3 ms·

You also do not seem to understand the reason for me mentioning the discrepancy between the way the British Library treats western and non-western colonial hist

You also do not seem to understand the reason for me mentioning the discrepancy between the way the British Library treats western and non-western colonial history. Yes, it would be silly to make demands of current Mongolia for the sins of Genghis Khan just like it would be silly to make such demands of whomever currently lives for the misdeeds of the Mughals just like it is silly to make such demands of the current inhabitants of the western world. Either treat all forms of colonialism for what they were and are, this being a natural consequence of the fact that humans are a belligerent species out for their own best and always willing to take advantage of whatever lead they have over their neighbours no matter whether they happen to live in the North, East, South or West... or put all forms of colonialism on the same moral scale. I would prefer the former treatment, others may prefer the latter but this is not how the subject is treated by the British Museum. They do their best to pain western colonialism in as bad a light as they can while glossing over equally bad - or worse - transgressions from elsewhere, the Mughal empire being a good example of such but Genghis Khan certainly has put his mark on the world as well by killing some 11-12% of its inhabitants [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...

farseer 3y ago
And I hope you can separate colonialism from empire building. European colonization was meant to enrich the host state at the expense of the colony. Whereas the Mughals outright conquered India, moved there and lived in it for the next 400 years. Their kids lived and died in India. They cut of their ties with their brethren in Samarkand and more importantly did not take India's wealth outside of India. The fact is most historic Indian Jewels (i.e. Kohi noor) are locked up in London, not Samarkand. Comparing the Mughals with the European colonizers is silly. The fact is Mughals became as Indian as the natives who lived there. They married locals and looked like them eventually. See the last picture of the Mughal emperor imprisoned by the British: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#/media/File:Bahadur_Shah_Zafar.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#/media/File... He looks like a dark skinned Indian Yogi.
- the_third_wave 3y ago
  If you really want to go there I'll ask the following question: Europeans colonised the Americas and Oceania and lived - and live - there but they are still accused of living on 'stolen' land. Given your statements on the Mughals I assume the same holds true here? What about Europeans in e.g. South Africa, comparing racial apartheid (South Africa) to religious apartheid [1] (Mughal empire)? Another thing to consider: had I posted something critical of some western coloniser instead of an islamic one it is unlikely there would have been any discussion on the subject as it is considered bon ton to do so - which goes straight back to my reason for posting in the first place. [1] "The religious policy of the Mughal emperors", https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10154899028046675.pdf https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/19617421...
  - defrost 3y ago
    > Europeans colonised [...] Oceania and live there but they are still accused of living on 'stolen' land. Which they've acknowledged, which makes it less of an accusation and far more a self evident uncontested fact. On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia recognised that a group of Torres Strait Islanders, led by Eddie Mabo, held ownership of Mer (Murray Island). In acknowledging the traditional rights of the Meriam people to their land, the court also held that native title existed for all Indigenous people. https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/mabo-decision https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/mabo-decis... https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/06/02/five-things-you-should-know-about-the-mabo-decision.html https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/06/02/five-...
    - the_third_wave 3y ago
      You're moving the goal posts here. Does the fact that the Mughals - and for that matter no other colonisers other than some Western self-flagellating descendants from earlier colonists - never even thought of 'acknowledging they lived on stolen land' negate their actions? Clearly it does not.

farseer 3y ago

And I hope you can separate colonialism from empire building. European colonization was meant to enrich the host state at the expense of the colony. Whereas the Mughals outright conquered India, moved there and lived in it for the next 400 years. Their kids lived and died in India. They cut of their ties with their brethren in Samarkand and more importantly did not take India's wealth outside of India. The fact is most historic Indian Jewels (i.e. Kohi noor) are locked up in London, not Samarkand. Comparing the Mughals with the European colonizers is silly. The fact is Mughals became as Indian as the natives who lived there. They married locals and looked like them eventually. See the last picture of the Mughal emperor imprisoned by the British: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#/media/File:Bahadur_Shah_Zafar.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_Zafar#/media/File... He looks like a dark skinned Indian Yogi.

the_third_wave 3y ago
If you really want to go there I'll ask the following question: Europeans colonised the Americas and Oceania and lived - and live - there but they are still accused of living on 'stolen' land. Given your statements on the Mughals I assume the same holds true here? What about Europeans in e.g. South Africa, comparing racial apartheid (South Africa) to religious apartheid [1] (Mughal empire)? Another thing to consider: had I posted something critical of some western coloniser instead of an islamic one it is unlikely there would have been any discussion on the subject as it is considered bon ton to do so - which goes straight back to my reason for posting in the first place. [1] "The religious policy of the Mughal emperors", https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10154899028046675.pdf https://www.rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/19617421...
- defrost 3y ago
  > Europeans colonised [...] Oceania and live there but they are still accused of living on 'stolen' land. Which they've acknowledged, which makes it less of an accusation and far more a self evident uncontested fact. On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia recognised that a group of Torres Strait Islanders, led by Eddie Mabo, held ownership of Mer (Murray Island). In acknowledging the traditional rights of the Meriam people to their land, the court also held that native title existed for all Indigenous people. https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/mabo-decision https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/mabo-decis... https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/06/02/five-things-you-should-know-about-the-mabo-decision.html https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/06/02/five-...
  - the_third_wave 3y ago
    You're moving the goal posts here. Does the fact that the Mughals - and for that matter no other colonisers other than some Western self-flagellating descendants from earlier colonists - never even thought of 'acknowledging they lived on stolen land' negate their actions? Clearly it does not.