Colonialism in the subcontinent thread

[berbatrick]

Correct, you need only look at Japan, 200 years of technological issolation ended in the 1860s and they rapidly became a world power without the need for colonialist masters

As interesting as Japan is the case of China. Now from what I understood they were never officially colonised, though the Western powers and Japan had their spheres of influence... Yet anti imperialism was a part of Sun-Yat Sen's movement and a big part of the Communist movement (though their direct enemies were the the Qing rulers and the KMT government/warlords respectively.)

In term of pure economic progress China has done better than every single colonised country (ignoring special cases like HK and Singapore). You can couple that with this article which says that the princely states that existed within India during British rules are more prosperous areas than these under direct British command.

I think it's safe to say that India would probably have been better off than it is now if there was no/indirect colonialism.

More interesting to see would be if democracy would have been established. This is pure speculation, but if we look at China, and the international influence of Communism and the prominence of the Soviet Union, it's possible that India- and large parts of the world would have become Communist.

PS: my 1st post here, go easy

 

[Nedved]

As interesting as Japan is the case of China. Now from what I understood they were never officially colonised, though the Western powers and Japan had their spheres of influence... Yet anti imperialism was a part of Sun-Yat Sen's movement and a big part of the Communist movement (though their direct enemies were the the Qing rulers and the KMT government/warlords respectively.)

In term of pure economic progress China has done better than every single colonised country (ignoring special cases like HK and Singapore). You can couple that with this article which says that the princely states that existed within India during British rules are more prosperous areas than these under direct British command.

I think it's safe to say that India would probably have been better off than it is now if there was no/indirect colonialism.

More interesting to see would be if democracy would have been established. This is pure speculation, but if we look at China, and the international influence of Communism and the prominence of the Soviet Union, it's possible that India- and large parts of the world would have become Communist.

PS: my 1st post here, go easy

Most likely, yes. Some of the richest and most progressive countries in the world today used to be very poor quite recently, but were (mostly) left alone during colonialism and the world wars. Look at Scandinavia, for instance.

Having Britain or Spain dividing you and taking all your riches in exchange for some technology would likely not have helped.

Welcome, by the way.

 

[crappycraperson]

Erm.

... yes?? Not so much Britain, but in the half of the world that operates on Civil Law, the Napoleonic Code served as the basis of basically all their future jurisprudence.

Look, I realize this is an emotive issue. But at some point, you need to historically objective about things. Why stop at the Napoleonic Code? What about the Code of Justinian, which served as the basis for almost all of Europe's laws for a millenium? What about the Code of Hammurabi? Can we not evaluate it rationally without being tainted by the thought of all the poor Celts that the Romans killed in order to propagate their rule? (Because I sense this will shortly be misunderstood, I am obviously not comparing pre-colonial India to Celtic Gaul.)

I don't think I've ever seen people get so worked up so quickly, and over so little, on this board - not that I've been here long, I suppose. But this is actually getting absurd. People who think colonialism maybe just maybe wasn't the historical equivalent of genocide are racists. I've heard it all now.

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. Even if no genocides happened under British colonialism, many massacres did. And many massacres were facilitated by them one way or another.

Are you trying to sat that is alright since they did not go the full hog like Nazis? Just because Germans outdid the other European powers, does not excuse these nations' actions.

 

[Member 60376]

@berbatrick welcome up, linking that article got you promoted!

Joking

 

[naturalized]

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. Even if no genocides happened under British colonialism, many massacres did. And many massacres were facilitated by them one way or another.

Are you trying to sat that is alright since they did not go the full hog like Nazis? Just because Germans outdid the other European powers, does not excuse these nations' actions.

Did you quote me by accident? I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

 

[naturalized]

In term of pure economic progress China has done better than every single colonised country (ignoring special cases like HK and Singapore). You can couple that with this article which says that the princely states that existed within India during British rules are more prosperous areas than these under direct British command.

That was a great article, thanks. I liked that the authors controlled for pre-existing wealth through the Doctrine of Lapse, that was clever.

 

[adexkola]

@Nedved (I'm too lazy to multiquote)

I don't think anyone is saying it was overall positive experience for the countries under foreign rule, and a few of us have highlighted how bad some colonial powers were. I don't think there is any benefit Belgium brought to Zaire, no matter what way we look at things. The same cannot be said of most British colonies.

