May 21, 2005
The white man’s burden, redux (updated)History
The ghost of Rudyard Kipling lives on in neocolonialist blog Arma Virumque (thanks, Saheli and many others):
… this third-world feminist of color should get down on her knees and thank Siva that her country was the beneficiary of British colonialism. Without it, she would never have heard of feminism or even of the third world, since the very concept depends upon the freedom, education, and language that the West brought to savages [sic] countries in the 18th and 19th centuries. India is such an economic powerhouse today because of the legacy bequeathed by her former colonial rulers… everywhere that Britain went—I cannot think of a single exception—it left better off.
The right-wing blog Power Line chimes in:
It’s great to see someone standing up for colonialism, especially British colonialism.
The author, Roger Kimball, picks the wrong deity and only gets lamer from there. This hapless duffer who calls himself an American patriot is arguing against American independence, which happened precisely because the crown raped its colonies and kept its boot upon the throat of political freedom. And in crediting the Brits with everything, despite their focus on their own economic interests, he falls prey to the classic fallacy of correlation vs. causation. It’s the one made famous by animism and sports superstition: ‘I wore a cap one day, I won, therefore my cap caused the victory.’
For Kimball to give the Brits all credit requires projecting an artificial stasis in India for 200 years. If you flash-freeze hundreds of millions of people and put them into deep hibernation for two centuries, that they’ll end up relatively poor is a tautology. You have to project India along the political, developmental and educational trajectories of similar regions not under colonial rule. Otherwise you’re reduced to a bogus argument: that absent the British, India would never have built a railroad, regional highways, river ports or seaports. Even the smallest and poorest of nations have managed that, if for no other reason than the economic interests of their kleptocrats.
Absent Ford, someone still would have popularized the automobile. Absent Microsoft, someone still would have popularized an operating system. And absent the British, India still would have had transport.
Indeed, Indians built infrastructure during the Raj using their own laborers and their own capital. The London Jagannath stole vast amounts of capital and raw material; you’d add that massive attack back into the model. Getting elites bootstrapped on English turned out serendipitous because of the unexpected success of a 13-state British colony that roared. But in most other areas of development, the thievery was a net hindrance.
If the British sinned, it was not because of their colonial rule, but because of the failure of nerve that led them to withdraw too precipitously… Had Britain had the courage to face down Gandhi and his rabble a few years longer, the tragedy that was the partititon [sic] of India might have been avoided.
‘Had Britain had the courage to face down Washington, the tragedy that was the Civil War might have been avoided.’ Kimball doesn’t grasp even the basics of history: Britain intentionally divided colonies upon retreat to keep them warring and pliable, and Gandhi was the one against Partition. Divide and rule was the basis of British strategy both coming and going. So where does this argument come from? What modern-day situation could possibly motivate conservatives to argue against withdrawing rapidly from an invaded country? Thinking… thinking… wait, it’ll come to me…
I wonder when these neocolonialists will welcome a Chinese invasion of the U.S. mainland so they can bequeath to us their bullet trains, their high-tech factories and their shiny new cities. I wonder when neocolonialists will send their kids to elite schools in Beijing to learn Mandarin, the dominant language of the 21st century, and look down on English speakers as natives with sawdust for brains. I wonder when neocolonialists will say, ‘If tens of millions are killed under Chinese rule, so be it, it’s for the national good. Who knows how backward we’d be had the Chinese not developed us.’
Regarding the neocolonialists’ swish style, their fetish for festooning themselves in Latin names (Arma Virumque) and Greek classics (Victor Hanson) is hilarious because they don’t want anything to do with swarthy people today. Like the Victorian-era German intellectuals obsessed with the Upanishads and the Vedas, they want the patina of classicism to rub off on them from a safe distance.
Kipling’s own paternalistic wet dream, his quasi-religious self-absolution as his countrymen were murdering unarmed civilians, starving peasants, stealing money to build London’s banks and generally sucking the country dry, went something like this:
Take up the White Man’s burden…
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child…
Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
“Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?”
Sepia Mutiny: reporting controversy a week after it happens ;)
See also: Crooked Timber, Obsidian Wings, Digby, Majikthise, India Uncut, LGM, Geomblog, Vegacura, Apostropher, Grammar.police, Catalyst, Ed Cone, Catching Flies, Cinematic Rain, Atrios
Still fighting a losing battle for the Tories: ADC, Logical Meme
Update: Zoo Station has some very interesting comments.
Update 2: Grammar.police says:
… [Kimball is] sampling on the dependent variable… one might suggest that the British immediately be persuaded to conquer the entire world, given all the benefits that subjugation to the queen confers; applying his thesis along another axis, one might suggest world domination by both the Nazis and Soviets as well, since many if not all the countries formerly conquered by these Empires are doing very well today… Following the time variable backward, in fact, it’s hard to come up with a single historical instance of brute imperialism that hasn’t made the world a better place!
manish on May 21, 2005 05:12 AM in History · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
¤ Grammar.police said: The Sun Never Sets on Roger Kimball's Inanity
Yes, it was a whole week ago that I gave this link to Amit's India Uncut, but I think this is by far the exposition of the fallacy in Kimball's ridiculous rant. It's really sad to see people think this way. They don't know anything about India and life under the Raj, but the thought "I don't really know anything about this so I should not comment about it" never comes into their little minds.
I was about to cuss this man intellectually then I looked at his picture. You shouldnt get personal, but you know, this foolish jackanape looks like the inbred nerd that the mangy dog dragged in.
I want to say that these people are the most vulgar and boorish malarial gnats alive, because they relish their ignorance, in fact they display it like a cock-a-hoop overweight castrati rubbing oil into his naked body in the mirror, admiring his beauty when in fact he is a thing of deep repulsive ugliness. There is nothing more coarse and vulgar than such a man as this Kimball character who parades idiocy and a coarse plain barnyard inferiority complex (most likely rooted in sexual dysfunction) and transmutes that into a pride at his nasty, vulgar, crude and uncivilised discourse.
Now that I have finished with that, I shall address him in my native tongue, that of Punjabi, and give an intellectual response to this barbarian-in-a-bow-tie:
Theri ma di bingi lund, Maachaud!
Tere lan tere bebe de pudhe vich, jaa baa dee pudi choop! Tera binga lulla teri manh di andhi phudi vich!
Keerian Teri Maa Di Phudi Vich Varjaan, tera peh thenoo picheyo kush karda hunda.
Tuki kalay kutay kahn!
Kimball, your uncouth, uncultured, barbarous self is in turmoil. I have sympathy with you in this respect. I have found a link that can help with your problem. Read and seek help.
But your unsophisticated, priggish and barbarian discourse will require the humility and intellect you are not in possession of, belonging as you do to a school of morons, and I fear you are condemned to years of opression caused by your vulgar and coarse upbringing. Humility pays dividends, we are not to blame for your lifetime of sexual and cultural humiliation.
I just looked at his picture again and he looks like he smells of urine.
Come on now, this is too easy. Let us argue amongst ourselves and enjoy a more hearty debate.
Great post, Manish.
