We really should have a more critical lense of colonialism nowadays and abandon the badly aging romanticization of it.
We really should have a more critical lense of colonialism nowadays and abandon the badly aging romanticization of it.
And even then you’re comparing an empire that was quite openly exploiting who they viewed as lesser people, versus governments who devastated their own populations through good intentions.
(I also find it funny to see the top response criticizing the obviously Indian author for failing to talk about something other than war and famine. Folks love their poverty porn, huh?)
Funny. That's exactly how most people who keep talking about the Holodomor say the Soviet Union viewed the Kulaks.
> I also find it funny to see the top response criticizing the obviously Indian author for failing to talk about something other than war and famine.
He's not talking about "something other than war and famine", he's romanticizing a company that literally killed and oppressed millions of people in the history of his own country. He can simply not do that, without having to only talk about victimhood. Black Americans can talk about other things than how cotton plantations were a great business model actually without talking about how slavery was bad. It's just very odd to focus so much on the supposed positives of an overall extremely bad thing. This is very much a "I just want the trains to run on time" kind of situation.
I for one want to know how the East India Company managed to colonize a vastly more populous and historically wealthier civilization. There’s certainly lessons in there. After all, you can’t undo those things, but you can make the trains run on time. And the lives of Indians in the present would be better if the trains ran on time.
First, the article does plenty of throat clearing about those issues.
Second, empires are impressive. Can the French or British find things to admire about the Romans?
The statute of limitations have passed on those crimes since they took place in Antiquity.
> First, the article does plenty of throat clearing about those issues.
Please, he's practically drooling:
> While not quite Google cafeteria, the lunches and dinners served were exquisite! Free breakfasts in London, and on-site cooks (English, Portuguese and Indian) in factories, with plenty of alcohol to go around.
> If that’s not enough, if you were a senior officer you got a pretty great stipend to spend on entertaining others.
> Also, they had an incredibly sexy headquarter to work in (marble bas-reliefs, pipe organ of a tiger devouring a European and jewel-encrusted gold throne of the Sultan of Mysore Tipu). Even the warehouses were elegant and stylish in the City.
Europeans got over it even way back in antiquity. The Franks adopted the Roman language, religion (by then Christianity), and civil law and institutions. They didn’t seek to distance themselves from Roman empirical history.
There's a difference between looking at the BEIC to figure out how it managed to exist this long and looking at it to find "some things to learn" from it and using it as a model for building a successful business.
The very same can be said about the Russian empire/the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia...
> And even then you’re comparing an empire that was quite openly exploiting who they viewed as lesser people, versus governments who devastated their own populations through good intentions.
Sorry, which one is the UK and which one is the USSR here?