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.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (141967)	2/14/2014 7:41:27 AM
From: bruwin	1 Recommendation Recommended By R2O Respond to of 149317

I'm afraid I'm not with you regarding your contention that the British "did not leave (India) of their own accord". I would agree that their 'financial situation' more than likely greatly influenced that decision. But it was their decision. No one "frog marched" them out of India. As you contended, the British were faced with an enormous financial burden after WW2, brought about, primarily, by the Lend-Lease loan they received from the USA for all the supplies, etc.., that America provided them with, as Great Britain stood all alone, at the front line and in close proximity to the German threat. I believe Britain only finally paid off that debt at the end of 2006 !! You mentioned that the British "planted hatred" between the two main factions. Well, maybe you have factual evidence in that regard. I've never come across anything about that. The one thing that does happen when a country is "occupied" by an external nation is that rebellious groups are born who strike back, sometimes in a way where innocent people get killed, and sometimes that's done intentionally for their own purposes. When the occupying nation enforces law and order to protect the innocent, sometimes members of those rebellious groups get killed or are imprisoned, and that can create "martyrs" and add fuel to the fire. I'd say that one of the positives about the British stay in India was their prohibition of the practice of Sati where wives, while still alive, went onto the flaming funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. I can't imagine that that would rate very highly in the modern world of "Human Rights", ... as opposed to "Rites". From what I've seen of British colonies, it doesn't appear that they generally carried out wholesale killing and destruction of the local populations. Those countries, such as Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, generally displayed a well run infrastructure with good agricultural production, etc.. Yes, there may not have been a vote for all, but when some of those previous colonies did receive their independence then many hundreds, if not thousands, of the indigenous population often lost their lives. Jomo Kenyatta and his "Uhuru" comrades killed many an unprotected white farming family in their homesteads, farmers that had provided jobs, living accommodation and provisions for their workers. One has only to think of what Uganda received after their independence when that "sane" Idi Amin gained power and raised himself up to "Field Marshall" status. In addition, African politics has often included intimidation, especially when one tribe dominates the others in terms of numbers. Gangs will roam the rural areas and do their best to "encourage" the voters to vote a certain way ... or else. Once that dominant tribe gets in, it's been the case of "One Man, One Vote" ... Once, and for quite a while.