It's easy for us to sit back and pontificate, "evil bastards", but the only reason why it was Britain colonizing India, and not the other way around, was because it had the superior technology, navy, and ability to project power half a world away. A few centuries ago it was Europeans cowering in their castle as Mongol hordes kept on knocking on Europe's door. Countries throughout history have always looked to gain unfair advantage over other countries and dominions by appropriating land and resources, and it was only 20 years ago that colonialism became uncool. I understand the sensitivities regarding this subject, but it is possible to study the negative and positive effects of colonialism globally and individually. Whitewashing history with a "oh evil bastards dem European racists" comment is lazy, and boring.

 

[MoskvaRed]

@Nedved (I'm too lazy to multiquote)

I don't think anyone is saying it was overall positive experience for the countries under foreign rule, and a few of us have highlighted how bad some colonial powers were. I don't think there is any benefit Belgium brought to Zaire, no matter what way we look at things. The same cannot be said of most British colonies.

It's easy for us to sit back and pontificate, "evil bastards", but the only reason why it was Britain colonizing India, and not the other way around, was because it had the superior technology, navy, and ability to project power half a world away. A few centuries ago it was Europeans cowering in their castle as Mongol hordes kept on knocking on Europe's door. Countries throughout history have always looked to gain unfair advantage over other countries and dominions by appropriating land and resources, and it was only 20 years ago that colonialism became uncool. I understand the sensitivities regarding this subject, but it is possible to study the negative and positive effects of colonialism globally and individually. Whitewashing history with a "oh evil bastards dem European racists" comment is lazy, and boring.

I fully agree. For many years (up until at least the mid-16th century), Europe was on the receiving end of invasions. It was fortuitous for Europe (and unlucky for the others) that it gained the upper hand in a period when communications had developed sufficiently to project power on a global scale. The other factor is that many of the colonized areas/states had themselves been formed through conquests by neighboring powers. So while might is not right, conquest and colonialism is common to all cultures and not specifically European.

 

[fishfingers15]

@Nedved (I'm too lazy to multiquote)

I don't think anyone is saying it was overall positive experience for the countries under foreign rule, and a few of us have highlighted how bad some colonial powers were. I don't think there is any benefit Belgium brought to Zaire, no matter what way we look at things. The same cannot be said of most British colonies.

It's easy for us to sit back and pontificate, "evil bastards", but the only reason why it was Britain colonizing India, and not the other way around, was because it had the superior technology, navy, and ability to project power half a world away. A few centuries ago it was Europeans cowering in their castle as Mongol hordes kept on knocking on Europe's door. Countries throughout history have always looked to gain unfair advantage over other countries and dominions by appropriating land and resources, and it was only 20 years ago that colonialism became uncool. I understand the sensitivities regarding this subject, but it is possible to study the negative and positive effects of colonialism globally and individually. Whitewashing history with a "oh evil bastards dem European racists" comment is lazy, and boring.

I agree with your post, but it's a hard sell to convince Indians of any positives. In hindsight, any event can be taken and argued for and against. For example, the divide and rule policy kept two power hungry parties happy, and if there were no British, there would still be two power hungry parties. Colonialism is a pretty rotten concept, but there undoubtedly positives for India. It's nice to imagine India as a thriving and rich country with varied history, but it's very true that we were a country full of small monarchs set up to rule by birth. We wouldn't be rich, the kings would be. I can fully understand the outrage of the Indian posters though. Some of the things done by British were downright despicable.

Here's an interesting story though, Even in the height of World War II, German missionaries continued to adopt children and support countries in India. My mother and her sister were adopted by German missionaries for education and small allowances because my mother's family had no income to support a family of 6.

 

[adexkola]

I agree with your post, but it's a hard sell to convince Indians of any positives. In hindsight, any event can be taken and argued for and against. For example, the divide and rule policy kept two power hungry parties happy, and if there were no British, there would still be two power hungry parties. Colonialism is a pretty rotten concept, but there undoubtedly positives for India. It's nice to imagine India as a thriving and rich country with varied history, but it's very true that we were a country full of small monarchs set up to rule by birth. We wouldn't be rich, the kings would be. I can fully understand the outrage of the Indian posters though. Some of the things done by British were downright despicable.

Here's an interesting story though, Even in the height of World War II, German missionaries continued to adopt children and support countries in India. My mother and her sister were adopted by German missionaries for education and small allowances because my mother's family had no income to support a family of 6.