Saurav
Swiftian invective is a hearty and humourous, not to say enjoyable contribution to make in response to a man who tells Indian women not to get their 'sari's in a twist' and tells them to get on their knees to pray to Shiva thanks for the benificence of the White Man's Burden.
Ahem.
I wonder how long it will take for the Gunga Din's to turn up on this thread and start worrying about how we shouldnt be intemperate to the Master's.
There is no denying that the West developed the best knowledge and philosophy from 17th century onwards which is still strong till date. It is also truth that the Indian and Arab/Persian philosophies not only failed to enlighten Indians but also degraded the society with their misguided knowledge. However, the problem is that Western philosophy has liberated us to such an extent that we can clearly distinguish between culture and the people. So Westerner in their right mind should expect us to be loyal to their philosophy and to their race. Especially when you hear a news like South Korea has marched ahead in the stem cell research whose foundation is mostly laid by the West. It's not people; it's only philosophy. However, it'll be a tragedy if Indians reject Western philosophy since it's developed by the Whites.
I would like to thank you for pointing me towards this most excellent website. My professor had said that it would be nearly impossible to find proponents of colonialism in modern thought, but you have shown me and her that Academic Freedom (tm Republican Party, 2005) truly exists in this world.
/tongue out of cheek
I read the Fanon article. Did the author really say "the African knows that his culture is inferior" ??
My mind boggles.
Your writing is spot on, except for two facts.
Roger Kimball is right, about the Education, Culture, Values and Ideas inculcation purely from a technical standpoint, though he is very evidently racist. Although I do not support colonialism and have only contempt for Kimball, I do acknowledge that the current Indian development, education system and ideal development is attributed to the British. History cannot be changed.
You are right that Growth and Development of Ideals "could" happen even without British and the English Education system - but if you have studied 'alternative history' it would be anyone's guess whether actually growth and development "would" happen. You couldnt say for sure.
Under the British, it did happen for sure - and the fact cannot be changed. You must accept that in 1750 India had a little "progress" to its credit and was a largely superstitious and backward society. It was a ravaged landmass full of infighting territories, though quite a kindoms were rich in terms of material they weren't rich in terms of knowledge. (Please dont get started like the RSS - singing glories of the Indian people, and their undocumented "state of advancement" in the vedic times. )
True, the partition was *evil*, but we wouldnt have an India the current size had the British not unified it
Secondly whether or not Gandhi was against partition is disputable, but the fact that MK Gandhi sucked up to Jinnah and 'facilitated' the partition is not (he "wanted the moslems to be happy", en masse when all the moslems didn't think the same way and it was mostly the Muslim Legue's Political Gambit which Gandhi played into) and also remember the 55 Crore political imbroglio.
This reminds me of the corporate axion about the Bird, The Cow, and the Cat
Not everyone who puts you in deep shit is your enemy, and not everyone who pulls you out of it is your friend
The thing that turned me off to this Roger Kimball post is the fact that he's replying to a letter from someone who clearly hasn't thought out her position very carefully. Probably a kid...
It says something about you when you launch a rant on the basis of a poorly written email from a teenager. Try responding to somebody more serious -- Edward Said.
This aspect of the story makes it hard for me to take Roger Kimball even remotely seriously.
So Westerner in their right mind should expect us to be loyal to their philosophy and to their race.
It should be,
So Westerners in their right mind should expect us to be loyal to their philosophy and not to their race. Freudian slip..eh!
SauravSwiftian invective is a hearty and humourous, not to say enjoyable contribution to make in response to a man who tells Indian women not to get their 'sari's in a twist' and tells them to get on their knees to pray to Shiva thanks for the benificence of the White Man's Burden.
Oh, I wasn't being sarcastic when I said "Great post."--I enjoyed it. I just think Manish's talents are wasted on colonialists who parody themselves so poorly when there are others who make it only slightly harder and provide more material.
In any case, I'm happy to play the role of colonial apologist for the time being until some legitimately stupid people come along. See future posts.
This post is not nuanced.! Look at everything that the British have done!!!
What would INdia be today if it had not had the railroads and the bureaucracy--we would be living in junglez, swinging from trees like APES!!! Or controlled by the Msulims or AThesit/Marxists!!!
It is time We drop all this Westernized influence and recognize that Britain and American have been our best friends, made us wealthy, and provided us with teh technological capacities. to make Limca and the new Thumbs Up and the weapons that protect us! Otherwize, we might ahs well just go outside and yell Pakistan Zindabad!
Let's remember whot he real enemies are.
You know, I think Uncle Gunga is right about some of the things he says, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that hte post isn't a little racist.
A lot of the things that were wrong with India were wrong before the British got there, and that they brought a lot of really important things to India. I can't really imagine what India would have been like if the Mughals had continued to rule, especially given the state of the Muslim world today. Or if some other country like Russia or Belgium had colonized it. In the long run, it might have been best, given GDP growth from 1700 to 2000 and other factors, that the British colonized India. plus, you can make an argument that hitler would be in power today if it wasn't for British colonialism! And india certainly wouldn't be part of the global free trade economy.
Look at the United States--if the United States hadn't inherited the British ideas about government, it wouldn't have the checks and balanes that exist today in the Constitution, and that have contirbuted to freedom in so many other places and helped fuel the gradual development of civil rights and allowed so many of our parents to come here and become wealthy and send money back to India.
I just think it's only right to be fair to the British and recognize all the benefits that have come from colonialism while admitting that maybe there were a couple of racist things that happened. Otherwise, we're just as racist as they were.
I'm going to go fetishize White people now.
whoops...sorry about that. I accidentally used my Uncle's computer to post that last message. I'm Uncle Gunga's nephew in Long Island.
Punjabi Boy,
as a fellow punjabi, can I just say that it warms my heart to hear my mother tongue spoken with so much passion. Is there a blog/website/wikipedia entry you direct me too which has a listing of all possible combination of punju expletives? You have truly made my day. I have gotten tired of using the same old boring Hindi cusses over my daily lassi and aloo paratha. Oh, and the guy you were cussing out is a real behen ka lawda, maaderchod. I hope woh apni chhotti lund apni maa ki gaand me stuff kardey.
I rewrote "White Man's Burden" in 1999. Here's the new and improved version, Rich Man's Burden:
Take up the Rich Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed
To sell your captives products
regardless of their need;
Go wait, in heavy harness,
on bosses far away--
So that your corporate masters
can save on workers' pay.
Take up the Rich Man's burden--
In patience to disguise,
To veil the threat of terror
With media that lies
By double-speak and symbol,
To serve your Bosses' gain,
To seek your Masters' profit
And cause your captives pain.
Take up the Rich Man's burden--
The savage Wars of Peace--
Kill, maim, explode, and torture,
to make the violence cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(the growth of markets sought)
Watch unemployed consumers
bring all your hopes to naught.
Take up the Rich Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But rule of Corporations
that Globalism brings.
Their ports ye shall not enter,
Their rugs ye shall not tread,
Go, serve them for your living,
Go, serve them 'til you're dead.
Take up the Rich Man's burden,
and reap his old reward--
Employment for the boring,
TV shows for the bored--
The cry of other nations,
on whom you force your plight
Of quiet desperation
With military might.
