5 ms·

So the British Empire was color-blind in its viciousness, after all?

by fmajid 2y ago

brink 2y ago
Sure, but I wouldn't naively believe that it's just the British that are/were like this.
- hollywood_court 2y ago
  I don't believe they implied that at all.
  - brink 2y ago
    Well it's easy to assume, so it's best to clarify.
    - fmajid 2y ago
      I was being sarcastic about how even-handedly the British dispensed their cruelty, to white Irish or Boer just as readily as to brown Bengalis.
roomey 2y ago
No, they had a lot of propaganda that showed the Irish as sub human, look at punch magazine for example The Irish were not "white" back then
- Gothmog69 2y ago
  Stupid and lazy analysis.... they were not English. The French and the Germans were also not English. Nothing to do with racism it was nationalism.
  - melesian 2y ago
    French and Germans were not depicted in English publications as apes. The Irish were coerced into the UK and were officially British citizens, that is ostensibly, co-nationals. They weren't treated as such because those in power regarded them as subhuman. If that isn't racism the word is devoid of meaning.
rayiner 2y ago
Kind of. There is a quote from Lord Thomas Macaulay in 1835, regarding education in colonial India, that I've always found interesting: > I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population. In 1835, it's quite progressive to posit that you can, through education, create a class of Indians who are "English in tastes, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect." Arguably, it was too optimistically progressive--history showed that Oxbridge educations could go only so far in turning Indians into English.
- zem 2y ago
  it's not even remotely progressive; it's the standard "white man's burden" horseshit that was prevalent at the time, positing that englishness was a higher state of civilisation that indians needed to be educated to attain.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    In 1835, England already had inter-city railways and most textile mills were using steam engines. If you were an Englishmen in 1835, you'd absolutely look out at India and see English civilization as being from a higher state. And, based on the empirical evidence before your eyes, it would be extremely progressive of you to posit that the difference between you and those Indians was something that could be bridged by education.

So the British Empire was color-blind in its viciousness, after all?

by fmajid 2y ago

So the British Empire was color-blind in its viciousness, after all?

brink 2y ago

Sure, but I wouldn't naively believe that it's just the British that are/were like this.

hollywood_court 2y ago
I don't believe they implied that at all.
- brink 2y ago
  Well it's easy to assume, so it's best to clarify.
  - fmajid 2y ago
    I was being sarcastic about how even-handedly the British dispensed their cruelty, to white Irish or Boer just as readily as to brown Bengalis.

roomey 2y ago

No, they had a lot of propaganda that showed the Irish as sub human, look at punch magazine for example The Irish were not "white" back then

Gothmog69 2y ago
Stupid and lazy analysis.... they were not English. The French and the Germans were also not English. Nothing to do with racism it was nationalism.
- melesian 2y ago
  French and Germans were not depicted in English publications as apes. The Irish were coerced into the UK and were officially British citizens, that is ostensibly, co-nationals. They weren't treated as such because those in power regarded them as subhuman. If that isn't racism the word is devoid of meaning.

rayiner 2y ago

Kind of. There is a quote from Lord Thomas Macaulay in 1835, regarding education in colonial India, that I've always found interesting: > I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population. In 1835, it's quite progressive to posit that you can, through education, create a class of Indians who are "English in tastes, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect." Arguably, it was too optimistically progressive--history showed that Oxbridge educations could go only so far in turning Indians into English.

zem 2y ago
it's not even remotely progressive; it's the standard "white man's burden" horseshit that was prevalent at the time, positing that englishness was a higher state of civilisation that indians needed to be educated to attain.
- rayiner 2y ago
  In 1835, England already had inter-city railways and most textile mills were using steam engines. If you were an Englishmen in 1835, you'd absolutely look out at India and see English civilization as being from a higher state. And, based on the empirical evidence before your eyes, it would be extremely progressive of you to posit that the difference between you and those Indians was something that could be bridged by education.