7 ms·

By indigenous I am referring to before the british colonial era. Reckoning deals with mindset and history, it is an understanding of how to come to terms with a

By indigenous I am referring to before the british colonial era. Reckoning deals with mindset and history, it is an understanding of how to come to terms with all that has passed and what is happening now. You do not need to revive old institutions, but neither does a people need to be effacing their own culture, self-awareness, and history (which has already occurred) and feel inferior. The way land ownership was stratified, martial races, playing off of groups of ethnicities and religions, how one humbly starts writing a letter, the present arrangement of nations in the Subcontinent, feudal land ownership, government structures into parliaments, these are all examples of colonial legacy that affect the present day. The challenge is for people and societies to find a way through all these; integrating some, discarding some, fusing some, ignoring some, embracing some, etc. In some ways, there have been successes, in other ways, the legacy of being submissive to Western foreign powers remains. It is for charting a path as a traumatized people.

rayiner 4y ago
> By indigenous I am referring to before the british colonial era. That usage is incorrect as applied to the subcontinent. Before the British was the Mughals, who were foreign colonizers as well. Before that it's Muslim invaders going back to 1200. > The way land ownership was stratified, martial races, playing off of groups of ethnicities and religions, how one humbly starts writing a letter, the present arrangement of nations in the Subcontinent, feudal land ownership, government structures into parliaments, these are all examples of colonial legacy that affect the present day. That's just a way of saying that everything is a product of history, which is a truism. That's just as true of Europeans as anyone else. But again, if I'm a Bangladeshi, how is that actionable information?
- erenyeager 4y ago
  I don’t care for the view of erasing nearly 1000 years of history to go back to “indigenous” , similar lines often trumpeted by right wing Hindutva ideologues. By indigenous I define it as the people of the region who settled there and became native to the land. It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. The fact is, as others have pointed out, the invaders became the people in the case of Mughals and those before them; they are weaved into what it means to be part of the Subcontinent. As a Bangladeshi, you can take this information and use it to change how you live your life. It is an attitude, that you do not always have to choose or chase after the Western or British way. That you can be educated and still bring your distinct customs into the workplace, decision making, professional life, etc. You as a people can usher your own institutions, for example educational institutions, without being an inferior copy of a European ideal. Why in some places is the foreign more reliable and trustworthy? Of course it speaks to the degradation and destruction of institutions. To move forward as a society one needs investment in native institutions. During the colonial history and afterwards, the people of the Subcontinent had to learn their own history from the British, imagine that! Imagine how much was erased in the mind of a person raised to view themselves as colonial.
  - skissane 4y ago
    > It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. Is there some fundamental difference between what Muslim conquerors did to India in earlier centuries, and what British conquerors did to India in later ones? People talk about the historical expansion of the European powers starting in the early modern period as if it was some radically different historical phenomenon from earlier episodes of imperialism/colonialism in human history (the Mongol Empire, the Islamic Caliphates, the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, etc). No doubt there were certain differences – especially when it comes to scale – but was it fundamentally different in essence? In moral status? > The fact is, as others have pointed out, the invaders became the people in the case of Mughals and those before them; they are weaved into what it means to be part of the Subcontinent. If British rule had endured longer, could not that have become just as true of the British? And in a lot of ways – legal systems, political systems, education systems, the popularity of English (especially among the elites) – the British did "weave" themselves, and those weaves endure to this day.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      What was homeland of Mughals? (Babur tried and failed to reconquer Fergana) What was homeland of British?
      - skissane 4y ago
        But, what if Babur had succeeded in reconquering Fergana? Or, suppose that – much like how the Brazilian Empire became independent of Portugal in 1822 – 19th century Britain had fallen into civil war, and Prince Edward of Wales withdrew to Delhi, and declared himself Emperor of an independent India, albeit one where people of British ancestry remained in charge? How much should our judgement of history turn on its vicissitudes?
        random314 4y ago
        The question is not about what-ifs and butterfly effects. What was the nationality of Akbar/Aurangzeb is a simple question.

rayiner 4y ago

> By indigenous I am referring to before the british colonial era. That usage is incorrect as applied to the subcontinent. Before the British was the Mughals, who were foreign colonizers as well. Before that it's Muslim invaders going back to 1200. > The way land ownership was stratified, martial races, playing off of groups of ethnicities and religions, how one humbly starts writing a letter, the present arrangement of nations in the Subcontinent, feudal land ownership, government structures into parliaments, these are all examples of colonial legacy that affect the present day. That's just a way of saying that everything is a product of history, which is a truism. That's just as true of Europeans as anyone else. But again, if I'm a Bangladeshi, how is that actionable information?

erenyeager 4y ago
I don’t care for the view of erasing nearly 1000 years of history to go back to “indigenous” , similar lines often trumpeted by right wing Hindutva ideologues. By indigenous I define it as the people of the region who settled there and became native to the land. It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. The fact is, as others have pointed out, the invaders became the people in the case of Mughals and those before them; they are weaved into what it means to be part of the Subcontinent. As a Bangladeshi, you can take this information and use it to change how you live your life. It is an attitude, that you do not always have to choose or chase after the Western or British way. That you can be educated and still bring your distinct customs into the workplace, decision making, professional life, etc. You as a people can usher your own institutions, for example educational institutions, without being an inferior copy of a European ideal. Why in some places is the foreign more reliable and trustworthy? Of course it speaks to the degradation and destruction of institutions. To move forward as a society one needs investment in native institutions. During the colonial history and afterwards, the people of the Subcontinent had to learn their own history from the British, imagine that! Imagine how much was erased in the mind of a person raised to view themselves as colonial.
- skissane 4y ago
  > It’s a contrastive term for distinguishing from the British colonizers. Is there some fundamental difference between what Muslim conquerors did to India in earlier centuries, and what British conquerors did to India in later ones? People talk about the historical expansion of the European powers starting in the early modern period as if it was some radically different historical phenomenon from earlier episodes of imperialism/colonialism in human history (the Mongol Empire, the Islamic Caliphates, the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great, etc). No doubt there were certain differences – especially when it comes to scale – but was it fundamentally different in essence? In moral status? > The fact is, as others have pointed out, the invaders became the people in the case of Mughals and those before them; they are weaved into what it means to be part of the Subcontinent. If British rule had endured longer, could not that have become just as true of the British? And in a lot of ways – legal systems, political systems, education systems, the popularity of English (especially among the elites) – the British did "weave" themselves, and those weaves endure to this day.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    What was homeland of Mughals? (Babur tried and failed to reconquer Fergana) What was homeland of British?
    - skissane 4y ago
      But, what if Babur had succeeded in reconquering Fergana? Or, suppose that – much like how the Brazilian Empire became independent of Portugal in 1822 – 19th century Britain had fallen into civil war, and Prince Edward of Wales withdrew to Delhi, and declared himself Emperor of an independent India, albeit one where people of British ancestry remained in charge? How much should our judgement of history turn on its vicissitudes?
      - random314 4y ago
        The question is not about what-ifs and butterfly effects. What was the nationality of Akbar/Aurangzeb is a simple question.