Take up the Rich Man's burden--
Ye dare not hope for more--
Don't challenge ye the system
That churns for greed and war.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
Stay silent, sullen peoples,
You've got your jobs to do.
Take up the Rich Man's burden!
Do not think for yourself!
Obey the Bosses' orders--
Half devil and half elf!
Work for the Rich Man's profit
Die for the Rich Man's war;
Take up the Rich Man's Burden
And stay forever poor.
I think the imperial defenders here need a little lesson in economic history and logic. First let me point out that the rise in British iron and steel and textile industries correlated strongly with their decline in India and not by sheer accident (tariff protection, especially targeted against the indigenous industry). Did you also know that between 1699 and 1705 Britain passed a series of laws that banned the imports of superior products from its colonies if they happened to threaten British industries (for a good economic history of British "free" trade read Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder)? Also there was a world economy and thriving trade between different regions and sectors of Asia and Africa long before the Europeans joined the game (read Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism, 3 volumes or K.N. Chaudhuri's work on Asian trade).Did you also know that gujrati banias practically financed the British East India company's operations in India between the early 1600 through to the early 1800s before they was finally rewarded by being superceded and their businesses destroyed by english traders (this is before the advent of the idea of nationalism in India folks, so don't get all uppity about merchants funding "foreigners")? Some of these individual merchants like Abdul Gafur and Viji Vora in the 1700s employed more capital (ships etc.) individually than entire European companies Finally there is no such thing as an immaculate "western" conception. There has been exchange (and sometimes theft; remember no copyright laws)of knowledge from "East" to "West" for centuries. As for philosophy, anyone here heard about the Indian analytical tradition? anyone heard about the mathematician and philosopher panini (who Noam Chomsky credits as being the pioneer of modern mathematical linguistics;he lived and wrote around 400 bc) or aryabhatta (his Magnum Opus, the Aryabhattiya was translated into Latin in the 13th century. Through this translation, European mathematicians got to know methods for calculating the areas of triangles, volumes of spheres as well as square and cube root. Aryabhatta's ideas about eclipses and the sun being the source of moonlight may not have caused much of an impression on European astronomers as by then they had come to know of these facts through the observations of Copernicus and Galileo, but considering that Aryabhatta discovered these facts 1500 years ago, and 1000 years before Copernicus and Galileo, this makes him a pioneer), or varamhira? As one famous liberal western philosopher, Voltaire, once pointed out, "If as a philosopher one wishes to instruct oneself about what has taken place on the globe, one must first of all turn one's eyes towards the East, the cradle of all arts, to which the West owes everything", indeed. I could go on an on, but I'll stop here.
I do not want even want to go into the faulty counterfactual logic employed above (if it were not for the x, a, b, c would not have happened). It is kinda like tracing the second world war to Cleopetra's long nose (if she did not have a long nose, Mark Anthony would not have been attracted to her.....and so on).
Finally, to all the imperial defenders, to quote another philosopher, Wittgenstein, "whereof one doesn't know, thereof one should pass over in silence" (the last line of tractatus logico philosophicus).
Yeah, I tried e-mailing you guys this link a while back, too. Disappointed with the reaction of the Powerline guys....
Neither person comes off well in that particular exchange, neither the 'feminist' whom he addresses nor Roger Kimball. It was possible to address the weakness of her arguments regarding Dworkin without bringing in the spector of colonialism. Perfectly possible, and more likely to make his point, too. Really, the colonialism is a non-sequitor. Unless he wanted to be cheeky and tell her that her feminism and post-modernism is a sort of 'Western intellectual colonialism'. I jest, of course...
It is also perfectly possible to regret what the British did in India while being clear eyed about Indian culture at that particular time, as well. Neither side needs to be elevated to the level of gods. The past is the past. We learn from it.
Really, isn't the argument that the Mideast has been stunted by a lack of democracy and thus not developed to it's full potential one of the strongest reasons to support what is happening in Iraq and Lebanon, and (if we keep the pressure on) hopefully Syria and Egypt as well? One of the things I read on the right is that it is a sort of racism to suppose that the Iraqis are not ready for democracy. So, if that is the case, then the British in India are what....my, my, Mr. Kimball. Forgetting our own talking points are we?
This Republican finds his remarks very ill-considered.
TTG
I dont know about a website, those cusses were all taught to me by my Uncle after he drank a few whiskies!
if the United States hadn't inherited the British ideas about government, it wouldn't have the checks and balanes that exist today in the Constitution, and that have contirbuted to freedom in so many other places and helped fuel the gradual development of civil rights and allowed so many of our parents to come here and become wealthy and send money back to India.
Um, everything setup in the US Government stood AGAINST what the British represented. Although today the differences have whittled down, when the constitutionw as written, primarily the focus was against "King and Country". The head of all affairs is not the monarchy The balance of power was designed particularly against abuses any one group could make.
The British had their contributions which cannot be objectively rejected, however to go as far as to say that taking away the freedom of people, looting a country of its national resources, and abusing the population was inherently good for them is plain stupid.
The Belgians did not acquit themselves honorably in the Congo. But everywhere that Britain went--I cannot think of a single exception--it left better off. Santayana was right when he observed, in Soliloquies in England, thatWhat governs the Englishman is his inner atmosphere, the weather in his soul. Instinctively the Englishman is no missionary, no conqueror. He prefers the country to the town, and home to foreign parts. He is rather glad and relieved if only natives will remain natives and strangers strangers, and at a comfortable distance from himself.
The above type thinking is what has lead to the American "Meinifest Destiny" (a sort of devine approval of the Anglo man to rape and pillage)
----
On a seperate point whenever western so called "experts" opine on How India will beat China due to the "language factor" this same supremistic feeling is behind it. Its basically a self-congratulating statement completely devoid of respect to facts on the ground.
Oh, and Andrea. I can't believe your professor didn't know about Niall Ferguson. I went to a lecture he gave and he said the the reconstruction period in Iraq is going poorly because we don't have the history of a civil service like the British.....I am not making this up. Plus, he kept saying "Bushies" and Christopher Lydon was there and had the audacity to say things were more stabe in the world when the USSR and US were facing off. Yes, Mr. Lydon, things were so much better during the cold war. Plus, I was surrounded by a bunch of clucking, gray haired retirees who were driving me insane with their sage nodding whenever he said; "Bushie." Oh, you really got him there. Great rhetorical point...
Note to future speakers: it may feel good to say things like Bushies, but you undercut all your arguments and will not be taken seriously by anyone who might have a different point of view.
This is the part that shocked me:
But everywhere that Britain went--I cannot think of a single exception--it left better off.
??? How do you even start to respond to something like this ??? It's just an utter lack of concern for history that goes beyond stupidity and ignorance all the way into realm of indecency.
Here's what Wikipedia says in an entry that's far from radical:
Nonetheless, British colonial policy was always driven to a large extent by Britain's trading interests. While settler economies developed the infrastructure to support balanced development, tropical African territories found themselves developed only as raw-material suppliers. British policies based on comparative advantage left many developing economies dangerously reliant on a single cash crop. A reliance upon the manipulation of conflict between ethnic and racial identities, in order to keep subject populations from uniting against the occupying power the classic "divide and rule" strategy left a legacy of partition or inter-communal difficulties in areas as diverse as Ireland, India, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Uganda, Iraq, Guyana, and Fiji. Colonel Frank Kitson, in his book Gangs and Countergangs (1960), described how British colonial authorities in Kenya successfully manipulated the Mau Mau uprising so that it became warfare between rival factions; ultimately only 22 Europeans were killed, as opposed to 18,00030,000 Africans.
