Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (75114)	2/23/2000 6:38:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The Raj may indeed have had some strong points, but it certainly had weak ones as well, Neo. Seems to me you idealize it. Nations acquire empires for all kinds of reasons, including, but not limited to, the desire to further their own economic advantage (as distinct from that of their "subjects"). Let us not forget why Gandhi took such an interest in weaving, for example. Joan

To: Neocon who wrote (75114)	2/23/2000 6:53:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

11 million people died in intercommunal strife after independence was declared......... I think I mentioned once that when the normal course of social evolution is halted, and order is imposed externally, tension accumulates to a degree that can be settled only by mass violence. Why do you think there are so many civil wars in Africa? Is it not because the "nations" were not constructed along tribal and ethnic boundaries, but according to the limits of the territories that various European nations were able to conquer? The lumping of Hindu and Muslim into a single "nation" was for the convenience of a foreign administration. The notion that the Raj brought any degree of modernization to India, beyond the urban enclaves, is absurd. How do you think a nation as small as Britain was able to administer a nation as large as India? They did what all colonial powers did - they cut deals with the local petty despots. The despots maintained order and made sure that business was smooth and the pinks were not threatened, and the colonial rulers backed up the despots with troops when necessary. Huge areas of India were "governed" by only a handful of British officials, who were often more concerned with diddling the local boys than with running the province (in Victorian England, those with "the tendency" - of whom there were plenty - headed straight for the colonies, where they had a ripping good time). The end result was that the colonial powers ended up maintaining the rule of the most regressive and authoritarian elements of the local society, which in many cases would never have survived without their support. Don't judge the Raj by the self-serving accounts of British apologists.