Legacy of British (and European) Imperialism (war, Romans, Britain, general)

[PatDJohns]

With the recent conflicts coming from Pakistan, I decided to read up on the history of the nation since I was not familiar with pre-colonial Pakistan. I was surprised to learn that there were quite a few centuries where the Muslims and Hindus lived in relative harmony on the Indian subcontinent, until the arrival of the British.

I was shocked at how the Brits cunningly used the religious differences to easily divide and conquer the Indian subcontinent. This got me thinking, what is everyone's opinion of the legacy of European imperialism? Do you think they have done a severe dis-service the global community as I do? Am I not looking at the issue clearly?

[Grandstander]

The legacy of the divide and conquer colonial policies has been the post colonial spasms of violence and ethnic bloodbaths.

The typical colonial m.o, especially as practiced by the Brits, went:
1) Invade and secure
2) Identify minority group which hates whichever majority group had been running the place before the Europeans arrived. Enlist their aid in bringing everyone else under their control.
3) Reward the minority allies by giving them what education is being offered, and install them in all the key clerical positions.

So, when the times comes for the colonial power to exit, the situation is one where for a long period of time, colonial masters and their minority aids have been running the country and keeping the majority supressed. The majority has been seething with anger for decades, or centuries, and now with the colonial power withdrawing its protection of the minority, it is going to be revenge time. There is going to be a massacre.

And when this takes place, compounding the tragedy, is that the people being killed are all the ones who know how the nation works. The clerks, the engineers, the magistrates of the courts, the doctors and nurses, the educators, the police forces, these positions have all been dominated by the minority group and when they have all been killed, their services cease and you have chaos on your hands.

So, the typical post colonial spasm ends with a whole bunch of people murdered, and no one knowing how to get anything to work.

[kevxu]

Originally Posted by PatDJohns

With the recent conflicts coming from Pakistan, I decided to read up on the history of the nation since I was not familiar with pre-colonial Pakistan. I was surprised to learn that there were quite a few centuries where the Muslims and Hindus lived in relative harmony on the Indian subcontinent, until the arrival of the British.

I was shocked at how the Brits cunningly used the religious differences to easily divide and conquer the Indian subcontinent. This got me thinking, what is everyone's opinion of the legacy of European imperialism? Do you think they have done a severe dis-service the global community as I do? Am I not looking at the issue clearly?

Seems to me that the question might be asked about "imperialism" in general. There was/is just as much exploitation and murderous conniving done by the Japanese, Chinese and Americans.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by PatDJohns

With the recent conflicts coming from Pakistan, I decided to read up on the history of the nation since I was not familiar with pre-colonial Pakistan. I was surprised to learn that there were quite a few centuries where the Muslims and Hindus lived in relative harmony on the Indian subcontinent, until the arrival of the British.

I was shocked at how the Brits cunningly used the religious differences to easily divide and conquer the Indian subcontinent. This got me thinking, what is everyone's opinion of the legacy of European imperialism? Do you think they have done a severe dis-service the global community as I do? Am I not looking at the issue clearly?

I'm guessing your studies didn't cover the Mughal, Maratha and Sikh Empires? While it is true that the Mughal's practiced relative religious tolerance, the higher orders of society were all Muslim. Competing empires were formed around their own religions and territories, the Maratha were Hindu and the Sikh Empire were, of course, Sikh's.

The Maratha and Mughal in particular fought an extremely protracted and long lasting war over territory in the southern half of India. These are the wars that the British exploited in order to consolidate their hold in the disparate territories. There was fighting among competing religions before the British arrived, they did not cause it, but they certainly exploited it.

I think Grandstanders summary is pretty good when it comes to the effect of imperialism. In general, it was largely a negative. However, there are some Indian historians who do pull some positives from British colonialism. Chiefly the adaptation of the idea of an Indian nation. Before the British arrived, there was no such concept and given the order of Indian society, chances are there never would have been.

[joe from dayton]

Imperialist policy certainly exploited indigenous peoples and resources. It also developed housing, schools, etc., etc. I had a prof in college who was an African. He clearly stated that if it where not for colonialization that he would not speak multiple languages, nor would he have a PhD in History, etc. I also had the opportunity to speak briefly with Paul Rusesagina (The hotel manager portrayed in the movie Hotel Rwanda) and he said all of Africa's problems cannot be blamed on colonialism. Colonialism is a contributing factor to issues in Africa, but certainly not the sole factor.

[PatDJohns]

Originally Posted by kevxu

Seems to me that the question might be asked about "imperialism" in general. There was/is just as much exploitation and murderous conniving done by the Japanese, Chinese and Americans.

I should have explained myself better my description, I was talking about colonialism more so then capitalist imperialism.

