Take a photo of a barcode or cover
ben_miller 's review for:
Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India
by Shashi Tharoor
Here it is, your meme-ified guide-in-progress to winning arguments with colonial apologists.
You're arguing with: The Benevolent Paternalist
Broke: Whatever its flaws, British imperialism brought modernity (railways, industry, etc) to India.
Woke: Any infrastructure the British built in India was for the sole purpose of more efficiently strip-mining the country of its assets.
Broke: The British brought political unity to an impoverished land of warring factions and corrupt despots.
Woke: India's economy when the British arrived had a share of global GDP equal to all of Europe combined, and the existing emperors, princes, and nawabs were at least accountable to their people, while many enjoyed broad popular support.
Broke: Britain introduced the "rule of law" to India.
Woke: India already had longstanding social norms that operated as a legal tradition, which the British replaced with their own penal code, written by the odious racist Thomas Babington Macaulay. This code was enforced with extreme harshness against natives, and with utmost leniency against Europeans—so much for the "rule."
Broke: India has Britain to thank for their robust free press.
Woke: The British did introduce newspapers to India, and deserve some credit for that. Though they enacted numerous laws restricting and censoring Indian-run papers, they never totally squelched them. If that's the most successful argument you can make for the good of imperialism, you're in trouble.
You're arguing with: The Whataboutist/Concern Troll
Broke: What about the fact that India's economy flatlined for almost 50 years after Independence?
Woke: What do you expect, when a country has been pillaged, deindustrialized, carved up, and infantilized for 200 years? Again, India's share of global trade before the British: 27%. After: 2%.
Broke: What about the religious and caste violence that has plagued India? Haven't they forfeited the moral high ground?
Woke: These issues are deeply troubling, and also a legacy of British imperialism. The Brits solidified power through the "divide et impera" strategy, which meant codifying religious and caste groups that had previously been fluid and intermixed, playing them against each other for political favor and sowing distrust and hatred. Those imaginary divides became real in the horror of Partition, the effects of which continue to destabilize not just the region, but the world. India is not free of blame by any means, but neither are the Western interventionists who deliberately created this environment.
You're arguing with: The Scorched-Earth Darwinist
Broke: That the British subjugated India despite much smaller numbers proves they were simply smarter, stronger, and more advanced. Therefore they deserved to rule.
Woke: British subjugation of India wasn't a victory of strength or advancement. It was a victory of predatory amorality during a period of transition as the Mughal Empire fractured. The East India Company insinuated themselves into the resulting chaos before anyone realized the depth of their greed and depravity—the rest is history.
Broke: If Indian rulers were already taxing the masses, what does it matter if the British took over that taxation structure?
Woke: The British tax rates were ruinously high, and besides, taxes paid to a local authority with a vested interest in the community are completely different from taxes paid to a foreign agent whose only incentive is filling a treasury in London. Just ask the Boston Tea Partiers.
To be continued...
You're arguing with: The Benevolent Paternalist
Broke: Whatever its flaws, British imperialism brought modernity (railways, industry, etc) to India.
Woke: Any infrastructure the British built in India was for the sole purpose of more efficiently strip-mining the country of its assets.
Broke: The British brought political unity to an impoverished land of warring factions and corrupt despots.
Woke: India's economy when the British arrived had a share of global GDP equal to all of Europe combined, and the existing emperors, princes, and nawabs were at least accountable to their people, while many enjoyed broad popular support.
Broke: Britain introduced the "rule of law" to India.
Woke: India already had longstanding social norms that operated as a legal tradition, which the British replaced with their own penal code, written by the odious racist Thomas Babington Macaulay. This code was enforced with extreme harshness against natives, and with utmost leniency against Europeans—so much for the "rule."
Broke: India has Britain to thank for their robust free press.
Woke: The British did introduce newspapers to India, and deserve some credit for that. Though they enacted numerous laws restricting and censoring Indian-run papers, they never totally squelched them. If that's the most successful argument you can make for the good of imperialism, you're in trouble.
You're arguing with: The Whataboutist/Concern Troll
Broke: What about the fact that India's economy flatlined for almost 50 years after Independence?
Woke: What do you expect, when a country has been pillaged, deindustrialized, carved up, and infantilized for 200 years? Again, India's share of global trade before the British: 27%. After: 2%.
Broke: What about the religious and caste violence that has plagued India? Haven't they forfeited the moral high ground?
Woke: These issues are deeply troubling, and also a legacy of British imperialism. The Brits solidified power through the "divide et impera" strategy, which meant codifying religious and caste groups that had previously been fluid and intermixed, playing them against each other for political favor and sowing distrust and hatred. Those imaginary divides became real in the horror of Partition, the effects of which continue to destabilize not just the region, but the world. India is not free of blame by any means, but neither are the Western interventionists who deliberately created this environment.
You're arguing with: The Scorched-Earth Darwinist
Broke: That the British subjugated India despite much smaller numbers proves they were simply smarter, stronger, and more advanced. Therefore they deserved to rule.
Woke: British subjugation of India wasn't a victory of strength or advancement. It was a victory of predatory amorality during a period of transition as the Mughal Empire fractured. The East India Company insinuated themselves into the resulting chaos before anyone realized the depth of their greed and depravity—the rest is history.
Broke: If Indian rulers were already taxing the masses, what does it matter if the British took over that taxation structure?
Woke: The British tax rates were ruinously high, and besides, taxes paid to a local authority with a vested interest in the community are completely different from taxes paid to a foreign agent whose only incentive is filling a treasury in London. Just ask the Boston Tea Partiers.
To be continued...