18 ms·

The standard, disingenuous "we stand for civilization" line that apologists of colonialism like to make. Not a single mention of the fact that England with all

by abhiv 13y ago

The standard, disingenuous "we stand for civilization" line that apologists of colonialism like to make. Not a single mention of the fact that England with all its stated commitment to freedom ruled India and dozens of countries around the world against their will for two hundred years, systematically stripping them of their wealth for the benefit of the mother country. Notice how casually the number of Indian soldiers in WW2 -- 2.4 million, more than the other countries combined -- is slipped in, well after NZ and Australia. And of course they all volunteered out of their love for the Queen -- unrelated to the fact that a coercive foreign power was ruling their country at the time. Honestly, the world should be too evolved to be accepting thinly veiled racist garbage like this any more.

apsec112 13y ago
"In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not... In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that. We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention." http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html
- asimov42 13y ago
  Wow really? Apparently pointing out the obvious bias and rewriting of history is "racism." I mean I get that the victor gets to write the history, but this is the empire that put "No Dogs or Indians Allowed" in front of its bars, please done shove "civilization" down my throat so hard. There seems to a be a large rise in popularity of such articles which cherry pick certain facts to paint a rosy picture of the colonial empire. I believe its the classic case of people wanting to read a history they wish was true rather than deal with the uncomfortable truth. While I have no problems with people writing about the many positives of the raj, I believe that omitting to mention certain genocides and atrocities is akin to misinformation.
pg 13y ago
Is there a specific sentence or passage in the essay that you feel is false and would like to refute? That would be more convincing than mere accusations of isms you feel the author is guilty of.
- eevilspock 13y ago
  He writes, Here is Havildar Hirram Singh writing to his family in India from the sodden trenches of northern France in the same year: We must honor him who gives us our salt. Our dear government’s rule is very good and gracious. If you know anything about Britain's salt monopoly, Gandhi and the Salt March 15 years after Singh's letter above, you'd see how messed up this article is.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    If you knew anything about the etymology of the word salary, you'd not have bothered writing that. Here's a hint: Salary = salt given as payment for services rendered.
    - asimov42 13y ago
      You coudnt be more wrong. Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax...
    - eevilspock 13y ago
      Interesting. Let's say you are right and Singh means "salary" (It's not clear). Here's something from Wikipedia about that: By the time of the Hebrew Book of Ezra (550 to 450 BCE), salt from a person was synonymous with drawing sustenance, taking pay, or being in that person's service. At that time, salt production was strictly controlled by the monarchy or ruling elite. Depending on the translation of Ezra 4:14, the servants of King Artaxerxes I of Persia explain their loyalty variously as "because we are salted with the salt of the palace" or "because we have maintenance from the king" or "because we are responsible to the king". Somehow my point stands.
javert 13y ago
> the number of Indian soldiers in WW2 -- 2.4 million, more than the other countries combined That's a bald-faced lie. The British alone had over 3.5 million. [1] 8.5 million Soviet soldiers died in the war. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_Second_World_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_Second_... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_... > Not a single mention of the fact that England with all its stated commitment to freedom ruled India and dozens of countries around the world against their will for two hundred years, systematically stripping them of their wealth for the benefit of the mother country. Look at what a dishonest shitfest the political system is in India, and the whole culture of corruption. It seems likely that without the British having brought "Anglo civilization", India today would be like most of Africa today. Indians should be thankful for the British influence. As an American, I certainly am thankful for their influence on us.
- nl 13y ago
  > the number of Indian soldiers in WW2 -- 2.4 million, more than the other countries combined That's a bald-faced lie. THat comment could have been clearer, but it was clearly in response to the number of "Anglosphere" soldiers quoted in the article. For context the article says: During the Second World War, 215,000 men served from New Zealand, 410,000 from South Africa, 995,000 from Australia, 1,060,000 from Canada, 2,400,000 from India. In that context, Indian soliders did outnumber the other listed countries. It seems likely that without the British having brought "Anglo civilization", India today would be like most of Africa today. I'm old enough to remember the 1970's and 80's where India was like Africa[1]. I'm not drawing any conclusions from that except to say that colonial influence isn't as simple as you may believe. [1] http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2012$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=283;dataMax=110808$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=18;dataMax=87$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=i7_t001800,,,,;i4_t001800,,,,;i49_t001800,,,,;i50_t001800,,,,;i65_t001800,,,,;i68_t001800,,,,;i71_t001800,,,,;i101_t001800,,,,;i114_t001800,,,,;i125_t001800,,,,;i151_t001800,,,,;i209_t001800,,,,;modified=75 http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly...

