I enjoyed the article but the idea that India's time in the British Empire was "relatively beneficial" is a massive whitewash of the colonial violence required to conquer and rule India.
You caught me - I have never been outside the West. But I have been to the library, and had the pleasure of reading about the Bengal Famine, the apartheid regime of the British Raj, the malicious cleaving of the country into East Pakistan, West Pakistan, and India, and a thousand other extravagant colonial abuses.
This is entirely reasonable, and I appreciate the thorough reply.
There is, however, a sense in which we're talking past each other.
My original point is that India's time in the British Empire was NOT beneficial, whereas you are contending that these countries have done less than possible in their time since independence. These are not mutually exclusive.
England colonized India for one purpose and one purpose only: to transfer wealth from India to England. In the process they procured raw materials such as cotton, created strategic military/naval emplacements, and gained access to a labor market that was far cheaper than what they had at home. Before colonization, India had approximately a quarter of the world's GDP. After a generation, that money was in British banks and joint-stock corporations, as intended.
In the process of extracting resources, Britain created a lot of objectively beneficial things in India: public education, hospitals, railroads, and so on. That India/Africa has done less than possible in expanding those resources is likely due in large part to the cultural differences which you cite, and I find perfectly credible.
Blaming everything bad in the world on colonialism is inappropriate, and I share your dismay at all evils in the world being laid at the door of historical actors that haven't been active in at least four generations.
I emphasize the negative outcomes of colonialism not because it's the most important or only thing, but because it is undeniable (and too frequently denied) and cannot be ignored in a fair account of a country's development.
Also: As a Westerner, I reserve my criticism for the West. I cannot tell India or Cambodia or China how to govern themselves because as you point out, I don't get it and more to the point I have no influence in that sphere. What I can effect, is change in policy in countries that are either the US, or client-states of the US since I live here, vote here, speak the language, etc.
I enjoyed the article but the idea that India's time in the British Empire was "relatively beneficial" is a massive whitewash of the colonial violence required to conquer and rule India.
You caught me - I have never been outside the West. But I have been to the library, and had the pleasure of reading about the Bengal Famine, the apartheid regime of the British Raj, the malicious cleaving of the country into East Pakistan, West Pakistan, and India, and a thousand other extravagant colonial abuses.
This is entirely reasonable, and I appreciate the thorough reply.
There is, however, a sense in which we're talking past each other.
My original point is that India's time in the British Empire was NOT beneficial, whereas you are contending that these countries have done less than possible in their time since independence. These are not mutually exclusive.
England colonized India for one purpose and one purpose only: to transfer wealth from India to England. In the process they procured raw materials such as cotton, created strategic military/naval emplacements, and gained access to a labor market that was far cheaper than what they had at home. Before colonization, India had approximately a quarter of the world's GDP. After a generation, that money was in British banks and joint-stock corporations, as intended.
In the process of extracting resources, Britain created a lot of objectively beneficial things in India: public education, hospitals, railroads, and so on. That India/Africa has done less than possible in expanding those resources is likely due in large part to the cultural differences which you cite, and I find perfectly credible.
Blaming everything bad in the world on colonialism is inappropriate, and I share your dismay at all evils in the world being laid at the door of historical actors that haven't been active in at least four generations.
I emphasize the negative outcomes of colonialism not because it's the most important or only thing, but because it is undeniable (and too frequently denied) and cannot be ignored in a fair account of a country's development.
Also: As a Westerner, I reserve my criticism for the West. I cannot tell India or Cambodia or China how to govern themselves because as you point out, I don't get it and more to the point I have no influence in that sphere. What I can effect, is change in policy in countries that are either the US, or client-states of the US since I live here, vote here, speak the language, etc.