3 ms·
While interesting, placing the blame on dead British people won't change anything in the present.
by CincinnatiMan 6y ago
While interesting, placing the blame on dead British people won't change anything in the present.
- vikramkr 6y agoYes it will. A big part of the argument for caste comes from some ridiculous traditionalist sentiment that it's a part of "Indian culture" (whatever that is). Changing the sentiment is hard, but pointing out that pre-colonial "Indian" culture didn't look like what you think it did is a compelling argument for traditionalists (especially people that are traditionalists as an anti-colonial thing).
- klyrs 6y agoOpenly and honestly examining the history is valuable. Think of this as Chesterson's fence. If something dates back to antiquity, it's hard to say why it exists. This isn't simply that -- this cultural phenomenon was designed to weaken the people of India (leveraging some ancient patterns). If folks understand that, and recognize that their ancestors got played, then they'll (hopefully) have a stronger impetus to collaborate to remove that fence. Unfortunately, it seems to involve convincing the people at the top to relinquish their unearned privilege -- that rarely happens without bloodshed.
- TheRealPomax 6y agoAre you saying there is no value in the people who hold these opinions learning why they have those opinions? Because that would be super weird: of course learning about the history of the modern caste system changes things in the present. And don't make the mistake of thinking that, just because dead British are to blame, that absolves everyone else from blame too: Dead british are to blame for setting it in motion, and everyone who reinforces today is also to blame, for keeping it alive. There's plenty of blame to spread around for something as messed up as caste discrimination.
- disown 6y agoThat's true to some degree - especially for something that happened centuries ago. But the british role in india is relevant today since india gained "independence" only a few decades ago and is still ostensibly a part of the "british empire". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwea... But ultimately you are correct. India's problem isn't with dead british people, it's ultimately with their traitorous elites who sold out and rejoined the british empire rather than fostering a bit of nationalism and progress in their own country. How can any nation succeed when their elites would rather be subjects of another state than independent leaders of their own people. It's not just political leaders, it's their business/cultural/academic leaders as well. It's insane that india, a country with 1.4 billion people and a civilization stretching back millenia, is still part of the british empire. You think the chinese would let hong kong back into the british empire let alone join wholesale? India should have done what south korea did after ww2. Completely separate from their former colonial masters and demand reparations and used that money to develop. But I guess it's kind of hard to demand reparations when you willingly rejoin your colonial master. They could have followed japan's example. They could have even followed china's example. Anything would have probably led to better outcomes. Instead, they just wasted the past 75 years doing what? Playing "commonwealth" games? While hundreds of millions of indians have no electricity. No toilets. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-24/living-in-the-dark-240-million-indians-have-no-electricity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-01-24/living-in... By any logic, india should be a permanent member in the security council as india represents 20% of humanity. It should be a major economic power. It should be a major world player. Instead it's a lowly member of the british empire. You would think india of all nations should be working to dismantle it, not perpetuate it. How can india be part of the security council ( a leading nation ) when it is part of the "commonwealth"? Would anyone take france, russia or china ( other security council members ) seriously if they were part of the british empire? Is there any nation that has failed to reach its potential more than india? And by doing so caused so much human misery just by the sheer size of its population? Not only was it shocking to learn that the "british empire" still exists, it was even more shocking to learn that india was still part of it. I just don't get it.