3 ms·

Given it's the empire responsible for the most human deaths in history, it's hard to argue (still have to contend with the Soviets, Mongols, and of course the R

by xxs 2y ago

Given it's the empire responsible for the most human deaths in history, it's hard to argue (still have to contend with the Soviets, Mongols, and of course the Romans). Of course not everything is black and white - so having a short article about one of top two greatest empires of all times, is bound to lack context and breadth.

gruez 2y ago
>Given it's the empire responsible for the most human deaths in history, it's hard to argue Is it? The amount of deaths shouldn't be compared to 0, it should be compared to a counterfactual where the indigenous people were in charge. Otherwise you run into the "doctors with most patient deaths" problem. It's possible that the doctor is objectively bad, or that he's receiving the sickest patients. It's plausible for instance, that areas with local rulers who are brutal and despotic are easy to conquer/colonize by an outside empire, because the brutality/despotism means it's easy to assemble a local coalition to depose the current regime.
- Two4 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - onecommentman 2y ago
    Attributing any mention of possible positive impacts of British colonialism to apologism on the part of the poster is itself a bad look. Let the good and bad be dredged out of the swamp of the past, washed off and compared. Nobody alive has any significant skin in the British Raj at this point. Save your self-censorship argument for Tibet, Kashmir, Taiwan, Ukraine, Kashmir, etc. Talk about bad looks (and actual personal danger for some).
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it…"
    - Two4 2y ago
      To clarify, we're talking about the idea that colonial subjugation might not have been any worse than the power structures that were displaced in terms of excess deaths. This is not the same as saying the British built railways, and also demonstrably untrue, both statistically and philosophically. A passing knowledge on the horrors of colonialism would qualify one to identify this idea as colonial apologism.
rich_sasha 2y ago
I guess, as a academic exercise, such comparisons should include population size and time span. Something like imperial death per year per capita. Ideally measuring "excess deaths" in some fashion. For example Russian excess deaths all happened over quite a short time span. Does it mean their intensity of badness was higher?

by xxs 2y ago

gruez 2y ago

>Given it's the empire responsible for the most human deaths in history, it's hard to argue Is it? The amount of deaths shouldn't be compared to 0, it should be compared to a counterfactual where the indigenous people were in charge. Otherwise you run into the "doctors with most patient deaths" problem. It's possible that the doctor is objectively bad, or that he's receiving the sickest patients. It's plausible for instance, that areas with local rulers who are brutal and despotic are easy to conquer/colonize by an outside empire, because the brutality/despotism means it's easy to assemble a local coalition to depose the current regime.

Two4 2y ago
[flagged]
- onecommentman 2y ago
  Attributing any mention of possible positive impacts of British colonialism to apologism on the part of the poster is itself a bad look. Let the good and bad be dredged out of the swamp of the past, washed off and compared. Nobody alive has any significant skin in the British Raj at this point. Save your self-censorship argument for Tibet, Kashmir, Taiwan, Ukraine, Kashmir, etc. Talk about bad looks (and actual personal danger for some).
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it…"
  - Two4 2y ago
    To clarify, we're talking about the idea that colonial subjugation might not have been any worse than the power structures that were displaced in terms of excess deaths. This is not the same as saying the British built railways, and also demonstrably untrue, both statistically and philosophically. A passing knowledge on the horrors of colonialism would qualify one to identify this idea as colonial apologism.

rich_sasha 2y ago

I guess, as a academic exercise, such comparisons should include population size and time span. Something like imperial death per year per capita. Ideally measuring "excess deaths" in some fashion. For example Russian excess deaths all happened over quite a short time span. Does it mean their intensity of badness was higher?