And in no way will you find me convincing anyone from India (or anywhere else actually) that the British were paternalistic guardians seeking to groom India into the modern world. They were opportunistic, greedy, and in some instances cruel and inhuman. I read up on the Bengal famine everyone was going on about, and it's impossible to eliminate the factor of malice towards the rebels in the region.

Sadly they have lots of company throughout history.

 

[naturalized]

Here's an interesting story though, Even in the height of World War II, German missionaries continued to adopt children and support countries in India. My mother and her sister were adopted by German missionaries for education and small allowances because my mother's family had no income to support a family of 6.

Interesting.

Was this related to Hitler's policy of stirring the Indian pot and trying to force a break, like what he did with Subhas Chandra Bose (sp?) et al? Or was it a wholly private action? Reminds me of John Rabe in Nanjing.

 

[fishfingers15]

Interesting.

Was this related to Hitler's policy of stirring the Indian pot and trying to force a break, like what he did with Subhas Chandra Bose (sp?) et al? Or was it a wholly private action? Reminds me of John Rabe in Nanjing.

The Lutheran Church of Germany was independent of Hitler, and in many instances, the church congregation risked their lives, during and after WW II as the Government ordered any charity/alms should be stopped as Germany itself was in dire needs of massive restoration.

 

[crappycraperson]

I agree with your post, but it's a hard sell to convince Indians of any positives. In hindsight, any event can be taken and argued for and against. For example, the divide and rule policy kept two power hungry parties happy, and if there were no British, there would still be two power hungry parties. Colonialism is a pretty rotten concept, but there undoubtedly positives for India. It's nice to imagine India as a thriving and rich country with varied history, but it's very true that we were a country full of small monarchs set up to rule by birth. We wouldn't be rich, the kings would be. I can fully understand the outrage of the Indian posters though. Some of the things done by British were downright despicable.

Here's an interesting story though, Even in the height of World War II, German missionaries continued to adopt children and support countries in India. My mother and her sister were adopted by German missionaries for education and small allowances because my mother's family had no income to support a family of 6.

Europe was the same, some countries there still have a monarch. It takes me to back to my post where I said what is so great about unification of subcontinental region under 2-3 countries anyway? If we were a group of small nations like Europe, we could still have a union like them and differing economies for each state would have still resulted in cooperation between different states. Ofcourse there will be rich and poor states, liberal and ultra-conservative ones, heck you might have had some states following Sharia law, but Pakistan already does that.

If anything British created a democracy by which the central authority could exploit all of India's resources at the cost of the common people. Rather than changing that system, our political overlords have just taken the reigns and continued the looting along with the uber rich class and few folks lucky and skillful enough to break into that level.

 

[fishfingers15]

Europe was the same, some countries there still have a monarch. It takes me to back to my post where I said what is so great about unification of subcontinental region under 2-3 countries anyway? If we were a group of small nations like Europe, we could still have a union like them and differing economies for each state would have still resulted in cooperation between different states. Ofcourse there will be rich and poor states, liberal and ultra-conservative ones, heck you might have had some states following Sharia law, but Pakistan already does that.

If anything British created a democracy by which the central authority could exploit all of India's resources at the cost of the common people. Rather than changing that system, our political overlords have just taken the reigns and continued the looting along with the uber rich class and few folks lucky and skillful enough to break into that level.

Like I said, it's well and good saying what might have been. We've been under a caste system and a society status fixed by the birth for almost our recorded history. I've read and studied Tamil Poetry and most of our heroes were ordinary men who rose in prominence to 'help the king'. We had our 'Gurukul' system of education. There's nothing to suggest that without a common cause of outcry, none of those systems would have been broken. Argue all you want, Education, infrastructure and medicine improved multi-fold directly as a result of Missionaries and the colonial powers.

For what it's worth, I support your view of smaller countries than one grandiose India, great in diversity from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. I think it's practical and much more profitable to have 3 or 4 smaller countries. The colonial powers came and maybe even as an undesired by-product, helped our masses get education.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[crappycraperson]

Like I said, it's well and good saying what might have been. We've been under a caste system and a society status fixed by the birth for almost our recorded history. I've read and studied Tamil Poetry and most of our heroes were ordinary men who rose in prominence to 'help the king'. We had our 'Gurukul' system of education. There's nothing to suggest that without a common cause of outcry, none of those systems would have been broken. Argue all you want, Education, infrastructure and medicine improved multi-fold directly as a result of Missionaries and the colonial powers.

