On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Whites are an "infinitely cunning race" - Scholar Michel Danino
>
>
> Effects of Colonization on Indian Thought ~ Michel Danino
> http://www.cycleoftime.com/blog/1999/1O/1O/effects-of-colonization-on-indian-thought-michel-danino/
> As it happened, Indians were—and still largely are—innocent people who
> could simply not suspect the "degree of cunning" with which their
> colonial masters set about their task.

max.it has denounced me as being a genocidal apologist so here goes!

Rejoinder by Indian historian Dr. Zaheer Masani

https://thewire.in/history/personal-rejoinder-british-raj-haters-masquerading-historians

'A Personal Rejoinder to British Raj-Haters Masquerading as Historians
From liberal laws to educational institutions to infrastructure, the British Raj contributed a lot to India.'

'As a historian, I’m bemused by the “Raj-rage” that still inspires debates about British rule in India 70 years after it ended.. Even more surprising is the way that present-day British ignorance and embarrassment about the empire, racked by politically correct, post-colonial guilt, reinforces a chauvinistic Indian narrative of imagined past oppression. Two recent books, one British, the other Indian, mirror each other in their evocation of an “evil empire” as fictitious and unhistorical as any episode of Game of Thrones. I’m referring to Jon Wilson’s India Conquered and Shashi Tharoor’s Era of Darkness, both of which claim historical veracity on the basis of footnotes carefully culled to reference and generalise every misdeed any Briton ever committed in India.

The elephant in the room that such anti-imperial polemics ignore is the extent to which the Raj was always more Indian than British, based till its final troubled decade on the active cooperation and consent of the vast majority of its subjects. How else could a small offshore island in the North Sea have ruled a vast, distant subcontinent of 300 million? Let me here declare a personal interest as the product of two proudly comprador families whose fortunes demonstrate how Indians from the most modest “subaltern” backgrounds could rise, through a surprisingly meritocratic imperial hierarchy, to the highest offices in the land.'

'Probably the most misunderstood governor-general of all was Lord Dalhousie.. Blamed for provoking the Revolt of 1857, he presided over one of the most enlightened, reforming regimes of the 19th century. He built the Grand Trunk Road, the railways, extensive canals, and postal and telegraph networks, all conceived as part of a grand famine prevention strategy. He also had a hugely ambitious plan for a national education system, which would include girls, model, state schools in every district, and new technical, engineering and agricultural colleges. By an Act of 1856, Dalhousie legalised the remarriage of widows and protected the civil rights of Dalit converts from Hinduism. His government refused to allow caste discrimination in its railways, prisons or law courts, forcing Brahmins to rub shoulders with the Dalits, then called untouchables. Unfortunately, his reforming zeal provoked an upper caste backlash and fuelled the anger of mutinous Brahmin sepoys in 1857.'

'As for India’s vast, silent majority, would they really have been better off under the marauding regional warlords who succeeded the crumbling Mughal Empire? Raj-haters are right to blame mass-produced Western goods for wiping out India’s previous comparative advantage in textiles. But would the impact of Europe’s industrial revolution have been any less damaging if India, like China, had remained under indigenous rulers? It’s true the Raj did little to protect Indian handlooms, but it did bring in new investment, infrastructure and technological knowhow. Bombay’s textile mills were built with credit, technical assistance and machines from Britain, even though they were a competitive threat to Manchester. Could India under any regime have had an industrial revolution while its agriculture remained feudal and stagnant and its social hierarchy caste-ridden? These are complex questions which Indian historians need to address, instead of indulging in cheap, xenophobic blame-games.'

