4 ms·

As someone whose people and grandparents suffered under British rule, really don’t care. British imperialism is a bloodstain that I’m not gonna just forget abo

As someone whose people and grandparents suffered under British rule, really don’t care. British imperialism is a bloodstain that I’m not gonna just forget about because the smile behind the menace has passed.

sizzle 4y ago
This is an important take, the bloody legacy of British rule over India is still painful for many here and their loved ones/ancestors that suffered, died defending their nation, or were enslaved.
Onewildgamer 4y ago
My blood boils everytime I remember how the brits cut off thumbs of my people, the silk weavers. People underestimate the atrocities done by British empire, one tiny example is when they chopped off thumbs of handloom weavers to stop the Indian business spread within India in order to sell their goods from Manchester produced from the stolen cotton from India again, my clan of people were the silk weavers since more than a millennium and were wiped out of existence. Even now I sometimes hear the horror stories from my Grandpa who lost a lot of kin and daily bread due to the greedy pigs and jealous barbarians that the empire was. The words imperialism and colonialism don't do justice for the horrors they brought upon us. I generally have empathy towards the dead, but for this incident, I hardly care.
- shmde 4y ago
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  Do you also hold that against Liz Truss? She and Queen Elizabeth played equal parts in those atrocities; ie none, even though they are part of the same institutions that did have a part in that history.
  - Onewildgamer 4y ago
    I don't hold this against anybody who wasn't directly involved in the atrocities. I've posted the same here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32775652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32775652 Edit: With all those things in perspective I ask the same question, would the late Queen of England have given up imperialism and colonialism and gave the nations to themselves if she lived during that era? Or was it convenient that she or anyone in power now didn't have to oversee the imperialism.
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Do you really think her abdicating the throne would have done anything at all to solve these perceived wrongs? To answer your first question, yes, and she did. During her reign, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and other Commonwealth nations were all granted full state sovereignty. Prior to that, they had some independence, but were ultimately under the control of the UK. Some of these countries still retain her/King Charles as a head of state, but he holds no power over them, and he has an independent representative (in Canada, this is the governor-general, who theoretically holds more power than the prime minister).
      - _djo_ 4y ago
        That's not entirely accurate. A number of the Dominions were both de jure and de facto independent sovereign states by the mid-1930s as a result of the 1931 Statute of Westminster and enabling local laws. Some of the Commonwealth realms, notably Australia and New Zealand which only removed the right of appeal to the UK's Privy Council in 1986, only partially implemented the Statute and retained some aspect of UK involvement in their judicial, civil, and parliamentary systems for years longer. The Statute of Westminster removed the ability of the British parliament to legislate for the Dominions unless at their request and with their consent. It also turned the Dominions into Commonwealth Realms where the monarch served as head of state separately in each, with their consent, and constrained by laws and rules unique to each. That is, King George V ceased being the King of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas', and became separately the King of the United Kingdom, King of South Africa, King of Australia, King of New Zealand, etc. The Governor-General became the King's representative, but was constrained by local legislation and was usually someone appointed by each country. It was still a bit messy in some cases, and Australia and New Zealand weren't sure right up until they adopted new legislation just after WWII whether they were truly independent in foreign policy. But some of the countries, like the Union of South Africa, became fully sovereign the moment the 1931 Statute was passed, and only needed to implement additional legislation in 1934 to clarify and localise it. South Africa of course became a republic in 1961, but all that did was change the head of state from being the Queen to being a State President. It didn't change anything about the country's legal relationship to the United Kingdom. So it's wrong to say Charles has no power in Commonwealth realms today, as he has as much power as each country assigns him (and by extension his representative Governor-General) in its own laws and he exercises it separately and distinctly from his powers as King of the UK.
- alecco 4y ago
  I went searching about this and the best I could find was: https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rs5wr/did_the_british_really_cut_of_the_thumbs_of/cdqcikn/ https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rs5wr/did_the_b...
fareesh 4y ago
As someone in the same situation I find this opinion to be equivalent to a Vietnamese man telling everyone he is reminded of the Vietnam war on the day that Barack Obama dies.
- moomoo11 4y ago
- Onewildgamer 4y ago
  - refurb 4y ago
    Then how about a Vietnamese person getting upset about Emmanuel Macron? The French ruled Vietnam even more harshly than the British did India and did it for almost 100 years. They extracted everything they could economically, prevent any Vietnam from gaining anything more than token power. Then fought a war to keep their colony that killed millions of Vietnamese.
    - Onewildgamer 4y ago
      Why not try their monarch? if they've abolished that system they're more modern than the Brits. If they're irrelevant, that's probably the right place. Which is what I say of the British monarchs, they should be irrelevant but their society hangs on nostalgia and influences the same through the media while conveniently forgetting the past. I don't see any other monarch's death being in the news and the public crying, some thoughts for you.
- shmde 4y ago
  - bodge5000 4y ago
    Is this to imply that a country has nothing to gain by going to war with another country? Obviously not, war costs billions, and the US wasn't directly (or arguably indirectly) under threat from vietnam, so there wasn't any reason to engage in war unless they had something to gain (or fear losing, which seems just as bad). Going by the logic that the US had something to gain in engaging with war in Vietnam, or any of the other many places they've done so, it stands to reason that future presidents would benefit from it. Maybe not in extracted wealth, but to say anything goes unless its directly earning money from it seems a bit odd.
troad 4y ago
The Queen oversaw the largely peaceful end of British imperialism, not its rise or growth.

sizzle 4y ago

This is an important take, the bloody legacy of British rule over India is still painful for many here and their loved ones/ancestors that suffered, died defending their nation, or were enslaved.