For what it's worth, I support your view of smaller countries than one grandiose India, great in diversity from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. I think it's practical and much more profitable to have 3 or 4 smaller countries. The colonial powers came and maybe even as an undesired by-product, helped our masses get education.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Except that caste based discrimination is still prevalent in the society despite a good period of colonialism. It is also quite a leap to suggest that Indians themselves would have never made any laws against practices like Sati or discrimination against lower classes. All the education did not stop slavery being legal in US. Infact you had people having restricted rights based on race in US even after we already had granted equal rights to all in India (at least in theory).

Good men rising to help the king is not unique to India, it is part of almost every single country's history. Whether Indian people themselves would have risen to establish democracy is harder to answer. The evidence suggests that people in certain regions would gave risen against the kings, the same way they did against the British. Post first war of independence, fight for freedom moved away from being led by kings and queens. In others like Rajasthan where people were relatively happy with their royals would not have. End result would either have been India as a continent with a collection of nations, some democratic, some kingdom. Or like US, the democratic union between different regions could have consolidated by bringing unwilling kings under it. Post 1947, this exact scenario did occur. Everyone knows how Goa and Hyderabad was captured or the mess in Kashmir. Go and ask people in Rajasthan and many will still claim that the Indian state forced their king and their state to join the union or how Indira Gandhi threw their queen in Jail.

 

[fishfingers15]

Except that caste based discrimination is still prevalent in the society despite a good period of colonialism. It is also quite a leap to suggest that Indians themselves would have never made any laws against practices like Sati or discrimination against lower classes. All the education did not stop slavery being legal in US. Infact you had people having restricted rights based on race in US even after we already had granted equal rights to all in India (at least in theory).

Good men rising to help the king is not unique to India, it is part of almost every single country's history. Whether Indian people themselves would have risen to establish democracy is harder to answer. The evidence suggests that people in certain regions would gave risen against the kings, the same way they did against the British. Post first war of independence, fight for freedom moved away from being led by kings and queens. In others like Rajasthan where people were relatively happy with their royals would not have. End result would either have been India as a continent with a collection of nations, some democratic, some kingdom. Or like US, the democratic union between different regions could have consolidated by bringing unwilling kings under it. Post 1947, this exact scenario did occur. Everyone knows how Goa and Hyderabad was captured or the mess in Kashmir. Go and ask people in Rajasthan and many will still claim that the Indian state forced their king and their state to join the union or how Indira Gandhi threw their queen in Jail.

I don't understand why you need to quote to other social evils in other countries as if it provides you some sort of usable excuse. Caste based system still prevails in spite of the progress we've made so far, which should be a strong enough indication to how worse we'll be without the colonial intervention. So it's not that much of a leap. Slavery was abolished not because the downtrodden liberated themselves, there were a lot of idealists among the 'white elite' who wanted to abolish slavery.

Based on India's history of little change over the 2000 years, I don't see how it's a leap. At the end of the day, we are arguing 'well we could have done it without the British', or 'well, we might not have'. At the end of the day, a lot of my people owe our education to the Colonial rule and I will have to disagree with you and state that as one of the positives of British rule.

 

[crappycraperson]

I don't understand why you need to quote to other social evils in other countries as if it provides you some sort of usable excuse. Caste based system still prevails in spite of the progress we've made so far, which should be a strong enough indication to how worse we'll be without the colonial intervention. So it's not that much of a leap. Slavery was abolished not because the downtrodden liberated themselves, there were a lot of idealists among the 'white elite' who wanted to abolish slavery.

Based on India's history of little change over the 2000 years, I don't see how it's a leap. At the end of the day, we are arguing 'well we could have done it without the British', or 'well, we might not have'. At the end of the day, a lot of my people owe our education to the Colonial rule and I will have to disagree with you and state that as one of the positives of British rule.

I quoted it because it is completely relevant since you think education imparted by the westerners was responsible for Indians accepting caste system as discriminatory. The same people who happily discriminated quote openly and legally for a long period of time on the basis of race among other things.

In fact the comparison with status of Afro-Americans in America is a very good one. Just like certain Hindu texts justified caste system, you had the bible in US justifying the right of white men to own and treat Negros as their property. This viewpoint was so entrenched in half the country that they had a bloody civil war over it. Even after that war, afro-americans did not get their full rights until another civil rights movement that surely took place too late. In the mean time US had already grown to be a world super power and the most advanced nation on the planet. Similar discrimination has not ended even now since people use bible to discriminate against the homosexuals now.

