5 ms·

Maybe true, but that's an alliance that could only be conceived by idle nerds in the history channel. It's like saying, were the Nazis and the Soviets to unite

Maybe true, but that's an alliance that could only be conceived by idle nerds in the history channel. It's like saying, were the Nazis and the Soviets to unite they would have canned the Americans a few times over.

baybal2 8y ago
Indeed. In fact, dozens of minor kingdoms submitting without a fight to British is said to be them preferring British to heavy boot of Marathas or Mysorees
- swombat 8y ago
  That's no accident though. Divide and Conquer was a core conquest and governance strategy for the British Empire, one that has left scars across the world that are still causing conflict today.
  - ogun7 8y ago
    Case in point: all national boundaries in Africa, the Middle East and 40% of Asia were created by Europe, mostly the British.
  - sumedh 8y ago
    > one that has left scars across the world that are still causing conflict today. How about stopping the British blame game and just accept the fact that humans like to group themselves in a tribe and fight other tribes.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Because some of us can still see the Northern/Republic of Ireland divide and realize that wasn’t an existing divide, but created entirely by the British? Then there’s how they handled Israel, but that’s too much of a can of worms to open here.
      - Shivetya 8y ago
        Don't stop with the British, European colonialism is responsible for the majority of issues we have in the Middle East today. Even African is still recovering after the mess left there.
  - pkphilip 8y ago
    India has always had conflicts between communities with 100s of individual kingdoms and warlords - some were vassals to bigger kingdoms. The modern day revisionist history tries to paint India as some sort of a united, utopia before the coming of the colonial powers but there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim while there is plenty of evidence to counter it.
    - eklavya 8y ago
      I don't think you are saying that India was never a united entity in it's history. It has been united multiple times throughout. In fact that's how it got the name "Bharat" after one if the kings.
      - pkphilip 8y ago
        Not really. There was never a single kingdom which encompassed the whole of India as it geographically exists. Never in history.
linuxkerneldev 8y ago
> were the Nazis and the Soviets to unite they would have canned the Americans a few times over Something about that analogy is off. In case we forgot, in the 1800s, the British were the guys advocating and initiating ethnic cleansing of "inferior races" via engineered famines. Various parts of British occupied East India lost a third or more of their population. It was only that regions good fortune of having virulent tropical diseases that kept the British out. The indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand, and other places were not so lucky. The world might have been a better place if the Marathas and the Tipus of the world had united to prevent the subsequent genocides and massive loss and waste of human potential in South Asia.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >the British were the guys advocating and initiating ethnic cleansing of "inferior races" via engineered famines // Specific details, citations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India hints that British inaction exacerbated famine but I don't see details to indicate famine was engineered for ethnic cleansing. I'm not disagreeing, it's the first I've heard of it really. There's plenty there to suggest capitalism was working as intended... extracting all the wealth created by others labour, leaving too little for good infrastructure.
  - linuxkerneldev 8y ago
    > Specific details, citations? Winston Churchill. Even as recent as 1943. Churchill: Personally, I am not greatly concerned about Russian development in China. I would rather have them develop in that way down south into India. I believe in the ultimate partition of China—I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph. Churchill: I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 > I don't see details to indicate famine was engineered for ethnic cleansing We have to be careful to view this from the broad system level perspective. We have individuals like Churchill who expressed a clear racial belief system. A belief system where they believed, and even directly stated it was their manifest destiny to extinguish inferior races. In their positions of power, through intentional actions (and alleged inactions), they caused large numbers of their prey/victims to die. Should we attribute that to "capitalism was working as intended" or should we actually call a spade a spade and recognize that these men had agency and did these things consciously or at best sub-consciously to achieve lebensraum for their preferred race.

baybal2 8y ago

Indeed. In fact, dozens of minor kingdoms submitting without a fight to British is said to be them preferring British to heavy boot of Marathas or Mysorees

swombat 8y ago
That's no accident though. Divide and Conquer was a core conquest and governance strategy for the British Empire, one that has left scars across the world that are still causing conflict today.
- ogun7 8y ago
  Case in point: all national boundaries in Africa, the Middle East and 40% of Asia were created by Europe, mostly the British.
- sumedh 8y ago
  > one that has left scars across the world that are still causing conflict today. How about stopping the British blame game and just accept the fact that humans like to group themselves in a tribe and fight other tribes.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Because some of us can still see the Northern/Republic of Ireland divide and realize that wasn’t an existing divide, but created entirely by the British? Then there’s how they handled Israel, but that’s too much of a can of worms to open here.
    - Shivetya 8y ago
      Don't stop with the British, European colonialism is responsible for the majority of issues we have in the Middle East today. Even African is still recovering after the mess left there.
- pkphilip 8y ago
  India has always had conflicts between communities with 100s of individual kingdoms and warlords - some were vassals to bigger kingdoms. The modern day revisionist history tries to paint India as some sort of a united, utopia before the coming of the colonial powers but there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim while there is plenty of evidence to counter it.
  - eklavya 8y ago
    I don't think you are saying that India was never a united entity in it's history. It has been united multiple times throughout. In fact that's how it got the name "Bharat" after one if the kings.
    - pkphilip 8y ago
      Not really. There was never a single kingdom which encompassed the whole of India as it geographically exists. Never in history.

linuxkerneldev 8y ago

> were the Nazis and the Soviets to unite they would have canned the Americans a few times over Something about that analogy is off. In case we forgot, in the 1800s, the British were the guys advocating and initiating ethnic cleansing of "inferior races" via engineered famines. Various parts of British occupied East India lost a third or more of their population. It was only that regions good fortune of having virulent tropical diseases that kept the British out. The indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand, and other places were not so lucky. The world might have been a better place if the Marathas and the Tipus of the world had united to prevent the subsequent genocides and massive loss and waste of human potential in South Asia.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
>the British were the guys advocating and initiating ethnic cleansing of "inferior races" via engineered famines // Specific details, citations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India hints that British inaction exacerbated famine but I don't see details to indicate famine was engineered for ethnic cleansing. I'm not disagreeing, it's the first I've heard of it really. There's plenty there to suggest capitalism was working as intended... extracting all the wealth created by others labour, leaving too little for good infrastructure.
- linuxkerneldev 8y ago
  > Specific details, citations? Winston Churchill. Even as recent as 1943. Churchill: Personally, I am not greatly concerned about Russian development in China. I would rather have them develop in that way down south into India. I believe in the ultimate partition of China—I mean ultimate. I hope we shall not have to do it in our day. The Aryan stock is bound to triumph. Churchill: I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 > I don't see details to indicate famine was engineered for ethnic cleansing We have to be careful to view this from the broad system level perspective. We have individuals like Churchill who expressed a clear racial belief system. A belief system where they believed, and even directly stated it was their manifest destiny to extinguish inferior races. In their positions of power, through intentional actions (and alleged inactions), they caused large numbers of their prey/victims to die. Should we attribute that to "capitalism was working as intended" or should we actually call a spade a spade and recognize that these men had agency and did these things consciously or at best sub-consciously to achieve lebensraum for their preferred race.