Haunted Independence
show comments
  • Luke Lea

    “India and the United States share one great blessing that marks us off from most of the world: both societies have a national identity that isn’t linked to a particular ethnicity or religion. In India’s case, they go the US one better: Indians don’t even have to speak the same language to feel like part of the same country.”

    Happy talk.

  • Parijat

    If I am not mistaken, somewhere in the Federalist papers, one of the founding fathers has actually thanked the happy chance that citizens of all the 13 colonies are Christians. Christianity was, in fact, used as a basis of coherence in the early American society. Just sayin’.

  • Parijat

    Of course, I hasten to add, I am not implying that Christiantiy continues to be the basis of the American nation today (I don’t know either way).

  • Mick The Reactionary

    [We’re going to start policing this kind of comment more harshly. Please refer to the President of the United States by his real name. Harsh criticism is fine and spirited debate is encouraged, but spittle-flecked name-calling is not acceptable. Behave yourself. – Ed.]

  • Alien

    @Parijat In some extent even Mahatma Gandhi also used Hinduism as an identity to bind people of various cultural backgrounds together during fight for Independence. It’s done everywhere and is generally for a greater goal.

  • Mick The Reactionary

    @Mead:

    “Christmas and the Eids may be more widely celebrated around the world than the British Begone festivals so many of us enjoy.”

    With a possible exception of US and Canada, Australia, New Zealand (did British really leave these three?) most of those peoples would have been better off under British.

    Can one really argue, even if one is in a hermetically sealed glass tower of Academia, that hell-holes that we call African Peoples Republics are better off under local thugs-murderers than under benevolent British colonial administration?

    Mr Mead expressed his profound dislike for people who founded and built America, the WASP.

    Now we know that he really, really dislikes British. Real historical British, not multi-culti mishmash weaklings they call Cool Brittania.

  • Mick The Reactionary

    In comment #4, there is link to Barry pontification on “Positive Rights”:

    http://www.narlo.org/exceptional.html

  • Debjit

    “benevolent British colonial administration”

    An oxymoron if ever there was one. Not sure what history you have been reading but it’s definitely a very sanitized version of British history and attitudes to the colonies.

  • Debjit

    Mick, have fun reading this:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html

    I wait with bated breath for more pronouncements of benevolence.

  • Mick The Reactionary

    @Debjit:

    “Mick, have fun reading this:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2031992,00.html

    I wait with bated breath for more pronouncements of benevolence.”

    Are you familiar with the concepts of absolute and relative?

    Like British colonial administration was more benevolent than Moghul administration.

    Like US administration of Puerto Rico was more benevolent than British colonial rule.

    Like Nazi administration of occupied Poland was as close to absolute evil as we had in history.

    Are you clear now?

    If you know India history well, I do not, you may attempt to show that local indian rule in the same time frame would have been more humane.

    I kinda doubt that you can.
    As a story about wonderful local customs involving Sir Charles James Napier shows:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier

  • Dark lord

    As an indian, and knowing our history, I did not find the benevolence of british anywhere. The british forced the indian farmer to grow crops that the british wanted and paid the farmers less than cost of production. indian manufacturers were harassed and targeted to provide an advantage to british companies. Indians and dogs were not allowed to enter hotels. most rulers, islamic or hindu had their base in india and had an incentive to not do what the british did

  • Mick The Reactionary

    @Dark lord:

    “knowing our history, I did not find the benevolence of british anywhere”

    My knowledge of India history is close to zero, but I will bet considerable money that yours is very limited too. Your examples of Brits “brutality” are laughable in the context.

    British underpaid indian farmers? At the time when good part of the world farming was running on slaves?

    Indians were not allowed into hotels? At the time when, to take one example, Jews in Russian Empire were not allowed in 80% of the Empire territory?

    You may hate British for whatever personal reasons, it is your private issue to deal with. But don’t allow your hate to blind you.

  • Prach

    @Mick The Reactionary
    You started off saying that with the exception of US and Canada, Australia, New Zealand most of those peoples would have been better off under British.

    Do you honestly think that India would have been better under the British?

    Also a point to note is that all the countries you have mentioned(with the exception of New Zealand I think) have vitually abolished the natives living there. I think they(the natives) would have been better off if the British never found them.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.