I also liked the truly disgusting cheap shot he took at Andrea Dworkin. My momma taught me not to cuss, so I won't, but methinks this would be the appropriate time.
NEVER WRESTLE WITH A PIG. YOU BOTH GET DIRTY, BUT THE PIG LIKES IT!
British rule was a force of liberation to the lower castes. Nobody mentions Dr. Ambedkar's arguments on the blessings of British rule.
Even without an alternate history, one can at least look at other colonized regions and see their fate. It seems to me that apart from the US, Australia, and India, places that were former colonies of Britain didn't exactly do quite well. Most of the African colonies were in shambles, for example.
I agree that it is not clear how the natural inter-kingdom rivalries in India would have played out in the absence of British rule, but you have to say that 60 odd years of "independence" has been far better for India than for many former British colonies.
I was going to see if I could come up with anything original here, but finally saw ASR's comment.
Right ASR. Iti.
While the british did lasting harm because of their 'divide and rule', destruction of local industry so that India could be a huge market for the British industry etc, they also gave us many things that we are reaping the benefits of today. (To be fair to the detractors of the British, ALL of these were started for their own benefit, and not because of any altruistic nature)
1. Indian Railways (started to help troop and good movement, but is the backbone of travel in India now. Of the 63,000 km of rail we have today, nearly 53,000 was put in place by the British.)
2. The English language. (put in place so that they would have clerks to help with administration - Thomas Macaulay's pet project - ""We must 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 taste, in opinions, words and intellect." but no one can deny that without this background we wouldn't have all this BPO and IT outsourcing.
3. Social reforms (Sati, anyone?)and the legal system.
One bad thing they left behind was their morals - the Victorian prudish mentality that the RSS/VHP tells us is part of our culture. We are stuck with vestiges of their legal system which criminalizes homosexuality, adultery and prostitution.
Without South Asians winning Mesopotamia from the Turks, Britian would not have had a colony
The history of science is very deep. If not for the spice trade, and general East West trade that ran through Italian city-states like Venice, if not for the Turks taking Istanbul forcing Greeks to leave to the West, if not for the Moors in Spain whose prescence likely played a part in the fact Spain was the first European society to start exploration -- the first to enter the Western Hemisphere and collect material wealth, if Asian immigrants had not come to the US after 1965, all these ifs make the "rock solid" facts, only after the fact
there's more, much more there.
We are one civilization with inter-mingling for thousands upon thousands of years; science likely did not spring fully formed from any region
The response above, to Kimball's claim, is wrong regarding the example of the USA. Americans have never denied the necessity of British culture for the development of the America. Even the founding fathers and those thereafter, when looking at S. American countries, recognized the causal importance of
British influence. This pride of British influence even continues to
this day. The US still officially refers to Britain as "the mother
country" - I just looked it up, and apparently India does not - and
the US gives the British preference in obtaining VISAS over all other
countries (along with Canadians and Australians). In short, I think
that Americans have always been very honest about their massive
indebtedness to the British.
"Even without an alternate history, one can at least look at other colonized regions and see their fate."
The proponents of British Empire claim that British rule in africa was too short to develop an administrative class capable of government.
2. The English language. (put in place so that they would have clerks to help with administration - Thomas Macaulay's pet project - ""We must 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 taste, in opinions, words and intellect." but no one can deny that without this background we wouldn't have all this BPO and IT outsourcing."
Liberia's population speaks English as their FIRST language. (It being founded by former American slaves) I dont see any IT going on over there ....
The English language advantage is bogus. I work with IT outsourcing in China they are just as good as Indian counterparts (except the problem expressing themselves in English ..which has resulted in some preety funny incidents). The Chinese didnt need 200 years of complete subjugation to be a player in IT.
The argument that British rule was beneficial to lower castes is too simplistic. At the time of the gradually rising British ascendancy in India, India was the most advanced (with China) traditional (feudal) economy in the world and with China was responsible for the bulk of the world's trade. This is why the colonial expansion of the british rule began in the guise of British traders trying to force their way into the Indian markets since the days of Jahangir.
The reason why the feudal nature of the economy is important is because, in a purely feudal economy, there was no real economic mobility, this is as true of Great Britain before the Industrial revolution, as of India, and there was no real possibility of lower castes getting greater rights because of their also being a part of the feudal system. The real reason for the growing power of lower castes in pre independence India, is the same reason that drove them into starvation and famine-destruction of traditional industry, and the changes in the nature of the feudal relationship between landowners and serfs. For example, the British forced landowners to pay tax on their produce in *absolute* fixed amounts, irrespective of the output, while previous kings and others did so on a percentage basis. This simple difference in the tax structure is what led to numerous peasant revolts and rebellions and formed the basis of Gandhi's initial non-violence measures.
Additionally, the bulk of the impetus for reform came from with Indian communities themselves-the British only made changes when compelled to do so by arguments and pleas from prominent Indian reformers. The case of Raja Rammohan Roy and I.C Vidyasagar are illustrative of this. These reformers did not arise from a vacuum, they were the product of a reform movement in hindu society dating back several hundred years from the early days of muslim rule in India and the first Bhakti movement, which itself had strong anti caste overtones. Ironically, many present day "Brahmins" are probably descended from non-brahmins who joined some of these movements (like the schools of thought propounded by Sri Ramanujacharya).
In addition to the more prominent reformers, there were many others who probably have had a greater impact, and who fought for reform of the structure of hindu society and more equality like Mahatma Jyotiba Phule in Maharashtra etc.
The roots of the Indian freedom movement, as well as the framework of social justice in Independent India go very deep and are definitely not due to the British educating Indians in "modern ways".
(You knew this had to happen).
I think the best summary of this discussion comes from Monty and his gang of Pythons (Life of Brian):
REG: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES: The aqueduct?
REG: What?
XERXES: The aqueduct.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.
LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO: Irrigation.
XERXES: Medicine.
COMMANDO #2: Education.
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1: And the wine.
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Public baths.
LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up! [bam bam bam bam bam bam bam] [bam bam bam bam bam]
While the british did lasting harm...they also gave us many things that we are reaping the benefits of today. (To be fair to the detractors of the British, ALL of these were started for their own benefit, and not because of any altruistic nature)
This is a terrible argument. You can replace British with the Nazis (with regard to Germany), the Stalinists (with regard to any of the former Soviet bloc countries), Americans (with regard to Black people, for example), or any number of other peoples that ruled in other places, change the bullet points you provided, and it's equally applicable. This is because it doesn't really serve rulers that well to completely obliterate the people they rule to the point where they no longer generate wealth and power for the colonizer/oppressor/whatever. It's not that surprising there were a few things that were left over that serve some useful function.
you have to say that 60 odd years of "independence" has been far better for India than for many former British colonies.