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 2:12:17 AM UTC+1, Dhruv wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > Whites are an "infinitely cunning race" - Scholar Michel Danino
> >
> >
> > Effects of Colonization on Indian Thought ~ Michel Danino
> > http://www.cycleoftime.com/blog/1999/1O/1O/effects-of-colonization-on-indian-thought-michel-danino/
> > As it happened, Indians were—and still largely are—innocent people who
> > could simply not suspect the "degree of cunning" with which their
> > colonial masters set about their task.
> max.it has denounced me as being a genocidal apologist so here goes!
>
> Rejoinder by Indian historian Dr. Zaheer Masani
>
> https://thewire.in/history/personal-rejoinder-british-raj-haters-masquerading-historians
>
> 'A Personal Rejoinder to British Raj-Haters Masquerading as Historians
> From liberal laws to educational institutions to infrastructure, the British Raj contributed a lot to India.'
>
> 'As a historian, I’m bemused by the “Raj-rage” that still inspires debates about British rule in India 70 years after it ended. Even more surprising is the way that present-day British ignorance and embarrassment about the empire, racked by politically correct, post-colonial guilt, reinforces a chauvinistic Indian narrative of imagined past oppression. Two recent books, one British, the other Indian, mirror each other in their evocation of an “evil empire” as fictitious and unhistorical as any episode of Game of Thrones. I’m referring to Jon Wilson’s India Conquered and Shashi Tharoor’s Era of Darkness, both of which claim historical veracity on the basis of footnotes carefully culled to reference and generalise every misdeed any Briton ever committed in India.
>
> The elephant in the room that such anti-imperial polemics ignore is the extent to which the Raj was always more Indian than British, based till its final troubled decade on the active cooperation and consent of the vast majority of its subjects. How else could a small offshore island in the North Sea have ruled a vast, distant subcontinent of 300 million? Let me here declare a personal interest as the product of two proudly comprador families whose fortunes demonstrate how Indians from the most modest “subaltern” backgrounds could rise, through a surprisingly meritocratic imperial hierarchy, to the highest offices in the land.'
>
> 'Probably the most misunderstood governor-general of all was Lord Dalhousie. Blamed for provoking the Revolt of 1857, he presided over one of the most enlightened, reforming regimes of the 19th century. He built the Grand Trunk Road, the railways, extensive canals, and postal and telegraph networks, all conceived as part of a grand famine prevention strategy. He also had a hugely ambitious plan for a national education system, which would include girls, model, state schools in every district, and new technical, engineering and agricultural colleges. By an Act of 1856, Dalhousie legalised the remarriage of widows and protected the civil rights of Dalit converts from Hinduism. His government refused to allow caste discrimination in its railways, prisons or law courts, forcing Brahmins to rub shoulders with the Dalits, then called untouchables. Unfortunately, his reforming zeal provoked an upper caste backlash and fuelled the anger of mutinous Brahmin sepoys in 1857.'
>
> 'As for India’s vast, silent majority, would they really have been better off under the marauding regional warlords who succeeded the crumbling Mughal Empire? Raj-haters are right to blame mass-produced Western goods for wiping out India’s previous comparative advantage in textiles.. But would the impact of Europe’s industrial revolution have been any less damaging if India, like China, had remained under indigenous rulers? It’s true the Raj did little to protect Indian handlooms, but it did bring in new investment, infrastructure and technological knowhow. Bombay’s textile mills were built with credit, technical assistance and machines from Britain, even though they were a competitive threat to Manchester. Could India under any regime have had an industrial revolution while its agriculture remained feudal and stagnant and its social hierarchy caste-ridden? These are complex questions which Indian historians need to address, instead of indulging in cheap, xenophobic blame-games.'

Very sound. The British in India were not perfect especially in the 18th Century but the question of what would have been in their place is the pertinent one to always pose in a colonial situation.