by abhiv 13y ago

apsec112 13y ago

"In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not... In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that. We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention." http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html

asimov42 13y ago
Wow really? Apparently pointing out the obvious bias and rewriting of history is "racism." I mean I get that the victor gets to write the history, but this is the empire that put "No Dogs or Indians Allowed" in front of its bars, please done shove "civilization" down my throat so hard. There seems to a be a large rise in popularity of such articles which cherry pick certain facts to paint a rosy picture of the colonial empire. I believe its the classic case of people wanting to read a history they wish was true rather than deal with the uncomfortable truth. While I have no problems with people writing about the many positives of the raj, I believe that omitting to mention certain genocides and atrocities is akin to misinformation.

pg 13y ago

Is there a specific sentence or passage in the essay that you feel is false and would like to refute? That would be more convincing than mere accusations of isms you feel the author is guilty of.

eevilspock 13y ago
He writes, Here is Havildar Hirram Singh writing to his family in India from the sodden trenches of northern France in the same year: We must honor him who gives us our salt. Our dear government’s rule is very good and gracious. If you know anything about Britain's salt monopoly, Gandhi and the Salt March 15 years after Singh's letter above, you'd see how messed up this article is.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  If you knew anything about the etymology of the word salary, you'd not have bothered writing that. Here's a hint: Salary = salt given as payment for services rendered.
  - asimov42 13y ago
    You coudnt be more wrong. Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_salt_tax...
  - eevilspock 13y ago
    Interesting. Let's say you are right and Singh means "salary" (It's not clear). Here's something from Wikipedia about that: By the time of the Hebrew Book of Ezra (550 to 450 BCE), salt from a person was synonymous with drawing sustenance, taking pay, or being in that person's service. At that time, salt production was strictly controlled by the monarchy or ruling elite. Depending on the translation of Ezra 4:14, the servants of King Artaxerxes I of Persia explain their loyalty variously as "because we are salted with the salt of the palace" or "because we have maintenance from the king" or "because we are responsible to the king". Somehow my point stands.

javert 13y ago

> the number of Indian soldiers in WW2 -- 2.4 million, more than the other countries combined That's a bald-faced lie. The British alone had over 3.5 million. [1] 8.5 million Soviet soldiers died in the war. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_Second_World_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_Second_... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_... > Not a single mention of the fact that England with all its stated commitment to freedom ruled India and dozens of countries around the world against their will for two hundred years, systematically stripping them of their wealth for the benefit of the mother country. Look at what a dishonest shitfest the political system is in India, and the whole culture of corruption. It seems likely that without the British having brought "Anglo civilization", India today would be like most of Africa today. Indians should be thankful for the British influence. As an American, I certainly am thankful for their influence on us.

nl 13y ago
> the number of Indian soldiers in WW2 -- 2.4 million, more than the other countries combined That's a bald-faced lie. THat comment could have been clearer, but it was clearly in response to the number of "Anglosphere" soldiers quoted in the article. For context the article says: During the Second World War, 215,000 men served from New Zealand, 410,000 from South Africa, 995,000 from Australia, 1,060,000 from Canada, 2,400,000 from India. In that context, Indian soliders did outnumber the other listed countries. It seems likely that without the British having brought "Anglo civilization", India today would be like most of Africa today. I'm old enough to remember the 1970's and 80's where India was like Africa[1]. I'm not drawing any conclusions from that except to say that colonial influence isn't as simple as you may believe. [1] http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2012$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=283;dataMax=110808$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=18;dataMax=87$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=i7_t001800,,,,;i4_t001800,,,,;i49_t001800,,,,;i50_t001800,,,,;i65_t001800,,,,;i68_t001800,,,,;i71_t001800,,,,;i101_t001800,,,,;i114_t001800,,,,;i125_t001800,,,,;i151_t001800,,,,;i209_t001800,,,,;modified=75 http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly...