Would pro-colonialists support this?

[TubbaBlubba]

This is pathetic, TB. If you can't debate people's actual positions and arguments then this may not be the forum for you.

I haven't said one single thing is support of the British Empire. I loath it. I wish it had never happened. I am a huge lover of India and Africa, and to see ignorant denigration of either is what gets my goat......and your sneering, patronising rolleyes-infested gibberish denigrating India is what has upset me, not anything you have said about the loathsome British Empire. See if you can make a post in this thread without denigrating a third world country or piling up a huge mountain of straw about other posters, and I am sure that there will be others here who may wish to engage you. As for me.....that's it.

Okay, I'm really confused as to what exactly you objected to in the first place then. Do you take any issue at all with the statements that:

- The British Empire devastated the Indian economy and domestic industry for its own purposes.

- Export-oriented policies instituted by the British Empire were immensely harmful to the growth or re-establishment of domestic industry.

- The British Empire created, rigidified and re-instituted ethno-religious and class divisions where they were either previously absent or far less prominent before.

- The British Empire was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions in famines in India.

... and that the effects of these things are still felt today in the many, many socio-economic problems that plague India?

I don't even know where you get "Denigrating India" from. If anything, minimizing the massive socio-economic problems it faces and that are largely caused by its colonial history is denigrating. Pretending that it's better off than it is is to minimize the horrors of its past.

 

[Roofgardener]

..... Sorry, the colonialism perpetrated by the British was among the worst atrocities in history.

What..worse than Islamic colonialism ? Or Roman ? Or Phoenician ?

And it would have been far, far better off, had the trans-atlantic slave trade not wrought immense havoc to its demographics in the Early Modern era.....

True, although it was overshadowed by the Islamic trade in African slaves, something that is SO rarely mentioned.

My point is this: are you objecting to colonialism, or only the colonialism undertaken by "white westerners" ?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What..worse than Islamic colonialism ? Or Roman ? Or Phoenician ?

I'm not sure what you mean with "Islamic colonialism", nor Phoenician. The "colonies" of the ancient world were quite different from those in the early modern era. The ancient word referred to a type of Roman military outpost.

There is no doubt that the Romans perpetrated atrocities due to their immensely chauvinistic world view. But they also lived in a world that was very, very different, which we will never know as much about as we would like. The degree to which things we would understand as genocide today occurred in the ancient world is still a subject of debate.

I really don't see it as relevant to the subject at hand, honestly.

True, although it was overshadowed by the Islamic trade in African slaves, something that is SO rarely mentioned.

Not true. The total amount of slaves may have been greater, but the Islamic slave trade happened for a period that was several times longer.

It was also qualitatively different than the trans-Antlantic slave trade (albeit parts of it, such as the creation of eunuchs for the Ottomans, was no doubt equally horrific). "Islamic slave trade" is really too broad a topic to generalize about.

My point is this: are you objecting to colonialism, or only the colonialism undertaken by "white westerners" ?

"Colonialism" refers to a set of practices beginning in the early modern era that was in general peculiar to the west. I'm sure relevant comparisons can be made to other cultures, but that seems beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

[MikeG]

Okay, I'm really confused as to what exactly you objected to in the first place then.

You shouldn't be. It's simple. I object to your ignorant sneering at the Indian economy.

Do you take any issue at all with the statements that:

- The British Empire devastated the Indian economy and domestic industry for its own purposes.

No.

- Export-oriented policies instituted by the British Empire were immensely harmful to the growth or re-establishment of domestic industry.

No, not at the time, and for some decades after British withdrawal.

- The British Empire created, rigidified and re-instituted ethno-religious and class divisions where they were either previously absent or far less prominent before.

No, although it is much more complex than this.

- The British Empire was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions in famines in India.

No, during Empire, but not after the end of Empire. During the Raj they were responsible for the deaths of millions through various policies, especially partition, but famine is a complex subject. The British had no role in famines in India in the late 20th century.

... and that the effects of these things are still felt today in the many, many socio-economic problems that plague India?

I don't accept this at all.

I don't even know where you get "Denigrating India" from.

You do now. Do some learning about India before you spout tripe.

 

[The Don]

True, although it was overshadowed by the Islamic trade in African slaves, something that is SO rarely mentioned.

My point is this: are you objecting to colonialism, or only the colonialism undertaken by "white westerners" ?

I think the subject of this particular strand of conversation is whether the British rule in India really was as "good" as theprestige seems to think it was:

I... might go for that, if our new alien overlords managed it about as well as the British managed India.

IMO British rule wasn't a complete disaster but OTOH millions died in famines, the caste system was largely retained intact, India was "plundered" economically and Indians were forced to work throughout the British Empire and Indian troops served Empire forces.

I'm not sure that I'd be so sanguine if our alien overlords did a similarly "good" job.

That's not to say there aren't many, many, far worse examples of colonialism.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

You shouldn't be. It's simple. I object to your ignorant sneering at the Indian economy.



No.



No, not at the time, and for some decades after British withdrawal.



No, although it is much more complex than this.



Not after the end of Empire. During the Raj they were responsible for the deaths of millions through various policies, especially partition, but famine is a complex subject. The British had no role in famines in India in the late 20th century.

OK, good. I don't think I've mentioned any famines of the late 20th century?

You do now. Do some learning about India before you spout tripe.

OK, so when I said that the economy of India is horribly stagnant compared to China, that was a bit of a broad brush. I should have said that looking at the development seen in the countries since Indian independence, India has lagged behind. As it stands, it simply doesn't have the industrial base to play in the same league, and its population suffers for it. The higher education of a small segment of society - the slightly wealthies urban dwellers - is only going to help the what, 4/5ths of the population that is still rural so much.

If you absolutely have to know, one of my ex-girlfriends grew up in India. The massive issues the rural population faced was something that concerned her a great deal.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

tthe caste system was largely retained intact,

Worse - the British made use of the Brahmins a great deal in understanding India. This led to them rigidifying and in many cases re-instating the caste system and playing up its racial aspects.

If I recall correctly, in most parts of India, the occupational divisions (I forget the word) were much more important than the caste systems, before the British.

 

[Roofgardener]

I'm not sure what you mean with "Islamic colonialism", nor Phoenician. The "colonies" of the ancient world were quite different from those in the early modern era. The ancient word referred to a type of Roman military outpost.

There is no doubt that the Romans perpetrated atrocities due to their immensely chauvinistic world view. But they also lived in a world that was very, very different, which we will never know as much about as we would like. The degree to which things we would understand as genocide today occurred in the ancient world is still a subject of debate.

I really don't see it as relevant to the subject at hand, honestly.

Well, yes... if you are modifying the definition of 'colonisation' in order to fit a particular narrative or agenda, then of course, the comparison won't be relevant.

Not true. The total amount of slaves may have been greater, but the Islamic slave trade happened for a period that was several times longer.

It was also qualitatively different than the trans-Antlantic slave trade (albeit parts of it, such as the creation of eunuchs for the Ottomans, was no doubt equally horrific). "Islamic slave trade" is really too broad a topic to generalize about.

So are you suggesting that the greater length of the Islamic slave trade caused it to have LESS impact on their conquered African countries ? I'm struggling with that.

"Colonialism" refers to a set of practices beginning in the early modern era that was in general peculiar to the west. I'm sure relevant comparisons can be made to other cultures, but that seems beyond the scope of this discussion.

Once more, that is a VERY specific definition. Dare I even say an artificially contrived one ? Could you give me any examples of dictionary definitions of "colonisation" that accord with your own definition above ?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, yes... if you are modifying the definition of 'colonisation' in order to fit a particular narrative or agenda, then of course, the comparison won't be relevant.

Once more, that is a VERY specific definition. Dare I even say an artificially contrived one ? Could you give me any examples of dictionary definitions of "colonisation" that accord with your own definition above ?

Here's a nice summary from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Colonialism is not a modern phenomenon. World history is full of examples of one society gradually expanding by incorporating adjacent territory and settling its people on newly conquered territory. The ancient Greeks set up colonies as did the Romans, the Moors, and the Ottomans, to name just a few of the most famous examples. Colonialism, then, is not restricted to a specific time or place. Nevertheless, in the sixteenth century, colonialism changed decisively because of technological developments in navigation that began to connect more remote parts of the world. Fast sailing ships made it possible to reach distant ports and to sustain close ties between the center and colonies. Thus, the modern European colonial project emerged when it became possible to move large numbers of people across the ocean and to maintain political sovereignty in spite of geographical dispersion. This entry uses the term colonialism to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world, including the Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia.

So are you suggesting that the greater length of the Islamic slave trade caused it to have LESS impact on their conquered African countries ? I'm struggling with that.

Yes, because the percentage of the population was smaller and it occurred at a slower rate. It also mainly occurred in a completely different part of Africa (around the Horn, mostly, I believe), which makes it kind of irrelevant to the discussion of the impact of the TAST on West Africa.

