3 ms·
India were going to eventually cover itself with railroads and monoculture plantations in any case (who didn't?), so I don't see why we cannot argue in good fai
by thriftwy 3y ago
India were going to eventually cover itself with railroads and monoculture plantations in any case (who didn't?), so I don't see why we cannot argue in good faith whether the British arrival was beneficial or deleterious. It would require scientific rigor instead of either one of nationalisms, though.
- OJFord 3y agoI think it's true India would've developed without Britain (isn't the alternative certainly colonialist?) - but that doesn't mean imposing things, even if we somehow know they're exactly the same things as would've been decided on anyway, isn't colonialism. In fact it's maybe the height of 'we know best' to take over saying 'just trust us you were about to decide this anyway'!
- thriftwy 3y agoI'm not sure it is dramatically different from people in London imposing railroads on the English countryside. It's colonialism all the way down and the apparent ironic fact that British still cannot get out of other nations' hair while they now peddle the colonialism narratives. They cannot keep away from be interminged in countries' affairs while lecturing the "natives" about the colonialism, whose narratives also come from London and are as unnatural in their new habitat as these tea plantations in India were. We will see some real colonialism understanding when the UK disengages from world affairs and behaves like an ordinary 50 million strong country like Argentine or Vietnam. That did not happen yet, so you can stop feeling bad because of India 200 years ago and get a contemporary reality (and privilege) check. Case of point, The Guardian has all kinds of Opinions about Russia and Palestine. Why don't they take most interest of the affairs of N1 9GU?