India without british influence may have taken its time to bring up laws against caste system or may have done it sooner, impossible to predict it either way. Eventually people from lower castes would have risen against it, supported by evidence from different civilizations in different eras.

Several Indians who worked against caste system were not influenced by western education in anyway. Dayanand for instance who founded Arya Samaj as a protest against Hinduism gone awry had no influence of western education for his epiphany. This is similar to privileged white men seeing slavery for the evil it was and helping to eradicate it. British may have played along when it came to passing laws but provisions like banning Sati would have never happened with support of several Indians who were against it.

Also lot of historians contend that caste system became much more rigid under the British rule, who allowed the upper castes to consolidate their privileged status by subjugating lower classes to bear the brunt of their rule.

 

[Member 60376]

A lot of changes in Indian society came from within - the Bramho Samaj for example

Vidyasagar, Vivekananda, Ram Mohan Roy were working to remove many of the ills that the British had been reluctant to address eg widow marriage or sati or even untouchability

Though the British did enable the changes by passing them into law once these movements had gained critical mass

The natives were oft treated as a lower caste

It is simplistic to say social progress would not have happened without the British, it is also simplistic to say the British did no good

Re the point about democracy, the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy was imposed on India, and it does not really work - much like in many other countries

 

[fishfingers15]

I quoted it because it is completely relevant since you think education imparted by the westerners was responsible for Indians accepting caste system as discriminatory. The same people who happily discriminated quote openly and legally for a long period of time on the basis of race among other things.

In fact the comparison with status of Afro-Americans in America is a very good one. Just like certain Hindu texts justified caste system, you had the bible in US justifying the right of white men to own and treat Negros as their property. This viewpoint was so entrenched in half the country that they had a bloody civil war over it. Even after that war, afro-americans did not get their full rights after another civil rights movement that surely took place too late. In the mean time US already grown to be a world super power and the most advanced nation on the planet. Similar discrimination had not ended even now since people use bible to discriminate against the homosexuals now.

India without british influence may have taken its time to bring up laws against caste system, impossible to predict it either way. Eventually people from lower castes would have risen against it, supported by evidence from different civilizations in different eras.

Several Indians who worked against caste system were not influenced by western education in anyway. Dayanand for instance who founded Arya Samaj as a protest against Hinduism gone awry had no influence of western education for his epiphany. This is similar to privileged white men seeing slavery for the evil it was and helping to eradicate it. British may have played along when it came to passing laws but provisions like banning Sati would have never happened with support of several Indians who were against it.

Also lot of historians contend that caste system became much more rigid under the British rule, who allowed the upper castes to conspolidate their privileged status by subjugating lower classes to bear the brunt of their rule.

First up, Sorry, I don't think the bible says that at all, having read it at least 3 or 4 times, I can tell you that. I'm a believer, so I don't think any religion is the reason for social evils, it's how humans interpret the text. It's a cop-out if we just blame Hinduism or Christianity for Slavery and Caste system, it's human greed. Either way, I think we should leave out religion, it's a difficult topic to discuss with an open mind.

Second, I'm saying the same thing, it's impossible to say either way. You argue that it would have eventually happened, I'm saying it did happen due to colonialism. Like I said, it's very difficult to come to a consensus. So, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[fishfingers15]

A lot of changes in Indian society came from within - the Bramho Samaj for example

Vidyasagar, Vivekananda, Ram Mohan Roy were working to remove many of the ills that the British had been reluctant to address eg widow marriage or sati or even untouchability

Though the British did enable the changes by passing them into law once these movements had gained critical mass

The natives were oft treated as a lower caste

It is simplistic to say social progress would not have happened without the British, it is also simplistic to say the British did no good

Re the point about democracy, the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy was imposed on India, and it does not really work - much like in many other countries

I'm arguing this point and I've never said Indians are all idiots incapable of making progress. 'Indians would have eventually made progress' is a hypothetical argument like 'Progress in India would have never happened without the British'. It would be foolish to discount the influence of Western education even among Indian reformers.

Another point about Ram Mohan Roy and the likes, Even the best bits of Indian reformation movements with a lot of forward thinking Indians (both from the upper and lower castes) were happy to acknowledge the influence of Western values.