Onewildgamer 4y ago

My blood boils everytime I remember how the brits cut off thumbs of my people, the silk weavers. People underestimate the atrocities done by British empire, one tiny example is when they chopped off thumbs of handloom weavers to stop the Indian business spread within India in order to sell their goods from Manchester produced from the stolen cotton from India again, my clan of people were the silk weavers since more than a millennium and were wiped out of existence. Even now I sometimes hear the horror stories from my Grandpa who lost a lot of kin and daily bread due to the greedy pigs and jealous barbarians that the empire was. The words imperialism and colonialism don't do justice for the horrors they brought upon us. I generally have empathy towards the dead, but for this incident, I hardly care.

shmde 4y ago
frosted-flakes 4y ago
Do you also hold that against Liz Truss? She and Queen Elizabeth played equal parts in those atrocities; ie none, even though they are part of the same institutions that did have a part in that history.
- Onewildgamer 4y ago
  I don't hold this against anybody who wasn't directly involved in the atrocities. I've posted the same here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32775652 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32775652 Edit: With all those things in perspective I ask the same question, would the late Queen of England have given up imperialism and colonialism and gave the nations to themselves if she lived during that era? Or was it convenient that she or anyone in power now didn't have to oversee the imperialism.
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    Do you really think her abdicating the throne would have done anything at all to solve these perceived wrongs? To answer your first question, yes, and she did. During her reign, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and other Commonwealth nations were all granted full state sovereignty. Prior to that, they had some independence, but were ultimately under the control of the UK. Some of these countries still retain her/King Charles as a head of state, but he holds no power over them, and he has an independent representative (in Canada, this is the governor-general, who theoretically holds more power than the prime minister).
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      That's not entirely accurate. A number of the Dominions were both de jure and de facto independent sovereign states by the mid-1930s as a result of the 1931 Statute of Westminster and enabling local laws. Some of the Commonwealth realms, notably Australia and New Zealand which only removed the right of appeal to the UK's Privy Council in 1986, only partially implemented the Statute and retained some aspect of UK involvement in their judicial, civil, and parliamentary systems for years longer. The Statute of Westminster removed the ability of the British parliament to legislate for the Dominions unless at their request and with their consent. It also turned the Dominions into Commonwealth Realms where the monarch served as head of state separately in each, with their consent, and constrained by laws and rules unique to each. That is, King George V ceased being the King of the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas', and became separately the King of the United Kingdom, King of South Africa, King of Australia, King of New Zealand, etc. The Governor-General became the King's representative, but was constrained by local legislation and was usually someone appointed by each country. It was still a bit messy in some cases, and Australia and New Zealand weren't sure right up until they adopted new legislation just after WWII whether they were truly independent in foreign policy. But some of the countries, like the Union of South Africa, became fully sovereign the moment the 1931 Statute was passed, and only needed to implement additional legislation in 1934 to clarify and localise it. South Africa of course became a republic in 1961, but all that did was change the head of state from being the Queen to being a State President. It didn't change anything about the country's legal relationship to the United Kingdom. So it's wrong to say Charles has no power in Commonwealth realms today, as he has as much power as each country assigns him (and by extension his representative Governor-General) in its own laws and he exercises it separately and distinctly from his powers as King of the UK.
alecco 4y ago
I went searching about this and the best I could find was: https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rs5wr/did_the_british_really_cut_of_the_thumbs_of/cdqcikn/ https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rs5wr/did_the_b...

fareesh 4y ago

As someone in the same situation I find this opinion to be equivalent to a Vietnamese man telling everyone he is reminded of the Vietnam war on the day that Barack Obama dies.

moomoo11 4y ago
Onewildgamer 4y ago
- refurb 4y ago
  Then how about a Vietnamese person getting upset about Emmanuel Macron? The French ruled Vietnam even more harshly than the British did India and did it for almost 100 years. They extracted everything they could economically, prevent any Vietnam from gaining anything more than token power. Then fought a war to keep their colony that killed millions of Vietnamese.
  - Onewildgamer 4y ago
    Why not try their monarch? if they've abolished that system they're more modern than the Brits. If they're irrelevant, that's probably the right place. Which is what I say of the British monarchs, they should be irrelevant but their society hangs on nostalgia and influences the same through the media while conveniently forgetting the past. I don't see any other monarch's death being in the news and the public crying, some thoughts for you.
shmde 4y ago
- bodge5000 4y ago
  Is this to imply that a country has nothing to gain by going to war with another country? Obviously not, war costs billions, and the US wasn't directly (or arguably indirectly) under threat from vietnam, so there wasn't any reason to engage in war unless they had something to gain (or fear losing, which seems just as bad). Going by the logic that the US had something to gain in engaging with war in Vietnam, or any of the other many places they've done so, it stands to reason that future presidents would benefit from it. Maybe not in extracted wealth, but to say anything goes unless its directly earning money from it seems a bit odd.

troad 4y ago

The Queen oversaw the largely peaceful end of British imperialism, not its rise or growth.