 

[Craig B]

Here's something else you might not have thought about: Sub-Saharan Africa is growing faster than anywhere else in the world. But how can that be? So much of it was British Empire.

And if you're right, it's growing after being relieved of having to bear the weight of that empire. If a spring is held down, it jumps back up when released, yes indeed.

Moreover, China, also recently released from imperial pressure, is investing heavily in African infrastructure. Could that have happened in the days of the Shanghai International Settlement^WP?

 

[theprestige]

I think the subject of this particular strand of conversation is whether the British rule in India really was as "good" as theprestige seems to think it was:

To be clear: I'm agnostic about the quality of the British rule in India. I don't think it's necessary to know that, in order to address the OP.

All we need to address the OP is to stipulate *some* level of quality. Ideally, we'd stipulate based on the assumptions and arguments provided by an actual "pro-colonialist". But since the OP doesn't provide one, and doesn't even bother to articulate or cite their beliefs, we're free to stipulate whatever we want.

 

[Giz]

Worse - the British made use of the Brahmins a great deal in understanding India. This led to them rigidifying and in many cases re-instating the caste system and playing up its racial aspects.

If I recall correctly, in most parts of India, the occupational divisions (I forget the word) were much more important than the caste systems, before the British.

Pfft. A most superficial analysis. A more comprehensive analysis would track the British recognition and exploitation of the indian caste system to the existence of the British class system. And the British class system is based on the Normans. And the Normans conquered Britain due to the diversion created by scandinavian invaders at Stamford bridge in 1066.

Ergo, any real analysis has to conclude that Scandinavia is responsible for india's moribund economy*.


* and all other ills relating to the British Empire.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Pfft. A most superficial analysis. A more comprehensive analysis would track the British recognition and exploitation of the indian caste system to the existence of the British class system. And the British class system is based on the Normans. And the Normans conquered Britain due to the diversion created by scandinavian invaders at Stamford bridge in 1066.

Ergo, any real analysis has to conclude that Scandinavia is responsible for india's moribund economy*.


* and all other ills relating to the British Empire.

Are you questioning the fact that the British had a key role in rigidifying, racializing and in many places reintroducing the caste system as we know it? It's really nothing to be glib about.

 

[Giz]

Are you questioning the fact that the British had a key role in rigidifying, racializing and in many places reintroducing the caste system as we know it? It's really nothing to be glib about.

Are you denying the scandinavian role? Obviously the British could not be expected to show agency or responsibility for their societal structure after scandinavian meddling. It is absolutely nothing to be glib about.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Are you denying the scandinavian role? Obviously the British could not be expected to show agency or responsibility for their societal structure after scandinavian meddling. It is absolutely nothing to be glib about.

What's the point of this line of nonsense extrapolation? What is your issue with the fact that the British profoundly altered that aspect of Indian society? Can you explain that without childish imitation? Obviously there was Indian agency involved - those at the top benefitted from this new social order.

 

[MikeG]

Are you questioning the fact that the British had a key role in rigidifying, racializing and in many places reintroducing the caste system as we know it? It's really nothing to be glib about.

It's astonishing that you don't recognise such obvious humour and teasing. But no, carry on with the po-faced responses.

Nicely done, Giz.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It's astonishing that you don't recognise such obvious humour and teasing. But no, carry on with the po-faced responses.

Nicely done, Giz.

Not so, I'm genuinely baffled as to what point he is trying to make.

 

[Hans]

Pfft. A most superficial analysis. A more comprehensive analysis would track the British recognition and exploitation of the indian caste system to the existence of the British class system. And the British class system is based on the Normans. And the Normans conquered Britain due to the diversion created by scandinavian invaders at Stamford bridge in 1066.

Ergo, any real analysis has to conclude that Scandinavia is responsible for india's moribund economy*.


* and all other ills relating to the British Empire.

Absolutely and we all know who were behind those insidious Scandinavians!

Lapps or Sami

 

[MikeG]

.....I'm genuinely baffled as to what point he is trying to make.

Patently. He wasn't wasn't trying to make a point, he was trying (and succeeding) in being humourous.

 

[MikeG]

Absolutely and we all know who were behind those insidious Scandinavians!

Lapps or Sami

Reindeer migration is driven by mosquitoes. The migration of the reindeer is the reason for the life-style of the Sami. Are we really saying that mosquitoes north of the arctic circle are the reason for the caste system in India? Who knew.