4 ms·
I remember asking this question to a work colleague from India almost 30 years ago. I asked something like if he hated the Brits for invading his land. He said
by sys_64738 1y ago
I remember asking this question to a work colleague from India almost 30 years ago. I asked something like if he hated the Brits for invading his land. He said on the contrary. They advanced their people so rapidly and efficiently through education and technical advances that would have taken hundreds of years by themselves. He said this allowed them to kick the British out once they had outlived their usefulness. Or something like that. It's been along time since I thought about it.
- jeromegv 1y agoSo you found 1 person 30 years ago to justify colonialism?
- grugagag 1y agoIt appears the person didn’t justify colonialism, they noted the benefit they got which concluded with them kicking out the colonizer.
- Spooky23 1y agoLike anything, it depends on your point of view and time. My grandparents and their generation were all born in Ireland, and had a very different outlook than the people who remained and folks you talk to today there. People just want to live their lives.
- throawaywpg 1y agoSome Indians benefitted, but the vast majority suffered.
- fakedang 1y agoSpecial mention: the Partition. But then again, without the British, there wouldn't have been a unified India but a multitude of states, sort of resembling the EU (in the best case). Worst case scenario, mini Africa. Having a common hated enemy did have its benefits.
- graemep 1y agoTh vast majority suffered under various Indian empires too. The lower castes suffered millennia of oppression (and still do) - imagine millennia of Jim Crow or apartheid. Some of them benefited hugely from British rule as a result, probably including my mother's ancestors.
- lyu07282 1y agoThe caste system itself is wildly considered to be exacerbated and promoted by British colonial rule in post colonial studies, not unlike the US empire promoting sectarianism in the aftermath of the Iraq war. The caste divisions did exist before British rule but it wasn't as systematic and unified across India as after. Boy how do we even talk about neocolonialism today if there are still people with full on colonialist sympathies holy shit
- bluecheese452 1y agoHow do we talk about topic X if there are people who don’t think about it like I do? People having different opinions isn’t a bad thing. Also I think you likely meant widely, not wildly.
- lyu07282 1y ago> People having different opinions isn’t a bad thing. No I think that is a bad thing and a failure of our society if there are still people around repeating talking points from 1850s British colonial rule for christ sake! Its like saying the Roman empire was great because it brought Aqueducts to the savages or something, like that is just education/knowledge of history + basic moral principles. The genocidal barbarism of colonialism should be something we left behind collectively. Or do you think whether or not the holocaust was good or bad is a matter of opinion too?
- baud147258 1y agoWasn't the Roman empire better than most contemporary polities? Like it created a long era of peace in a significant area and successfully integrated various population, culminating in the 3rd century where all free men were made roman citizens. If you'd ask under which ancient polity I would prefer to live, chance are I'll choose the Roman empire.
- gizajob 1y agoI’d say most Indians are pretty happy about the cricket situation.
- protocolture 1y agoThe brits took India from a variety of different rulers, but principally the Mughals. The Mughals werent any one thing, but they were despised in a lot of places. The brits also largely permitted the caste system to proceed. my experience is that upper caste indians preferred the brits, where the lower caste ones dont really discern the difference.
- lenkite 1y agoIt depends on which Indian state you were from. South Indian states like Travancore were allied with the British Empire and signed a treaty that brought it under British influence. Travancore was facing extinction from Islamic conquerors - Tippu Sultan. Travancore and British forces defeated Tippu Sultan which resulted in the Treaty of Seringapatam (1792). Travancore was extremely prosperous under the Britsh Empire and was given special status. The same could not be said of the Northern Indian states which faced heavy subjugation and exploitation by the East India Company.