I have read many of your posts on this topic and am frankly amused by your ignorance.glad to be of use to someone firstly, indian culture has nothing to do with british culture, Bizarre statement. Why then are there so many English speakers there, why did Gandhi say he saw the world through the eyes of an Englishman, how did you get all those Christians, the people who created your democracy were trained up by Brits, and the Indian Army is a British artifact, and the train system didn't just appear.except the 200 years of plundering you guys did Agreed that the British did many bad things, I was saying there was an effect, never claimed it was a wholly good one.You're mistaken about the "you guys" bit as well.that remind every indian of the need to be a strong military power"you guys" doesn't really apply to me, at this point my ancestors were fighting the Brits, only the Germans have killed more Brits than us. I agree 100% with you that you need to be able to defend yourself, especially since like India's ancestors we lost.However, India and Ireland haven't really sussed out what makes you strong. A culture is a fine servant, but a poor master. Rather than understand genetics my ancestors investigated the Bible, the ensuing Irish potato famine killed off about 25% of the population. Rather than study democracy, we picked up frankly rather silly ways of running ourselves, which were actually just like the Indian ones of the time. We didn't even really get into technology until long after the Brits had conquered us, plundered a bit and wandered away again. Like contemporary Indians, the people I evolved from still delude themselves with religious manias, and don't educate their women as well as men. To be fair Ireland isn't as corrupt as India but that is not for want of trying. ...of course you have your curry, but frankly i don't think it bears much resemblance to authentic indian foodThat is an aspect of the merging of Anglo Indian culture I was talking about. To be sure it is not "authentic", but so what ?It is what Brits enjoy, I don't know why, but people choose to eat it. Balticurry I understand to be a wholly British invention.secondly, you say you trained gandhi...he was a lawyer (a pretty average one). you make it sound like you trained him to be a freedom fighter.Nelson Mandela was a lawyer trained under the British tradition as well. Lawyers actually can make damn fine freedom fighter, or of course the opposite, point being that the skills are useful.the only reason gandhi's approach was used was that enough indians did not have the balls initially to throw the english out by force, Again, read your history, or indeed geography. India also had Portuguese enclaves , though if you were educated in India I can understand your ignorance of that item, since India's conduct was less than perfect. Wasn't just the English, lots of other bits of the Empire were involved.In any case violence would not have worked, or at best would have turned into a vast bloodbath.The Indian army was mostly loyal to the British, and if you look at how tenaciously the Brits fought in other places your simple minded arithmetic would not have worked. Recall of course that Indians are not a single race. Britain was skillful at using racial divisions to keep control in India and other areas. Whatever part of the world you live in, it is often the case that people hate the group just down the road more than they hate their oppressors. Recall also that moslems were admired by the British as good fighters, and given that they had good reason to fear Hindu rule, would probably have stayed with the Raj. Also many groups did rather well out of British rule, and the more strategic minded knew that Russia was always poking its nose in to this region.Of course the Briitish may have screwed up, but relying upon your enemy to blunder is a poor strategy, and a multifactional civil war in India would have continued to burn lives long after the British ran away. Think of Yugoslavia with 100 times the body count.in fact, i think gandhi delayed the inevitableHardly. Pre 1939 there was no realistic chance, and independance was 1948, bloody fast if you ask me. Maybe he lost you a week.thirdly, you guys pride yourselves over your democracy. When a million people protest against the war and Blair doesn't even reconsider his decision,I find it strange that in a quant forum you display such innumeracy. There's 60 million Brits, and all polling data showed that most Brits supported the war. That of course doesn't make the war right, but you're silly to call it undemocratic. Either your government does not care what public opinion is or they don't mind going to war against the wishes of the people if it earns them brownie points with the US. You tell me which one is worse...It does care a lot, fact is that British people will generally suport the USA. You can see this as bad, but you are missing the point.Your skew is so bad that you're missing simple, well known objective facts. The Brits supported the war, maybe that makes us bad people, but we did mostly support it. Democractic does not equal nice.As for human rights, everyone alks of Tianamen square, but why do you forget your own race riots and Irish problemHardly. Unlike the Chinese we're examining carefully bloody sunday at vast cost. But yeah, the Brits do bad things, but again you're being innumerate in your understanding of scale. We have race riots, but fewer than most countries and deaths are really rather rare.Certainly we compre well to India, and as for the Irish problem, look at my name, the little racism I ever see on that front is mostly me sneering at some poorly educated English people I sometimes work with.Your views on the infrastructure in China and India are also inaccurate. Eh ?India and China have appalling infrastructure, perhaps you are denying the water and phone problems in China or electricity supply issues in India ? do you make any assertion that you bother to check ? In a truly free market (which the right wing guys advocate), there should be labour mobility as well.As a "right wing guy", I am 100% behind labour mobility, as I said in my earlier post I want smart people to come to Britain, and if Brits wander off that is their decision. I note from history that allowing people in is a direct cause of Britain's success and survival.and the free market will decide what the extent and nature of outsourcingyou're contradicting yourself here. I would like you to be right, but you're not. The outcry over international outsourcing will stop the market deciding. You can't admit to a large political outcry and then assume free markets.btw. get a real book on the history of pre-independance india if you are interested...not something that changes the facts to help the english have a clear conscience about the past Oh dear. Have you ever been to England ? British TV repeatedly shows Brits the bad things they've done in India and elsewhere, indeed there is good money to be made in reporting such things. I have read about pre 1948 history, and it does not reflect well on the British. However where your education is lacking is that it looks pretty bad on the Indians as well. You say that the Brits were outnumbered. so how come they conquered it in the first place ? Can you think of a snigle pre-Raj Indian ruler who wouldn't qualify as a war criminal ? The only difference I can see is that the Brits were more efficient.Efficiency is not to be sneered at, though India and Ireland suffer because they place "culture" over it, think of this as evolution in action.
Last edited by DominicConnor
on July 29th, 2003, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.