 

[crappycraperson]

First up, Sorry, I don't think the bible says that at all, having read it at least 3 or 4 times, I can tell you that. I'm a believer, so I don't think any religion is the reason for social evils, it's how humans interpret the text. It's a cop-out if we just blame Hinduism or Christianity for Slavery and Caste system, it's human greed. Either way, I think we should leave out religion, it's a difficult topic to discuss with an open mind.

Second, I'm saying the same thing, it's impossible to say either way. You argue that it would have eventually happened, I'm saying it did happen due to colonialism. Like I said, it's very difficult to come to a consensus. So, let's just agree to disagree.

Fine. Though I am saying it is impossible to predict when we would have reached that stage ourselves.

Regarding bible, I am just stating a historical fact. Bible was used by people to justify slavery. There is also evidence to show that several Americans could recognize that slavery was wrong yet did not fight against it since they agreed that it was lawful as per the bible. If anything blaming humans for wrongful interpretation of any religious text is a cop out and too convenient. I am waiting for yet another cop out when discrimination against homosexuality is seen as bigoted as any other discrimination.

 

[Member 60376]

If anything, the British provided an enabling environment

Most reforms were done by the native progressive thinkers in this environment

One would not have worked without the other

I think we are not saying different things tbh

 

[crappycraperson]

It is simplistic to say social progress would not have happened without the British, it is also simplistic to say the British did no good

I don't think anyone is saying that. I have already stated in this very thread that this is a valid debate to be had and British were no where near as as bad French or the Belgians.

My biggest criticism against the Indian state as it stands now is that we have simply carried on as the British left us. No police reforms have taken place for last 100 years, judicial reforms have been lagging too, it seems like herculean task to overturn a ghastly prehistoric law which terms homosexuality as illegal. The whole IAS system is rotten to the core as well, leaving the so called Babus accountable to no one. The whole Devyani affair was a peek into how the Indian civil servants and diplomats have preserved their imperial status. The only good thing we accomplished after the independence was the Constitution and how I wish that Indians had the same zeal for it as the Americans. Instead there have been many pointless amendments to the said document while several key provisions are total non starters now due to the lack of political will.

 

[fishfingers15]

With that, I've made the last post in this thread.

 

[MJJ]

Am Pakistani and even I believe the same as all the indians here. Doubt you would find many in the sub-continent who will argue otherwise.

 

[Haddock]

Fair enough, I'm thinking more recent. @Haddock The Romans left us some lovely roads and ditto the Normans and their castles!

Haha Fair enough. The Mughals and Brits have left us some gorgeous although now crumbling buldings. I'm actually quite interested in the wonderful Arab/ Islamic architecture in Spain.

 

[Haddock]

Are you actually serious? You're incapable of discussing historical events without calling people racists? Because they disagree with you? I'm not actually white or British, you know - what does that make me, a self-hating person?

If we were discussing WWII and I pointed out that for all the harm WWII did it also spurred the tide of anticolonialism that ended the French and British Empires, would that make me a Nazi?

No it doesn't make you a self hating person at all.

Erm.

... yes?? Not so much Britain, but in the half of the world that operates on Civil Law, the Napoleonic Code served as the basis of basically all their future jurisprudence.

Look, I realize this is an emotive issue. But at some point, you need to historically objective about things. Why stop at the Napoleonic Code? What about the Code of Justinian, which served as the basis for almost all of Europe's laws for a millenium? What about the Code of Hammurabi? Can we not evaluate it rationally without being tainted by the thought of all the poor Celts that the Romans killed in order to propagate their rule? (Because I sense this will shortly be misunderstood, I am obviously not comparing pre-colonial India to Celtic Gaul.)

I don't think I've ever seen people get so worked up so quickly, and over so little, on this board - not that I've been here long, I suppose. But this is actually getting absurd. People who think colonialism maybe just maybe wasn't the historical equivalent of genocide are racists. I've heard it all now.

I'm afraid the person getting worked up here is not me.


Tell that to the native americans, the aborigines and the people of the Congo

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

People who think colonialism maybe just maybe wasn't the historical equivalent of genocide are racists. I've heard it all now.

Not quite. It may not have necessarily involved killings, but freedom, rights etc have been stamped out. I would argue that the 'positives' of being colonized are mostly unintentional byproduct of the core objective, economic/resource theft. For example, You cannot steal resources fast without having good transport. So transport got improved. Calling it an 'advantage' of colonial rule is just wrong.

