended it. But that's exactly what you've read.
It was actively encouraged and stirred up by the British in a desperate strategy to divide and rule. Then when it failed to keep them in power they left. But the dividisions they purposely stirred up lingered for decades and in some cases centuries. Same old story across the empire.
You keep telling yourself that my friend. You claimed the case against the British Empire was revisionist. I have shown you evidence that the exact opposite is true as they burnt any historical papers portraying the empire negatively. If you knew that piece of history, why would you make such a silly claim?
Cheers, I just read some of that from "Kirk". Interesting stuff. I can see why we need to keep some of the history but do need to ensure it is spoken about truthfully. E.g. information on buildings, statues etc.
No, it really doesn't. Seriously, take a moment and reread. No one, and I mean literally no one, is claiming those atrocities did not happen. Not a single person here. You've created a situation that simply doesn't exist. You have, in effect, created a strawman and you're doubling down on it, because you're too busy being outraged to actually consider it. But let's elaborate. What 'silly point,' specifically, did I make that evidence you supplied contradict. What is it, specifically, that it null and void because of your link?
Take a look at this thread on a random football forum, plenty of cogent posts pointing out the evils of Empire. The information is very easy to find even if you don’t go looking for it, and at this point I’d find it hard to believe more than a handful of people are unacquainted with facts or information about the “bad parts” of empire building.
I remember @sammsky made a similar point to this and it’s one I wholeheartedly agree with. Employing concentration camps, shooting unarmed peaceful protestors, genocide. These are all unquestionably evil and it’s hard to fathom someone defending Nazi Germany over committing these acts, yet when the spotlight is on Britain it’s always justified because they ‘just did what anyone would do’
That’s not how it works. British colonial rule in India and the impact it has had on the contemporary situation is a nuanced one that’s debated, but your point in general falls flat. To take the stance of ‘they left so it has nothing to do with them’ is a completely misguided one though. Things don’t happen in a vacuum, historical context is incredibly important when it comes to dissecting why certain events happened and what were contributing factors.
I identify with your frustration, but the pro-Empire side of the argument is so prevalent (and the anti-Empire argument so sidelined) in our society, culture and education system that it isn't a shock to me that a lot of people are surprised, shocked or even enraged when they hear someone questioning whether Britain should be proud of its imperial legacy. I took history the whole way through school and didn't specifically study the British Empire until A2, by which point 90% of students have dropped History. The sole mandated text for that module was by Niall Ferguson.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Which shouldn't be idealized, btw. This process involved a lot of similar revisionism and ideological overhang, and both are still virulent in parts of society.
Honestly i dont know much about its history. I got an A at alevel history in NI but it wasnt a topic we were ever taught and its not something ive ever delved into deeper in my free time.
That turned out to be mostly a myth too. The Belgians introduced it into their records, formalizing the division, because keeping records is what colonial powers and European administrations in general do and subsaharan Africans generally didn't. . But the Tutsi are a different ethnicity, their origins are more Northern, they lived in different communities for a large part and they even look different.
Why not? They also could have said 'we're free now, we are going back to living happily together like we did before.' But they didn't because of their religions.
In general about colonial rule I don't think there's much difference for the subjected between colonial rule and other imperial or just exploitative rule there usually was before. It doesn't really matter that the rulers came by ship other than that resources that were useless became valuable because elsewhere on earth people wanted it and produce and products got much higher prices in wealthier Europe than locally. So the profits made by the colonials don't equate to the losses of locals.
No it's not that simple. When you've lived apart a few generations the hate becomes deeper. Look at Jews and Muslims throughout the years -- they lived together for centuries and in fact, jews took refuge among muslims from crusades when they could but the divide has since grown.
True, the Belgians didn't invent the ethnonyms Hutu and Tutsi, but they made it into a rigid scheme based on physical features and wealth. The strong divide is really their creation; it was much more fluid before.
Actually you'll find the political system they had in place in their countries had been replaced by an alien one. There was a power vacuum - the only so called leaders were those willing to work within the British system, there was huge poverty due to the asset stripping of "British India", the education system had been replaced, and all that was in the backdrop of a deliberate policy to create communal tension.
I agree. I made that point before: the countries the colonial powers left behind had little to do with local geographical and cultural realities, which is another inflammable mess the colonial powers lazily left behind.