RH

On Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 11:13:00 PM UTC-7, RH wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 2:12:17 AM UTC+1, Dhruv wrote:
> > On Friday, October 22, 2021 at 2:37:00 AM UTC-7, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > > Whites are an "infinitely cunning race" - Scholar Michel Danino
> > >
> > >
> > > Effects of Colonization on Indian Thought ~ Michel Danino
> > > http://www.cycleoftime.com/blog/1999/1O/1O/effects-of-colonization-on-indian-thought-michel-danino/
> > > As it happened, Indians were—and still largely are—innocent people who
> > > could simply not suspect the "degree of cunning" with which their
> > > colonial masters set about their task.
> > max.it has denounced me as being a genocidal apologist so here goes!
> >
> > Rejoinder by Indian historian Dr. Zaheer Masani
> >
> > https://thewire.in/history/personal-rejoinder-british-raj-haters-masquerading-historians
> >
> > 'A Personal Rejoinder to British Raj-Haters Masquerading as Historians
> > From liberal laws to educational institutions to infrastructure, the British Raj contributed a lot to India.'
> >
> > 'As a historian, I’m bemused by the “Raj-rage” that still inspires debates about British rule in India 70 years after it ended. Even more surprising is the way that present-day British ignorance and embarrassment about the empire, racked by politically correct, post-colonial guilt, reinforces a chauvinistic Indian narrative of imagined past oppression. Two recent books, one British, the other Indian, mirror each other in their evocation of an “evil empire” as fictitious and unhistorical as any episode of Game of Thrones. I’m referring to Jon Wilson’s India Conquered and Shashi Tharoor’s Era of Darkness, both of which claim historical veracity on the basis of footnotes carefully culled to reference and generalise every misdeed any Briton ever committed in India.
> >
> > The elephant in the room that such anti-imperial polemics ignore is the extent to which the Raj was always more Indian than British, based till its final troubled decade on the active cooperation and consent of the vast majority of its subjects. How else could a small offshore island in the North Sea have ruled a vast, distant subcontinent of 300 million? Let me here declare a personal interest as the product of two proudly comprador families whose fortunes demonstrate how Indians from the most modest “subaltern” backgrounds could rise, through a surprisingly meritocratic imperial hierarchy, to the highest offices in the land.'
> >
> > 'Probably the most misunderstood governor-general of all was Lord Dalhousie. Blamed for provoking the Revolt of 1857, he presided over one of the most enlightened, reforming regimes of the 19th century. He built the Grand Trunk Road, the railways, extensive canals, and postal and telegraph networks, all conceived as part of a grand famine prevention strategy. He also had a hugely ambitious plan for a national education system, which would include girls, model, state schools in every district, and new technical, engineering and agricultural colleges. By an Act of 1856, Dalhousie legalised the remarriage of widows and protected the civil rights of Dalit converts from Hinduism. His government refused to allow caste discrimination in its railways, prisons or law courts, forcing Brahmins to rub shoulders with the Dalits, then called untouchables. Unfortunately, his reforming zeal provoked an upper caste backlash and fuelled the anger of mutinous Brahmin sepoys in 1857.'
> >
> > 'As for India’s vast, silent majority, would they really have been better off under the marauding regional warlords who succeeded the crumbling Mughal Empire? Raj-haters are right to blame mass-produced Western goods for wiping out India’s previous comparative advantage in textiles. But would the impact of Europe’s industrial revolution have been any less damaging if India, like China, had remained under indigenous rulers? It’s true the Raj did little to protect Indian handlooms, but it did bring in new investment, infrastructure and technological knowhow. Bombay’s textile mills were built with credit, technical assistance and machines from Britain, even though they were a competitive threat to Manchester. Could India under any regime have had an industrial revolution while its agriculture remained feudal and stagnant and its social hierarchy caste-ridden? These are complex questions which Indian historians need to address, instead of indulging in cheap, xenophobic blame-games.'
> Very sound. The British in India were not perfect especially in the 18th Century but the question of what would have been in their place is the pertinent one to always pose in a colonial situation.
>
> RH

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

Some more good news!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-59069612

'Africa explorer HM Stanley statue to stay in Denbigh'

Apparently, Stanley was a r-a-a-c-i-i-s-t, not like SF/IRA, who want to eject 800,000 British Protestants from Ireland "Brits out!" or at least kill them "Kill All Huns!" but absolutely cannot be racist because they are left wing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-53056739

'The Bishop of St Asaph, Gregory Cameron, supported its removal, saying Stanley had "little respect for the natives of Africa".'

Cameron wanted to show solidarity with BLM.

'Calls have been made to remove other memorials around the UK that honour people with links to slavery and racism.'

I was surprised to hear that one voice spoke up for Stanley.

"He loved Africans, was vehemently against the slave trade and wrote articles to that effect. He cannot be linked to the slave trade in any way."

-- Denbighshire councillor Gwyneth Kensler

I suppose she will now be denounced by beautifuk woke anti-racists as a genocidal apologist, sacked, cancelled, etc.

Anyway, that's one in the eye for the Guardianistas, BLM, IRA supporters, ad hoc genus :-)))))))))))))))))))))