Well, if you're really going to argue this, then you need to take into account that British India included what's now Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan (and Burma) as well as India and that the British dominated the region in general. So far, there have been several international wars, a civil war, a genocide, a nuclear arms race, a number of military coups, religious schisms, increasing religious intolerance in all three countries, and the overexposure of MIA.
But "who suffered more" isn't really a productive exercise, because every people that was colonized by Europeans (from the Irish to desis) has suffered in some way or another, and that's the salient point.
"So far, there have been several international wars, a civil war, a genocide, a nuclear arms race, a number of military coups, religious schisms, increasing religious intolerance in all three countries, and the overexposure of MIA."
Look at the intl wars, civil war, genocide, military coups and religious tensions closely. Now tell me who exactly in South Asia is responsible for them? Which one country is responsible for most of the problems, which country has the rotten elite that is even more self serving and greedy than the usual class of criminal politicans to the east of them. Then think about who helped create that country as a means to maintain some influence in the region.
"Give India its independence, but keep a part of if" - Churchill.
British rule was probably the worst single thing that ever happened to the subcontinent. For every one thing they "gave" us they took away another 10.
South Asia can again regain its old position as a prime pole of global power but that will take some tough choices to be made in some countries of the region. Either way it will happen, but some wise desicions will speeden up the process a great deal.
You can replace British with the Nazis (with regard to Germany), the Stalinists (with regard to any of the former Soviet bloc countries), Americans (with regard to Black people, for example), or any number of other peoples that ruled in other places, change the bullet points you provided, and it's equally applicable.I disagree. The British were not like the Nazis/Stalinists. The Nazi argument is an old and fallacious one - you can negate almost any argument by bringing in a Hitler/Nazi analogy. (Read Godwin's Law) One has to give credit where credit is due - there were good and bad aspects of British rule, but it's silly to say "what if the Nazis had done the same thing?"
The English language advantage is bogus. I work with IT outsourcing in China they are just as good as Indian counterparts (except the problem expressing themselves in English ..which has resulted in some preety funny incidents). The Chinese didnt need 200 years of complete subjugation to be a player in IT.BPO is a big employer in India - it would simply not be possible without our english education. How much BPO do you see in China? As far as IT outsourcing goes, sure, the Chinese didn't need '200 years of complete subjugation to be player in IT', but India is a much bigger player. Go figure :-)
"Theri ma di bingi lund, Maachaud!
Tere lan tere bebe de pudhe vich, jaa baa dee pudi choop! Tera binga lulla teri manh di andhi phudi vich!
Keerian Teri Maa Di Phudi Vich Varjaan, tera peh thenoo picheyo kush karda hunda.
Tuki kalay kutay kahn!"
May I translate that into English word for word? ;-)
If the British had never arived, I think India would have been 5000 principalities and dukedoms that would have fought endless wars with each other for a few centuries more.
If the British had never arived, I think India would have been 5000 principalities and dukedoms that would have fought endless wars with each other for a few centuries more.
You're buying the same fallacy as Kimball. This would've been true in 1750. Since then they've aggregated into nations just about everywhere on Earth, either to resist invaders or by invaders.
Kimball's argument has some validity. I wouldn't say that I endorse it in its entirety but it does hold rather well.
One enduring feature of British rule was "corporate continuity". This was a new concept in India. The idea that entities existed in perpetuity irrespective of the fact the Gov Generals changed every few years, for example.
India had been united before but as soon as a ruler died, dynastic squabbles broke out. And quite often those squabbles had ruinous effects on the unity of the Kingdoms. The result was that they eventually fell apart or were conquered by someone else.
I don't think anyone can seriously question the fact that the British were a vast improvement over Afghan thugs like Ahmad Shah Abdali and Nadir Shah. There is nothing wrong in ackowledging that.
Look, the British have become a pathetic nation now. They have lost their empire. Their post colonial history has been a story of socialism battling against nostalgia for a once glorious past. They ruled a third of the world's population at one time. Today the best they can do is behave like poodles of the US.
I consider myself a staunch Hindu Nationalist but I don't have any serious grudges against thw British because its irrelevant now. Britian's glories belong to the past, the future belongs to India. So lets just ignore post-colonial triumphalists.
In actual fact, the greatest glorifiers of the British Empire are the Neoconservatives of today. I have heard Mark Steyn say quite often "Look at those Indians. They are so civilized because of the Brits. Now if we could do to the Iraqis what the Brits did to the Indians...."
I stand corrected on Nadir Shah. I think he was a Turk. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Sorry again. Nadir Shah was Persian.
Look, the British have become a pathetic nation now.... I don't have any serious grudges against thw British because its irrelevant now. Britian's glories belong to the past, the future belongs to India. So lets just ignore post-colonial triumphalists.
Big mistake. The British are still incredibly wealthy and have a big say in the world economy. All the ill-gotten wealth from the colonies is now invested in stock markets and businesses around the world. Figures are hard to come by. Even just looking at the number of islands in the world still owned by British give you an idea of what they retain from colonial times.
London is among the top financial capitals in the world. Mumbai is not. not even close. enough said.
Don't speak as if India's future is a forgone conclusion. If we don't work hard to realize the potential, we might remain a small player forever.
And we should start thinking about demanding some of those trillions the Brits carted away from our ancestors. Wealth that should have been invested in us.
Arguing about hypothetical "what could have been" questions is pointless.
Colonialism is a whisker short of slavery. It is sacrificing the welfare of one group of people for the sake of another group. It is a system kept in place with military force because it's ruthless, systematic exploitation. It's the death of freedom. I can't fathom any freedom lover even entertaining the "good side" of colonialism.
In Arundhati Roy's words, Debating Imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape. What can we say? That we really miss it?
BPO is a big employer in India - it would simply not be possible without our english education. How much BPO do you see in China? As far as IT outsourcing goes, sure, the Chinese didn't need '200 years of complete subjugation to be player in IT', but India is a much bigger player. Go figure :-)
If English is the criteria than Liberia (phillipines is another example) should be more suited for BPO, How can we explain that??
China does not need BPO. They have jobs for every citizen unlike India which is happy with BPO jobs which are available to 5% population which can speak English good enough to work in BPO.
India's total contribution in IT industry is miniscual in the global IT pie. India may be exporting $6 Billion more than China at present but $6 Billion exports is insignificant interms of Chinese total exports and Global IT business.
Yes the Brits are wealthy. I don't think its as simple as the wealth they looted from the colonies. Remember that World War II caused a lot of damage to Britian and destroyed the economy.
What emerged after World War II was a British economy revived by American aid and investment.
I don't think the British are to be taken seriously any more, not really. They don't have military bases all over the world as the US does. And they only have marginal influence on American policy.
London is a financial capital but if you take London out of the British economy it suddenly looks a lot poorer. British manufacturing is history. The only thing they are good at is Banking and Insurance (and perhaps retail).
India's success isn't a foregone conclusion. But I am an optimist in that respect. We will overtake the British economy in absolute terms (not just PPP) in a few years from now and from there it would be basically a contest between the US, China and India for sheer size and influence. Thats not really arguable.
As for whether trillions were looted, I don't know. One would have to do a study and make a calculation. I haven't read a study, so I wouldn't like to guess. Also, one would have to discount against what they looted the monies India has received in foreign aid. I don't know how much that is but it would be a tidy sum. That said, American aid would obviously dwarf aid from the UK. Also what about the destruction caused by Timur Leng, Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah? Should India sue Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey and perhaps Mongolia for the destruction those barbarians wrought on India?
Have a look at this entry for Nadir Shah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_Shah
I would rather that Indians quit complaining about the colonial past. We need to move beyond it. We will be among the big boys soon. We already have nuclear weapons (more than 200 and I hope they build a much much bigger stock pile and stick them on missiles that could hit any nation on earth). We have sent satellites into space. We are capable (with investment) of sending a mission to the moon. And as the next great power on the block, sobbing about the past doesn't befit us.
Great powers don't complain about past depravities.
We have dangerous enemies on our borders exporting hatred and religious fanatics. 70,000 people have died in Kashmir in fifteen years as a result. Thats the equivalent of 23 9-11s. We need to focus on these security issues and deal with our porous borders and the millions entering illegally through Bangladesh. Moping about the past and forgetting about our current dangers is silly and counterproductive.
Colonialism is a whisker short of slavery.
Thats a stretch. Indira Gandhi imposed rates of taxation on wealthy Indians that were far higher than anything the British imposed. In fact, at one point during emergency we had 99 percent Income Tax on the top income tax bracket.
In Arundhati Roy's words
I wish people in India paid no attention to fools like Arundhati Roy. Leftism is for losers.
Also, one would have to discount against what they looted the monies India has received in foreign aid.
Ha! come on. you can't be taken seriously if you can't go beyond the media spin and the doublespeak.
This "aid" you speak of is a guaranteed loan backed by the Indian govt, hence it gets rated AAA by the rating agencies. It's a business transaction with may be a lower interest rate than the market. But to pretend that the tiny rate difference makes up for the trillions (yes, easily when inflation-indexed) they looted in taxes... roll-of-the-eyes......
Indira Gandhi's taxes were wrong too, but they eventually get recycled back into the Indian economy. They don't go to build Queen Victoria a shitpot made of gold.
Remebering the past is vital for your future. This is not wimpering. It's countering the lies of "good" imperialism.
Some of you might like to read Great Hedge of India by Roy Moxham. I remember reading it a few years back when I was in college, looking for things to do while I avoided studying.
"As Moxham expands his research into the history of this barrier, he discovers with growing horror the impact of imperial revenue policy on the lives of ordinary Indians, many of whom died because they could not afford the salt they needed in their diets. This previously neglected aspect of British imperial history makes one wonder how many other horrors lie buried in the dry pages of the Empire's official journals."
The book goes into quite a bit of detailed conjecture as to how many Indians might have died directly as a result of the British salt tax. IIRC it also had some details about repeated famines where the greedy poms, instead of trying to help the people literally dying of hunger by the thousands, still extracted all it could in terms of taxes.
Its neither surprising or upsetting to see some stuffy racist British prick try to put a positive spin on the "Raj", its the ignorant desis who actually buy into it that I don't get.
Its neither surprising or upsetting to see some stuffy racist British prick try to put a positive spin on the "Raj", its the ignorant desis who actually buy into it that I don't get.
Thats the result of complete mental subjugation. The Brits defined the education in India (Lord McCaulay) and ...
Umm, Indira Gandhi's tax was great on wealthier Indians (like people who actually earned regular salaries, businessmen etc). It may have been high but it did not lead to famine and starvation. The British tax was as high on the poorest and the most indigent, and essentially killed them off on regular intervals. Why do you think Gandhi's agitations all began with getting peasants and others to stop paying taxes ? (The Champaran satyagrahas, and the one at Bardoli etc). I suggest you read what Gandhi and Nehru and others have to say about the effects of British rule before talking of their "benefits" and Indira Gandhi's onerous tax rates.
Much as I dislike to agree, I think Arundhati Roy says it most pithily.
I wish people in India paid no attention to fools like Arundhati Roy. Leftism is for losers.
Gautam, I wish you had stated this impressive intellectual gem much earlier, it would have saved me the trouble of reading your other posts. Can I bill you my hourly rate for you wasting my time?
I disagree. The British were not like the Nazis/Stalinists.
Correct. The Nazis/Stalinists had a much shorter reign of terror.
Moping about the past and forgetting about our current dangers is silly and counterproductive.
Our "current dangers" are informed and undergirded by neo-colonialist arguments. You erroneously misconstrue our fight against them as "moping"
This "aid" you speak of is a guaranteed loan backed by the Indian govt, hence it gets rated AAA by the rating agencies.
At what point did Indian government backed debt get a AAA rating? Buddy, the only debt that gets a AAA rating is debt from some 20 of the world's top industrialised nations beginning with the US.
But to pretend that the tiny rate difference makes up for the trillions (yes, easily when inflation-indexed) they looted in taxes... roll-of-the-eyes......
You didn't answer my question about whether India should sute Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan for the money as well. We got looted several times.
The other factor is realism. Its all very well for us to be sitting here and fuming about Colonialism but honestly, what makes you think that the present day British government will pay up. And if they don't what will we do? Invade Britain?
So if we can't recover the money, we can't invade Britain and its money lost, its pointless chasing it. But even more so, its this endless talk of colonialism did this and colonialism did that which has a direct impact on the national psyche. You can never mode beyond perpetual victim status. If you see any pleasure in constantly thinking of yourself as a victim, fine. I don't. And I like moving on.
Indira Gandhi's taxes were wrong too, but they eventually get recycled back into the Indian economy. They don't go to build Queen Victoria a shitpot made of gold.
Have you actually lived in India at any point of time? Was your family in India during Indira Gandhi's time? Indira Gandhi and her family screwed the Indian economy for decades?
We should have been at par with South Korea (which was poorer in 1950 than India) by now. Her taxes may not have made her shit pot but they ruined the economy. Also, there is a small matter of the amount of money that has been looted by Indian politicians since Independence (starting with the Gandhi family itself) that wound up in Swiss bank accounts. All the colonialism chatter is fine. But what abose those millions?
And we now have an Italian woman running the country from behind the scenes. I find it amazing that this doesn't outrage people in the least but quite often the same people talk about the British.
Gautam, I wish you had stated this impressive intellectual gem much earlier, it would have saved me the trouble of reading your other posts. Can I bill you my hourly rate for you wasting my time?
The likes of Arundhati Roy serve the bloated egos of western marxists who fund all kinds of NGOs in India that actually do more harm than good. A good example of that is relentless campaigns against multinationals, protesting large projects like dams and generally creating trouble. If Arundhati Roy's ideas became economic policy for the country, all of India would start looking like West Bengal.
Leftism is absolutely for losers. If we haven't learned that after more forty years of wasted effort between 1947 and 1991, then we have learnt nothing. And it is fools who don't learn from their mistakes but repeat them.
So we don't need the Arundhati types in India. Let her protest in Berkeley. Thats a better venue. Rich California liberals can afford such types. A country like India that needs massive investment in infrastructure can't.
Our "current dangers" are informed and undergirded by neo-colonialist arguments.
