7 ms·
An empire that was built on theft and oppression. I Was born in India, and my grandfather lived through this oppression, and told me about the things the brits
by parthdesai 4y ago
An empire that was built on theft and oppression.
I Was born in India, and my grandfather lived through this oppression, and told me about the things the brits did; it's kind of ironic and funny how not a lot of people talk about it.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y agoThere's a reason that films usually have an englishman as the bad guy
- nicoburns 4y ago> An empire that was built on theft and oppression Not that it makes it any better, but isn't that what all empires are built on? A more ethical empire wouldn't be an empire at all. It'd be something more akin to the USA, the EU, or on a smaller scale the UK itself.
- dTal 4y agoThe UK itself is not an "ethical empire", it is the English empire. England's satellite states are second-class, and were annexed coercively if not violently. All of them harbor grudges about it, and all of them have robust political factions which advocate leaving the UK.
- fidgewidge 4y agoYes all of Scotland harbors a grudge against the English, that's why they voted to remain a part of the UK when given their "once in a generation" chance to do so. And yes they're totally second class. That's why they have their own parliaments whereas England doesn't.
- dTal 4y agoShould I have said "every one of them"? I didn't mean to imply that every citizen personally harbors a grudge. That would be silly! But they did have a referendum, and "remain" barely won. Yes, the fact they have their own parliaments, while "England does not", does indeed demonstrate that they are second class. Because the reason England "doesn't have a parliament" is that when Scotland "joined", the English parliament was simply renamed into "The Parliament of Great Britain", without changing anything else. They even kept the same MPs - didn't even hold an election! It was all for show, a minimal mask of fairness for dissolving the Scottish parliament. It resulted in riots and martial law. This, by the way, was the closest England ever came to "consensually" adding a member. Wales at this point in time was a straight-up English territory. It didn't even get a parliament until 1999, at the same time Scotland was allowed to reform theirs. And would you like to talk about Northern Ireland?
- fidgewidge 4y agoYou're referring to the way things were in the past, whilst making claims about the present day. Empires don't generally give parts of themselves fair and free referendums on whether to stay and then win, do they?
- dTal 4y agoTell me then, why do you think England is unique among the constituent countries of the United Kingdom in not having "its own" parliament? Is it because it's the least important member, subservient to the others?
- fidgewidge 4y agoHistory, and the way devolution was set up by Blair. He wanted Scotland to have more power locally because it's a relatively left wing place that voted Labour at the time, and didn't want England to have more local power because that would have hurt Labour electorally.
- cloutchaser 4y ago[flagged]
- dTal 4y ago[flagged]
- zpeti 4y ago[flagged]
- parthdesai 4y agoYeah, but we are talking about India under british empire. Not Rwanda and Haiti. Since you're so oblivious of what the british empire did, here's a 8 minute mini speech of things British empire did in India. India wasn't some poor country, it was actually one of the richest countries in the world before brits came along and stole everything. This was my entire point in the initial post, it's both hilarious and a bit sad how people are so unaware what the british empire did in India. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
- zpeti 4y agoStealing is a bit different to killing 30m Eastern Europeans, starving them to the point of cannibalism etc, and also killing 30m of your own people. That’s my point. And that’s my family’s experience.
- dTal 4y agoThey did cause famine starving tens of millions of people. Deliberately. Among a great many other violent atrocities. Please read/watch the resources you have been given.
- dTal 4y agoEven were we to accept that, the whatabout-ism is a shockingly poor taste response to someone with a personal connection to real oppression, and I don't even have words for someone labeling people "woke oppression crusaders" for pointing out that the UK committed crimes against humanity on a vast scale resulting in tens of millions of deaths.
- 4ggr0 4y agoEDIT: probably got that wrong, I'll see when you answer :) > A more ethical empire wouldn't be an empire at all. It'd be something more akin to the USA Are you suggesting that the US behaves ethically? Snowden, Assange, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, BLM, Guantanamo, ... Or the way the native population was treated. (theft and oppression)
- throwrqX 4y agoNot to worry, as someone also of Asian descent in a hundred or so years the amount of those living in the current British Isles with heritage to the colonialists will become a small minority and hopefully out of power (as I doubt the majority will want to be ruled by a minority).
- Vecr 4y agoYou support a replacement of the native population? After what the Normans did haven't the English had enough?
- throwrqX 4y agoI don't have any real care for it either way because I'll be likely dead by the time it happens, I am just pointing out demographic trends. However I don't see what your point about dog whistling far-right viewpoints is for. Britain as a whole is completely supportive of current demographic trends and I don't see any serious rejection of it in politics the way you might if one brought it up in a non-Western nation.
- veltas 4y ago> I don't see any serious rejection of it in politics It's the policy of the Tory party to reduce immigration, has been for years, and is popular policy that wins them votes. The Tories don't actually do it and among the politicians you're right: there is no serious rejection, for the reasons you've outlined. But among the population, you seem to have an opinion based on TV, Twitter, urban areas, or maybe the youth. But to most of the country multiculturalism and mass immigration is controversial at best, and often very unpopular. In fact you can (and I do) often find critics of mass immigration among immigrants themselves, and their descendants.
- zpeti 4y agoWell this is some weird asian supremacy replacement theory I've not seen before... Always nice to see proof it's not just white people who can be supremacists.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bigbillheck 4y ago> An empire that was built on theft and oppression. What other kinds do you have?
- onetimeusename 4y agoWhat exactly did the British rob from Indians and may I ask a related follow on question... Do you believe there is any evidence that Indians robbed other Indians during the process of regime change when various Indian states were merged with the Republic?
- rayiner 4y agoA lot of people don’t talk about it because the Indian elite are highly westernized. It’s hard to talk too much shit about the British when you’re also an Oxbridge graduate, have property in London, etc. That being said, where would India be if the British Empire had never happened? Probably still doing subsistence agriculture. No slight to India, but industrial civilization is an aberrational step forward and there’s no reason to think it would arise at the same time in isolated cultures spontaneously. The British themselves are the product of being colonized as much as the Indians. They were colonized by Rome, they were colonized by the Normans, etc. They assimilated and grew better from those influences.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- boruto 4y ago> Probably still doing subsistence agriculture. Respectfully, Are other countries whom UK did not colonise still doing subsistence agriculture? When Europe was having Industrial revolution, India was ruled by people who were busy subjugating the natives. I don't want to gloat about an alternative timeline, But colonialism is a huge negative for India.