Hacker News Reader

Comment by sys_64738 | Hacker News Reader

I remember asking this question to a work colleague from India almost 30 years ago. I asked something like if he hated the Brits for invading his land. He said on the contrary. They advanced their people so rapidly and efficiently through education and technical advances that would have taken hundreds of years by themselves. He said this allowed them to kick the British out once they had outlived their usefulness. Or something like that. It's been along time since I thought about it.

View on HN

Like anything, it depends on your point of view and time.

My grandparents and their generation were all born in Ireland, and had a very different outlook than the people who remained and folks you talk to today there. People just want to live their lives.

It depends on which Indian state you were from. South Indian states like Travancore were allied with the British Empire and signed a treaty that brought it under British influence. Travancore was facing extinction from Islamic conquerors - Tippu Sultan.

Travancore and British forces defeated Tippu Sultan which resulted in the Treaty of Seringapatam (1792).

Travancore was extremely prosperous under the Britsh Empire and was given special status. The same could not be said of the Northern Indian states which faced heavy subjugation and exploitation by the East India Company.

Some Indians benefitted, but the vast majority suffered.

Special mention: the Partition.

But then again, without the British, there wouldn't have been a unified India but a multitude of states, sort of resembling the EU (in the best case). Worst case scenario, mini Africa.

Having a common hated enemy did have its benefits.

Th vast majority suffered under various Indian empires too. The lower castes suffered millennia of oppression (and still do) - imagine millennia of Jim Crow or apartheid. Some of them benefited hugely from British rule as a result, probably including my mother's ancestors.

The caste system itself is wildly considered to be exacerbated and promoted by British colonial rule in post colonial studies, not unlike the US empire promoting sectarianism in the aftermath of the Iraq war.

The caste divisions did exist before British rule but it wasn't as systematic and unified across India as after.

Boy how do we even talk about neocolonialism today if there are still people with full on colonialist sympathies holy shit

How do we talk about topic X if there are people who don’t think about it like I do? People having different opinions isn’t a bad thing.

Also I think you likely meant widely, not wildly.

> People having different opinions isn’t a bad thing.

No I think that is a bad thing and a failure of our society if there are still people around repeating talking points from 1850s British colonial rule for christ sake!

Its like saying the Roman empire was great because it brought Aqueducts to the savages or something, like that is just education/knowledge of history + basic moral principles. The genocidal barbarism of colonialism should be something we left behind collectively. Or do you think whether or not the holocaust was good or bad is a matter of opinion too?

Wasn't the Roman empire better than most contemporary polities? Like it created a long era of peace in a significant area and successfully integrated various population, culminating in the 3rd century where all free men were made roman citizens. If you'd ask under which ancient polity I would prefer to live, chance are I'll choose the Roman empire.

If aliens invaded earth and after decades of subjugation they successfully "integrated" us savages, they would view it the same way. The forceful destruction of all our culture, languages, religions, history, sovereignty, it would all be justified in the end because their alien technology and culture is "superior". I don't believe it's justified no matter how relatively primitive we are, and if aliens did it that alone would demonstrate their own primitive culture quite clearly no matter how much they whitewash themselves in the intergalactic history books.

I didn't said empires were good, just that in the rhetoric 'empires are bad', the Roman empire isn't the best example, especially since the roman usually didn't engage in forceful cultural destruction.

They were highly systematic and oppressive. Castes have been separated for long enough and strongly enough for there to be detectable genetic differences.

Caste is far older than western colonialism. The genetic evidence shows that castes oppression has been enough to suppress intermarriage for millennia:

https://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-cast...

> Boy how do we even talk about neocolonialism today if there are still people with full on colonialist sympathies holy shit

How do we talk to people who are in denial bout historic oppression?

I'm not I'm saying the British colonial rule made it worse, here is a good summary:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734

and:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#During_B...

How do you reconcile the claim that people could move between castes with the genetic evidence of lack of inter-marriage.=?

I’d say most Indians are pretty happy about the cricket situation.

The brits took India from a variety of different rulers, but principally the Mughals. The Mughals werent any one thing, but they were despised in a lot of places.

The brits also largely permitted the caste system to proceed. my experience is that upper caste indians preferred the brits, where the lower caste ones dont really discern the difference.

So you found 1 person 30 years ago to justify colonialism?

It appears the person didn’t justify colonialism, they noted the benefit they got which concluded with them kicking out the colonizer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com