I beg your pardon?
Islamic fundamentalism is the new global threat. Do you doubt this? And it threatens India as much as it threatens the US, Israel and numerous other countries. This is a very real threat and its on our doorstep. It is alive and kicking.
Pakistan is the world's largest terrorist haven. It created the Taliban which sheltered Bin Laden for years. The Taliban ran training camps for Islamic terrorists from China, India, the Middle East to Chechnya.
Also, it would be ingeniuous to lay the blame for this on the British. It is the US which has been coddling Pakistan for decades while turning a blind eye to the obvious aid and comfort it has provided to terrorists.
So 9-11 was a bit of blowback. Suddenly the US Government wakes up to the nightmare that Pakistan, their great "ally", may not have been quite so well behaved. But because by the time time 9-11 happened Pakistan had Nukes, the US couldn't really deal with Pakistan in the way that it would have liked to.
So if there is a western power that is responsible for the mess in Kashmir, it is America.
Its neither surprising or upsetting to see some stuffy racist British prick try to put a positive spin on the "Raj", its the ignorant desis who actually buy into it that I don't get.
Is that directed at me?
I haven't denied the exploitative nature of the Empire. It was run for the benefit of the colonial power. That is a fact. Did Britain benefit enormously from Colonialism? Yes. Is that wealth traceable in the British economy today? I doubt it. The second world war decimates the British economy. For all of Britain wealth's, she could not have fought the Germans without American and Soviet help. remember that the British didn't win WWII. The Americans and the Soviets did.
So in oure legalistic terms I don't think the wealth is directly traceable to the economy in the way it would have been if for example there hadn't been a war. Many of the companies that operated in India before 1947 went bust later on or went out of business.
The British used to be the leading manufacturing nation in the world in the 19th century and the third after Germany and the US in the first half of the twentieth century. But almost all of it is gone. The companies, the business concerns long went bust or simply folded up.
So the question of recovering colonial loot is a factual question. The easiest would of course for India to claim it directly from the British government. But aside from a law suit to recover it, I cannot think of what else they could do. And, I doubt if the Indian government would want to pursue that because a suit would not be very productive and it would at the same time sour relations with Britain. For all its worth, the British are permanent members on the UN Security Council. They have an important vote.
So, in balance, I don't think its worth the trouble.
Correct. The Nazis/Stalinists had a much shorter reign of terror.
Comparing the British to Nazis and Stalinists is absurd.
One doesn't have to make such absurd arguments in order to be critical of the British Empire.
Naipaul provides an excellent critique of the Empire in his book "An area of darkness". It is superbly written and really gets to the crux of the colonial past.
So in oure legalistic terms I don't think the wealth is directly traceable to the economy in the way it would have been if for example there hadn't been a war.
That should read:
So in oure legalistic terms I don't think the wealth is directly traceable in the economy as it would have been if for example there hadn't been a war.
It's countering the lies of "good" imperialism.
With the Left dominating academia in Europe and the US, one doesn't need to worry about the proponents of "Imperialism was all good and great" theories. Their arguments will never win out in academia because Marxists will outnumber them 9 to 1.
In India schools teach kids about the evils of colonialism. I don't think anyone who goes through the schooling system (as I did) misses the exploitative nature of the colonialism in his or her education. So the question of denying the wrongs of the past doesn't arise.
With the Left dominating academia in Europe and the US,
We are not talking about academia. We're talking about the media. Media that is taken seriously - The Economist, Time, Newsweek, etc. Niall Ferguson and his ilk are getting access to these prominent platforms to spread their theories. How do you propose it be countered? By shutting the f$#$ up pretending that it doesn't matter?
WhoMe: did you just use the word, "chinks?" Well, I suppose it was the 'white' man that made you do it...
Man. The last colonialism thread I took part in (where I was arguing that Churchill and Hitler were not equivalents - yes, people, I had to argue that it would have been worse had Hitler won WW2 and that Churchill could still be admired for what he did in opposing Hitler, while not excusing his actions one bit toward India) one of the commenters linked to a Holocaust denial website as a source for comparing the two!
What is going on here?
By shutting the f$#$ up pretending that it doesn't matter?
The best way to counter that would be with facts. A detailed study that tries to estimate to overall loss suffered by India (after taking into account benefits - we can't have it both ways by discounting the monies spent in building roads, bridges, Courts and other structures all of which were used by Independent India and only calculating the amounts that were transferred to Britain).
However, we are now in the real of "what ifs". And arguing that India would have been better off without the British is probably every bit as tenuous as argument as the Fergusons and the Kimballs trying to prove that it wasn't.
The basic problem is that we don't know what would have happened if the British had not conquered India. What would have happened then? Would we have been conquered by the Dutch, the French, The Belgians or some other European power? I don't think it is arguable that the Dutch, the French and the Belgians were preferable to the British.
On the other hand, if we had not been conquered at all, what might have happened? To argue that India would be exactly as advanced as it is today or would have been much more advanced anyway is to make a questionable assumption. It may have been much better off if no Europeans ever showed up. I just don't see how that could be easily shown without assuming a series of variables over two centuries. Remember the destruction that was caused by ceaseless loot and plunder by the hordes coming from the North West. All those names I just mentioned.
I certainly don't disagree that the British need to face up to the darker side of colonialism. And to the extent that such thoeries are countered I am all for it. But I do think having lived in India all my life that there is a tendency among Indians to have the ghost of the colonial period and the attendant victim mentality hover over their minds forever. That is counterproductive. And to my mind, it feeds into a sense that we shall always be weak. But the last fifteen years have shown that this is not the case. And as a "national mood" issue we need to move beyond that.
Gautam, to say that WW2 cancelled out whatever gains the Brits made through colonialism is just ridiculous
Its not ridiculous. In the same way that the rape and plunder that Nadir Shah engaged in is not traceable in Iran today (for the most part).
Its a common fallacy among many Indian Nationalists to say that Britain is super rich because it looted the wealth of its colonies. But then Germany and Japan are richer than Britain (or were until very recently) without wealth from colonies. Britain's economy was actually second rate for much of the post war period. If it hadn't been for Thatcher, they would be an economic basket case by now.
They really have nothing left from the days of the Empire except fond memories when white country gentlemen could go gallivanting through India and enjoy all the luxuries of servants, better weather (for the most part) and comforts that they otherwise would never had enjoyed in Britain.
Look at how the chinks squeeze Japan at every possible opportunity by reminding them of their "atrocities".
Thats a morally reprehensible argument. Was killing 15 million Chinese in cold blood just an "atrocity"? There are Neo Nazis who deny the Holocaust. That could also be termed to be just an "atrocity".
Media that is taken seriously - The Economist, Time, Newsweek, etc.
This has to do with current American foreign policy. I think some American conservatives are trying to counter the arguments against imperialism and conquest by saying, "look at all the wonderful things those Brits did. Imperialism isn't all that bad guys".
You will see that the market for these ideas will shrink drastically once American foreign policy of conquest is changed or junked. That is not to say that those arguments shouldn't be countered. Just that some of these writers like "swinging with the times" - produce a work for the market given current market conditions.
ouch. got deleted for ONE word? sorry about that - didn't mean to use it in an offensive tone.
and as far as the point about killing 15 million chinese goes - many more than that died as a direct result of the british rule in India and their exploitative policies - THAT is the point I was trying to make.