You can draw parallels to Iraq/Kuwit here, imo.

 

[fishfingers15]

Not quite. It may not have necessarily involved killings, but freedom, rights etc have been stamped out. I would argue that the 'positives' of being colonized are mostly unintentional byproduct of the core objective, economic/resource theft. For example, You cannot steal resources fast without having good transport. So transport got improved. Calling it an 'advantage' of colonial rule is just wrong.

You can draw parallels to Iraq/Kuwit here, imo.

It's a very good point. I don't think anyone here argues that Colonialism was right though.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

It's a very good point. I don't think anyone here argues that Colonialism was right though.

Maybe thread got off course a bit, but I thought naturalized underlying theme was "colonization helped as much as it hurt, didn't it?". Hard to say it didn't, but my point was it being unintentional byproduct that cannot be helped.

 

[fishfingers15]

Maybe thread got off course a bit, but I thought naturalized underlying theme was "colonization helped as much as it hurt, didn't it?". Hard to say it didn't, but my point was it being unintentional byproduct that cannot be helped.

The way I understood naturalized's posts was there were some good to come out of it. I could be mistaken of course.

 

[naturalized]

Not quite. It may not have necessarily involved killings, but freedom, rights etc have been stamped out. I would argue that the 'positives' of being colonized are mostly unintentional byproduct of the core objective, economic/resource theft. For example, You cannot steal resources fast without having good transport. So transport got improved. Calling it an 'advantage' of colonial rule is just wrong.

You can draw parallels to Iraq/Kuwit here, imo.

Sure, I take your point. But my point in that post you've quoted was extremely simple - it's completely uncalled for and doesn't aid the conversation one iota, for that dude to be calling people racists for disagreeing with him. It's both pathetic and absurd - as I said, if I pointed out collateral side effects of WWII that were positive, does that make me a Nazi? Poisoning the well.

I don't do reporting of posts, but that one came close. There are boundaries, even on CE.

Maybe thread got off course a bit, but I thought naturalized underlying theme was "colonization helped as much as it hurt, didn't it?". Hard to say it didn't, but my point was it being unintentional byproduct that cannot be helped.

If we're talking specifically about the subcontinent, I'm not arrogant enough to think I know enough to draw any meaningful conclusions, so I don't actually have an underlying theme, no. There've been some really cracking and informational posts in this thread that have enlightened me a bit more, berbatrick's in particular. I'm here to learn, nothing else.

But if we're talking about colonialism in general (and as one of the 2 OPs in this thread on page 1, note that I specifically didn't want the conversation to focus only on India, partly because I knew it'd really kick off) then across the board, I agree with what you said - that it's 50-50, seen long term. It's slightly out of point now, of course.

But having said that, I live in a region of the world which benefited most from colonialism (Philippines, HK, Malaysia, Singapore, and even Burma - the British left them in a relatively good state, any further damage was self-inflicted), and the majority of the posters in this thread live in a region that got screwed over the most. As someone else pointed out, the strategic imperatives of the colonizers in our region were completely different from yours - they were here to build us into trading posts and military bases, they were at yours in a primarily extractive capacity. To a large extent therefore, it's natural that we disagree.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

But having said that, I live in a region of the world which benefited most from colonialism (Philippines, HK, Malaysia, Singapore, and even Burma - the British left them in a relatively good state, any further damage was self-inflicted), and the majority of the posters in this thread live in a region that got screwed over the most. As someone else pointed out, the strategic imperatives of the colonizers in our region were completely different from yours - they were here to build us into trading posts and military bases, they were at yours in a primarily extractive capacity. To a large extent therefore, it's natural that we disagree.

Valid points, but the geographies you mention interest me. I currently live in Singapore and have been across most of those places indicated. My view is that they have developed recently and not many (if not none) of the growth can be traced back to colonialism.

Take Singapore as example. It has a strategic geographical significance and a important seaport gateway to India and China. As such it gained importance to East India Company who already had roots in India and had trade links to China. Apart from the usualy by products of british law, what other benefict do you think Singapore had due to colonialism. It was predominantly a migrant colony (mostly from China) and migrant workers were in demand for ports. Colony or not, Singapore simply by its geographical location would be a important player in the regions. Moreover most of Singapore's development I think is due to post MY seperation governtment initiated measures and nothing to do with past colonialism there, imo.

