5 ms·

However: The European colonial powers were not all over the world to enforce "European cultural values". They were there to extract minerals, lumber, labor, an

However: The European colonial powers were not all over the world to enforce "European cultural values". They were there to extract minerals, lumber, labor, and agricultural produce for as little a price they could pay.

Gud 25d ago
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Britains-Role-Ending-Slavery-Worldwide/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Brita... Also, Napier enforced the British prohibition of suttee, or sati practice. This was the custom of a widow's burning herself to death on the funeral pyre of her husband. While rarer during the time Napier ruled Sindh,[20] these immolations were, Napier judged, motivated by profits for the priests; when told of an actual sati about to take place, he informed those involved that he would stop the sacrifice. The priests complained that this was a customary religious rite, and that customs of a nation should be respected. As recounted by his brother William, he famously replied: Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Napier_(British_Army_officer,_born_1782)#On_sati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Napier_(British_Army_o...
- soundward 24d ago
  I'm sure that after General Dyer gave the orders to fire at a bunch of defenseless people (including women and children), he faced a shooting squad himself. Or when Churchill starved Bengal, he passed away from lack of nutrition. Or when the British-controlled police beat up non-violent protesters with steel-tipped rods, they also got a dose of the baton. Or when the survivors of the 3.5 million strong who served in both the world wars for the British returned, when they didn't get anything in return, common British soldiers suffered the same fate. Nobody's denying the subcontinent had its faults. But holding a few instances of positive work by the British doesn't nullify the millionfold negative stuff. I'm not going to give you sources. You can research on your own. Every bit of British history in the subcontinent shows that the "customs" were nothing but a ruse to justify the loot and a fig leaf, at best, to cover up quite a lot of injustice.
- profsummergig 23d ago
  I forgot to mention another reason earlier: Rape. European colonial powers were also all over the world so that their men could have easy access to rape without consequences. (Read up, e.g., Columbus' diaries.)

Gud 25d ago

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Britains-Role-Ending-Slavery-Worldwide/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Brita... Also, Napier enforced the British prohibition of suttee, or sati practice. This was the custom of a widow's burning herself to death on the funeral pyre of her husband. While rarer during the time Napier ruled Sindh,[20] these immolations were, Napier judged, motivated by profits for the priests; when told of an actual sati about to take place, he informed those involved that he would stop the sacrifice. The priests complained that this was a customary religious rite, and that customs of a nation should be respected. As recounted by his brother William, he famously replied: Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Napier_(British_Army_officer,_born_1782)#On_sati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Napier_(British_Army_o...

soundward 24d ago
I'm sure that after General Dyer gave the orders to fire at a bunch of defenseless people (including women and children), he faced a shooting squad himself. Or when Churchill starved Bengal, he passed away from lack of nutrition. Or when the British-controlled police beat up non-violent protesters with steel-tipped rods, they also got a dose of the baton. Or when the survivors of the 3.5 million strong who served in both the world wars for the British returned, when they didn't get anything in return, common British soldiers suffered the same fate. Nobody's denying the subcontinent had its faults. But holding a few instances of positive work by the British doesn't nullify the millionfold negative stuff. I'm not going to give you sources. You can research on your own. Every bit of British history in the subcontinent shows that the "customs" were nothing but a ruse to justify the loot and a fig leaf, at best, to cover up quite a lot of injustice.
profsummergig 23d ago
I forgot to mention another reason earlier: Rape. European colonial powers were also all over the world so that their men could have easy access to rape without consequences. (Read up, e.g., Columbus' diaries.)