You will see that the market for these ideas will shrink drastically once American foreign policy of conquest is changed or junked.
Hehe he.... policy of conquest is changed? are u serious? I can't help smiling. This policy of conquest is gonna be around for a long long time. Even our great grandkids will be wondering how it all got started. If you look at history, no nation that has had such superiority has ever voluntarily "changed" its expansion policy.
I predict that in the next 5 years the US will hire a whole army of these Niall fergussons/Christopher Hitchens types to spin out propaganda about the benefits of imperialism ("we can run your country better for you"). Their job will be to saturate American TV screens with this rhetoric (they first have to brainwash the morons at home who unfortunately can vote). Then The Project for the New American Century can be put in motion. Iraq was only a prototype, a proof of concept. There's a whole world out there to be conquered, baby!
and as far as the point about killing 15 million chinese goes - many more than that died as a direct result of the british rule in India and their exploitative policies - THAT is the point I was trying to make.
The 15 million had lead put in their brain stem. so the causation is not questionable.
The millions of deaths that occured due to Famines during British rule is the basis for our argument that more died during British rule. The fundamental problem is that many people who often talk of the famine figures don't understand how Indian agriiculture works. Indian agriculture has always been traditionally dependant on the Monsoon. The Monsoon has always been the lifeblood of Indian agriculture. Usually something would go wrong with the Monsoon once every five years. When that happened crops would fail and the population which had grown tremendously due to sufficient food in the previous years would now find itself without food.
Note that China was not ruled by a colonial power in the 19th century. Yest in 1876 alone 13 million Chinse peasants died of starvation.
So the key question is: is the entire figure of famine deaths in India attributable to the British because it happened on their watch? Is the entire figure attributable because they did not take the measures necessary to avert starvation? This is I think the key question.
Modern humanitarian concerns were not the basis of Government anywhere in the world at that point. So while it is certain that a certain percentage of the famine deaths could be directly attributable to the British, I am not sure if every single death could be attributable to them.
A good controlling factor here would be: how many deaths occured due to famines in the Punjab? The reason I give the Punjab example is because Punjab is much less dependant on the Monsoon because the five rivers have almost a perpetual supply of water (usually due to the melting snow from the Himalayas). While I don't know the details and please correct me if I am wrong, I am fairly certain that there weren't many deaths due to famines in Punjab in the colonial period. The worst hit areas were usually those that were the most monsoon dependant.
So I think one could categorise famine deaths into: (1) deaths that were directly caused by bad policies, and (2) deaths that flowed indirectly from maladminsitration.
I don't think anyone can seriously argue that no famines would have occured during this period if the British were not ruling the country. The basic fact of monsoon depedance in Indian agriculture doesn't change.
Hehe he.... policy of conquest is changed? are u serious? I can't help smiling.
It will. Iraq has already cost America several billions of dollars and hasn't brought any tangible benefits.
They'll stop conquering when they run out of money.
the monies spent in building roads, bridges, Courts and other structures all of which were used by Independent India........ The basic problem is that we don't know what would have happened if the British had not conquered India.
Once and for all, please stop this ridiculous argument! There are may many countries in the world that were not conquered by the Brits and got railways, courts, and all the other things you want to lay at the Brits' feet. India did not have to be conquered and raped to get these things. We do know what would have happened if the British had not conquered India. The same that happened to all other countries not conquered by Britain.
Once and for all, please stop this ridiculous argument!
Why is that a ridiculous argument? If you are arguing that X amount was raised by revenue then it is logical that amount Y which was spent on building infrastructure and associated costs, then before calculating the actual amount transferred to Britain you have to do X-Y=Z.
This has nothing to do with whether another government would or would not have built bridges. Bridges cost a certain amount of money, the railway lines cost a certain amount of money. It is only logical that when calculating the total amount that was looted, this be deucted from the amounts raised. Thats just common sense isn't it?
Your argument is like saying A company had revenues of 10 Billion so its profits are 10 billion. Why? because every other company also pays its employees, pays health insurance, spends money on fixed assets. Whats the big deal?
Clearly that argument is illogical.
Iraq has already cost America several billions of dollars and hasn't brought any tangible benefits.
to the public. There have been no tangible benefits to the American public. But wars are never fought for the public's benefit. They are fought for the benefit of the privileged.
The cost of war is always, always borne by the public, but the spoils of war are always, always enjoyed by the privileged, the very people who conduct the war. British aristocracy is a case in point. British public was wretchedly poor during it's period of greatest wealth. George Orwell's "Road to Wigan pier" is an excellent journal of life in pre-war Britain.
Why is that a ridiculous argument? If you are arguing that X amount was raised by revenue then it is logical that amount Y which was spent on building infrastructure and associated costs, then before calculating the actual amount transferred to Britain you have to do X-Y=Z.
That should read as:
Why is that a ridiculous argument? If you are arguing that X amount was raised by revenue then it is logical that amount Y which was spent on building infrastructure and associated costs be deducted before determining the amount transferred to Britain. So the actual amount should not be X but X-Y.
to the public. There have been no tangible benefits to the American public. But wars are never fought for the public's benefit. They are fought for the benefit of the privileged.
The analogy with Britain doesn't work very well because not everyone in Britain could vote. This is not the case with Americans all of whom pay taxes and also can vote. In that scenario its a lot harder to convince people to keep blowing money into a useless war.
Also, its a simple fact that if you as a nation engage in one uneconomic project after another, you will eventually bankrupt the economy. And bankrupt nations dont do imperialism.
Bridges cost a certain amount of money, the railway lines cost a certain amount of money.
That's my point. It didn't cost the British taxpayer a penny! It was the same as the so-called "reconstruction" of Iraq. The cost is borne by the vanquished.
The laborers were Indian, the materials were Indian. only the bosses were British who eventually profited handsomely from the infrastructure! Why on earth do they deserve any credit? Do you praise a rapist for bringing life into this world?
if you as a nation engage in one uneconomic project after another
Oh no, war is not uneconomic at all, it is an immensely profitable venture. But the risk and returns are skewed. America as a whole won't go bankrupt, because every country they invade will provide great investment returns.
Only, with every invasion, the middle and lower classes will become poorer and poorer, while the wealthy become fatter and fatter.
MD, that was not the gist of the Churchill arguement to me
We are talking about trying to calculate what amount was looted from India. Is that correct? If you are trying to calculate what amount was looted from India you have to take into account Revenue because thats how most of the money was raised from India and sent to Britain. But is revenue all you take account of? Clearly not because if a portion of the revenue was spent on fixed assets, salaries (to Indian civil servants etc), then that amount which was spent as cost has to be subtracted from the Revenue amount.
So again, why is that such an illogical argument? Its irrelevant that the British taxpayer did not foot the bill for the projects. The projects were a cost to the colonial government and those costs must be set off against the total amounts that were raised before we can calculate an amount that was transferred to Britain.
Please explain why this is illogical.
The laborers were Indian, the materials were Indian.
When you build a project, are labour and raw material the only