wasn't really a few though was it? And the entire nation has enjoyed the knock on benefits. Lastly, Brits is not a race.
Not every nazi kills jews. Not every russia is communist. Let's not mentioned countries ever then?
When i made that post that exact video came to mind, i've seen others with similar sentiment but i was genuinely shocked by it the first time i saw that video. I hope as you say it stems from people's ignorance of what the British empire actually was.
One estimate I’ve read is that, during the 1890s, there were around 20,000 Brits in India at any one time. Around half were businessmen, and another 3,000 were army officers. There were around 1,300 in the Indian Civil Service, and these were responsible for governance. And the balance was made up of lower ranking public servants and an assortment of people with various reasons for being there (e.g. university professors, journalists, mercenaries, missionaries, even the odd settler, etc.). So not a huge number by any means in the empire’s greatest possession.
Just like not every Chinese is a neo colonialist, although it can be argued that the PRC is. I hope you now understand?
I love the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway though! Come visit!It's not racist, unless you really wants to be semantics.
What the duck are you on about man ffs
Can you seriously not see the issue with this first sentence?
Yes, I appreciate your memory skills here. I'm a Lutheran Christian and most of my family and I were educated through the Christian institutions' setup by the missionaries. My parents and in laws work/worked in PWD (Central Public Works Department) where British surveys on dams, railways are still the gold standard. Without the British colonial rule, it is fair to say that the social reforms would not have been possible earlier in the century. However, these far outweigh the evils of the colonial system. For all the things accomplished, it wasn't the benevolence of the British empire to the uncivilized masses, it was more to further their own goals in the subcontinent. For the societal reforms and the infrastructure knowledge given by the Brits, the subcontinent has paid with blood and tears many times over. My own grandfather died during the second world war in Burma fighting for the British forces. It's even more galling when the likes of Ivaldo come to this thread with very little context of what happened and go on with their 'Yeah but we educated you savages' bullshit that makes me yearn for corporal punishments and history assignments for enlightenment. People also do not understand the very real tension between missionaries who came to India to spread Christianity and the East India Company who came for prospecting.Fish, I'm interested in your thoughts on this actually and you came to mind when I was writing the post above.
I may be completely misremembering here but I vaguely remember you before talking about some of the benefits you saw about colonialism on the subcontinent? And weren't convinced that the changes mentioned above re castes etc would have happened without them (or if they had, would have been significantly slower).
If I am remembering correctly, do you still feel that way/ if you don't, what has changed your mind?
If it wasn't you, please ignore the above.
What I mean by Brits is British government, British policy, British strategy maker who decided that it's best to play a divide and conquer, British Monarch that sanctioned murder or genocide or any other tactics that causes pain towards the colonials, not the British clerk who happens to be stationed at their colony, nor a current British who has nothing to do with history.
Absolutely ridiculous but kind of expected. Your deeply negative views of the West shine through here and on the China thread. Carry on
This is a bonkers post.
In the thread where british empire is colonializing half the world and I'm supposed to be positive of the west?
The british are no longer colonialzing half the word. Do you view modern germans through the lens of Nazi Germany or think of the Italians as the Romans?
I'm an Indian and from a part of the country which was massacred by the British Empire. That does not mean I go about making wide sweeping statements tarring an entire populace.
That was not what i meant. As i have stated again and again. But keep on playing the racist card because i use the wrong grammar and terms.
May I ask what part of India and what massacre you're referring to? Genuinely interested.
How does anyone who lives in London get on a moral high horse about the knock on benefits to Britain of empire though? If there is any part of the UK with any colonial milk left in the teat its London. Yet there you are metaphorically sucking it as hard as you can for every last drop.
What’s it to you and why are you making it personal with a personal attack??
The bit in italics would be cool only if the UK would then also take some responsibility, like by apologizing for some stuff and putting money and effort into supporting their economies (in the case of Somalia and Jamaica). Wouldn't the UK otherwise just be kinda claiming parts of the world for itself again, just not in a geopolitical sense?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Will the the first of many I’m sure. Good to see.
Many former colonies have already become republics and no longer have the Queen as head of state. It’s nothing new. It’s a logical progression for most of these countries. Even Australia and Canada will probably move on from it one day.
Doesn't mean anything practically. The Queen is just a figurehead and Barbados is already a republic in all but name and they'll still be a commonwealth member ( not like there's any overt benefits in that either).
It amazes me that this logical progression has yet to manifest in so many countries.
Lots of people like having royals around. In Canada, for example, there is just no noticeable opposition to that weird Queen thingy outside Quebec. (You'll never guess where I stand in this discussion.)
Indeed, but why not get your own?