 

[naturalized]

Valid points, but the geographies you mention interest me. I currently live in Singapore and have been across most of those places indicated. My view is that they have developed recently and not many (if not none) of the growth can be traced back to colonialism.

Take Singapore as example. It has a strategic geographical significance and a important seaport gateway to India and China. As such it gained importance to East India Company who already had roots in India and had trade links to China. Apart from the usualy by products of british law, what other benefict do you think Singapore had due to colonialism. It was predominantly a migrant colony (mostly from China) and migrant workers were in demand for ports. Colony or not, Singapore simply by its geographical location would be a important player in the regions. Moreover most of Singapore's development I think is due to post MY seperation governtment initiated measures and nothing to do with past colonialism there, imo.

Remarkably enough, so do I. Where you at atm?

I take your point that statistically, much of Singapore's growth occurred after decolonization. Yet who put LKY, the man who for all his faults truly is the father of this country, in charge? Who instituted respect for the rule of law that allowed us to develop as a democracy rather than crashing and burning right out of the gate like Vietnam or Cambodia did, putting their own troops on the line to fight the communist insurgencies of the 50s? Whose institutions, fundamentally, have we adopted and moulded for our own benefit? In short, we may have driven the car ourselves to our destination we wanted, but who built the car?

You ask, for instance, about what benefits we had from colonialism - I've spent literally every single day of my life in institutions that are direct descendants of ones the British set up - boys' public school, the military, and then a British-founded law university. These institutions endure, oftentimes retaining their colonial-era names, and that should tell you something about the way we view our colonial heritage. Now, obviously, as you say, they were set up for the Brits' own benefit, to educate just enough locals to help out in the administration of their colony, to defend their colony, for their benefit, sure. But it'd be incredibly churlish of us to forget the part the British played in building something from nothing in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, we have much to be proud of in terms of how far we've come on our own merits. But the groundwork wasn't laid by us. Again, the British found us a fishing village not far removed from the Iron Age. They left us a metropolis of about a million. The troops have left, but we remain British and western allies by choice and not necessity, because we remember our friends. This is a common enough sentiment, if you ask around.

I get your point about it being purely self-interested. But there are no free lunches in this world. The Brits got what they came for, and so did we.

 

[naturalized]

Another thing, by the way, is that like someone else pointed out - colonialism was, for better or for worse, a historical inevitability. Both Western and Eastern Asia were relatively weak when the Europeans showed up - it was inevitable that they'd end up in charge. It's historical happenstance that it turned out that way, since the balance of power was very much tilted out way just a few centuries prior - but that's just the way things turned out.

Accepting that as a premise, therefore, the real issue isn't to contrast historical reality v some utopian world in which the East was left alone to develop in its own way. The real issue is to contrast historical reality with how much worse it could have been relative to the other colonial powers.

 

[NM]

Another thing, by the way, is that like someone else pointed out - colonialism was, for better or for worse, a historical inevitability. Both Western and Eastern Asia were relatively weak when the Europeans showed up - it was inevitable that they'd end up in charge. It's historical happenstance that it turned out that way, since the balance of power was very much tilted out way just a few centuries prior - but that's just the way things turned out.

Accepting that as a premise, therefore, the real issue isn't to contrast historical reality v some utopian world in which the East was left alone to develop in its own way. The real issue is to contrast historical reality with how much worse it could have been relative to the other colonial powers.

You really don't have a clue mate. India (or the kingdoms that made it up) weren't that weak. Weaker than previous - yes. I wonder where you get your information from as you've spouted a lot of stuff that is plain wrong.

EDIT: Saying it was an inevitability also shows you have no clue tbh

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Sorry for the old bump. Nice speech in Oxford Union debate by Indian MP...

 

[DOTA]

Does he always speak English in that posh an accent or is this what happens when you're in front of the Oxford Union?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Does he always speak English in that posh an accent or is this what happens when you're in front of the Oxford Union?

Always.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

Does he always speak English in that posh an accent or is this what happens when you're in front of the Oxford Union?

Always. Shashi Tharoor is one of the most brilliant intellectuals we have, and his books and writings are bestsellers critically acclaimed and received worldwide. Ex-minister for External Affairs and HRD. Eloquent speaker, aggressive Congressman. His personal life details mar his profile a bit, not that it should matter. He has a reputation as a womanizer.

Very well-delivered speech, that. Tharoor isn't afraid of making bold statements, never was.