[PatDJohns]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I'm guessing your studies didn't cover the Mughal, Maratha and Sikh Empires? While it is true that the Mughal's practiced relative religious tolerance, the higher orders of society were all Muslim. Competing empires were formed around their own religions and territories, the Maratha were Hindu and the Sikh Empire were, of course, Sikh's.

The Maratha and Mughal in particular fought an extremely protracted and long lasting war over territory in the southern half of India. These are the wars that the British exploited in order to consolidate their hold in the disparate territories. There was fighting among competing religions before the British arrived, they did not cause it, but they certainly exploited it.

I think Grandstanders summary is pretty good when it comes to the effect of imperialism. In general, it was largely a negative. However, there are some Indian historians who do pull some positives from British colonialism. Chiefly the adaptation of the idea of an Indian nation. Before the British arrived, there was no such concept and given the order of Indian society, chances are there never would have been.

Actually it was the history of the Mughal Empire that actually got me interested in the topic. The book presented the Mughals as Muslim rulers who allowed anybody in Indian society entrance into the upper class, regardless of religion. I was under the impression that the Mughals were trying to break the caste system, which they found quite oppresive.

Im not an expert in Indian History, not by any means. Thank you for the brief education on Indian identity, gotta read up a little more.

[Mistertee]

Originally Posted by joe from dayton

Imperialist policy certainly exploited indigenous peoples and resources. It also developed housing, schools, etc., etc. I had a prof in college who was an African. He clearly stated that if it where not for colonialization that he would not speak multiple languages, nor would he have a PhD in History, etc. I also had the opportunity to speak briefly with Paul Rusesagina (The hotel manager portrayed in the movie Hotel Rwanda) and he said all of Africa's problems cannot be blamed on colonialism. Colonialism is a contributing factor to issues in Africa, but certainly not the sole factor.

Africa is unique from any other former colony. Even within Africa, you have many succesful colonies like Algeria, Morocco, etc. The theory of housing, schools, etc. is flawed. The Brits in India would educate loyal servants to the 4th standard. This was enough to teach langauge skills, basic math, etc. so that communication and daily activities of business could be conducted. Also, these educated servant would run the plantations which employed the illerate. It was all about control to the highest degree. People also mention Railroad and Post Office. Well, this was done for the movement of raw materials and for colonists soldiers to travel efficiently. The indigenous population hardly if ever, got to use such equipment.

[Mistertee]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I'm guessing your studies didn't cover the Mughal, Maratha and Sikh Empires? While it is true that the Mughal's practiced relative religious tolerance, the higher orders of society were all Muslim. Competing empires were formed around their own religions and territories, the Maratha were Hindu and the Sikh Empire were, of course, Sikh's.

The Maratha and Mughal in particular fought an extremely protracted and long lasting war over territory in the southern half of India. These are the wars that the British exploited in order to consolidate their hold in the disparate territories. There was fighting among competing religions before the British arrived, they did not cause it, but they certainly exploited it.

I think Grandstanders summary is pretty good when it comes to the effect of imperialism. In general, it was largely a negative. However, there are some Indian historians who do pull some positives from British colonialism. Chiefly the adaptation of the idea of an Indian nation. Before the British arrived, there was no such concept and given the order of Indian society, chances are there never would have been.

There was an unified concept of the Indian nation and it was accomplished by Ashoka the Great! As for the Maratha and Mughals, whie it is true they fought a long lasting war, the southern tip of India was also independent namely Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by PatDJohns

With the recent conflicts coming from Pakistan, I decided to read up on the history of the nation since I was not familiar with pre-colonial Pakistan. I was surprised to learn that there were quite a few centuries where the Muslims and Hindus lived in relative harmony on the Indian subcontinent, until the arrival of the British.

I was shocked at how the Brits cunningly used the religious differences to easily divide and conquer the Indian subcontinent. This got me thinking, what is everyone's opinion of the legacy of European imperialism? Do you think they have done a severe dis-service the global community as I do? Am I not looking at the issue clearly?

Well, the selection of a starting point is important.

Why aren't you upset with these guys too?
Maurya Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or this guy?

Muhammad bin Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British are but one link in the chain. But yeah, in certain intellectual circles, especially on some of the crappier college campuses political sensitivities make the "evil european theory" the one that get's pushed. Make no mistake, they did bad things, but there needs to be perspective.

Heck, look at European imperialism in the case of Spain vs. Aztec....painting the Aztecs as the "victim" would be funny indeed.

I'd also recommend checking out a book on the history of Britain starting around the time the Romans were doing this to Britain? Followed by invasions from every European area within hundreds of miles that took turns wiping their feet on them.