Active Now

Spunky
my2cents
Discussion » Questions » History » And talking of history and wars... did you know that India had been colonised before the Brits arrived by Dutch, French, Portuguese etc?

And talking of history and wars... did you know that India had been colonised before the Brits arrived by Dutch, French, Portuguese etc?

I like a drop of history myself, but no, I didn't know that.. apparently so though.  Before we got there it had been colonised many times and in fact, pretty much throughout its history it had colonised, as in taken over each other's tribes and princedoms or been colonised..

This is important to know.. for accuracy... and I am a stickler for accuracy... 

I am forever seeing people go on about the Brits and how evil they were in colonial times.. they WERE!! I'd never say anything different - it was hideous, arrogant and vile!  But there are important things to remember...

1)  At that time most ordinary Brits were little more than slaves themselves.. they had NO power, no say, no control over what happened.. they made good soldiers/sailors but the orders came from high above NOT ordinary Brits.. most of us were poor and lived lives just as controlled by aristocracy as those that were colonised.
2) In almost ALL cases it wasn't just a matter of going in beating up a ton of people and then ruling.. nothing's that black and white.. in MOST cases we dealt with rich native people.. people who let's face it sold their own people out for money and power..so while that doesn't excuse Brit-land they must accept some responsibility too for their own people's suffering and the exploitation of their land..
3) At the same time we were doing these hideous things.. SO WERE LOADS of others.. we were by far not the only ones.. for some reason whenever you hear someone talk about Empire and Colonialism people bang on about the Brits like they were the only ones.. they seem to entirely overlook or perhaps not know that the Dutch, the French, the Germans, the Spanish and the Portuguese were all just as bad.... Again it doesn't excuse what the Brits did but lets not be inaccurate here.. context is everything..
4) As above... those were different times.. more barbaric times, ill-informed times, times when ordinary people had no say... we are now VERY different people.. the fact that, in some cases things that happened over 100 years ago, keeps being cited and thrown at random Brits as if THEY are responsible 0 is madness at worse and at best, ill-informed.   We aren't proud of what happened.. we DON'T think it was ok..
5) And it's my belief that a) the aristos did start to feel it was wrong and that's why they backed off in a lot of cases, got out in others and negotiated returns in still others.. and b) the common people started to have more say.. and WE as a people don't condone that.. so things were changing..
6) where it has taken longer to get out of a country.. people who seek to point fingers and judge need to remember - it's not black and white.. it's almost always the case that some of the populace DONT WANT TO BE divorced from the UK.. I know it sounds mad but that's sometimes the case... so having gone in there, stomped our big feet on things, we cannot simply abandon those who don't want to be abandoned...  it's not simple.. often takes years of negotiation... and hard as it is to believe.. even tho we did wrong.. there was a lot we did RIGHT and which the country concern values. for instance while many Indians will say UK was bad to colonise, many will point to the good things that were brought into the country, systems, rights, laws, order, unity etc.. that even the Indians want to keep.. I know it's hard to believe!!
7) Testament to this.. it's very telling that once *free'd* of our terrible oppression many of the countries we colonised chose to join the commonwealth. Again because people aren't accepting that there were good as well as bad..  I've heard SO many times that people think the counties we colonised must hate us.. fact is mostly they don't.. we've been forgiven.. why others, ok Americans mainly, want to believe we are still despised is beyond me.. but I am afraid it's not true.. and further testament is that we have many people here from those colonies.. people who chose to come here... 
6) As i say it was a long time ago.. I wasn't responsible, I had no say, I couldn't have stopped any of it. Why do people seem to think that ANY and every Brit is responsible for something that happened so long ago? It wasn't my ancestors - mine were all poor!  It's like blaming Germans for Hitler.. most of them had no say.. 

So going back to India.. we did bad.. sure.. but we weren't the first, nor necessarily the worse... those were horrible times, .it's important not to harp on as if that's now or as if we are the same people .. we aren't.
 

Posted - March 5, 2017

Responses


  • Alexander made his attempt on India, too, though I don't think he got far past the Hindu Kush.

    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 5, 2017 6:06 PM MST
      March 5, 2017 4:11 PM MST
    1

  • 372
    You seem to be defending Great Britain against charges (by Americans and, presumably, others) of bad treatment of GB's colonies over the centuries. As an American, I never heard such a charge outside of a classroom.

    In fact, as bad treatment goes in the age of imperialism, the Brits were by far the best of a questionable lot. In India, to use your example, they brought many modern ways of thinking - medicine, political philosophy, language, the notion of democracy,  etc. As the ruling Raj, they have little to be ashamed of.

    Consider the French who, in all the years of ruling Indochina, never established a single institution of higher learning. Missions, yes, but not a university. The Belgians may have been the worst of all in the Congo.

    The Americans had slavery and near-extermination of the indigenous peoples - evils still not fully resolved.

    An aside - even before the Portuguese (and Alexander) India had the Aryans who swept through the Northwest and pushed back the inhabitants to central and southern India where they remain today and are called the Dravidians.

    The Aryans brought a philosophy still extant, the Vedas, Hinduism, and organizing principles. It's a fact of like that powerful peoples tend to overcome less powerful neighbors. Unusual are the exceptions. 

    One could argue that the Americans are unique in this regard. By far the most powerful group in the world, they (we) show no inclination to stomp over our planetary neighbors - at least in the 20th century.

    (Sorry to be so long-winded. I agree with your point).     
      March 5, 2017 7:43 PM MST
    0

  • 16781
    Korea. Viet Nam. Iraq. You're still stomping on your planetary neighbours in Afghanistan. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at March 6, 2017 7:47 AM MST
      March 6, 2017 7:46 AM MST
    0

  • 372
    Korea was a response to invasion by North Korea - hardly a stomping.
    Vietnam was as a party to a treaty - SEATO - and agression by the North Vietnam. Turned out badly, but hardly a stomping.
    Iraq was a response to naked agression by Sadam Hussein. Hardly a stomping.
    Iraq 2 was an ill-found agression on the part of the US. Your single correct stomping, but not really as the US never intended to "conquer" Iraq - just expel the bad guys.
    Afghanistan was a response to the terrorists who were responsible for the WTC and the Pentagon attacks.

    Get your history straight in the first place and don't re-write it.
      March 6, 2017 9:35 AM MST
    0

  • Hello Louie, You said, "You seem to be defending Great Britain against charges (by Americans and, presumably, others) of bad treatment of GB's colonies over the centuries. As an American, I never heard such a charge outside of a classroom."  - well I am not sure defending is the right word, we did bad things for sure.. but correcting a slight misunderstanding maybe..  You mention classroom... and this could well be why it's happening.. I think Americans are learning this at school but only learning certain parts and being left with a slightly disingenuous impression of what happened.. namely most seem to think we were the ONLY one's doing it...
    So yes, in a way I am perhaps dealing with classroom history. 
    Your response was much appreciated and informative.. ten bonus points :)
      March 6, 2017 8:56 AM MST
    0

  • 16781
    India invaded Europe at some time in prehistory as well. The Arabic numeric system (which we use today) was largely derived from an earlier Hindi one, and modern written European languages are derived from Sanskrit which also is Indian in origin.
      March 6, 2017 7:44 AM MST
    1

  • That's interesting.. I didn't know that.. If we speak to some Indians they say that their country has never ever ever ever invaded another.. I mention a certain country.. and it never goes well :P  I guess that's a problem with history.. it's so rich, so many factors that we all tend to end up knowing only a little..selectively...  We should all be better informed.

    Oh and you get 10 bonus points for having the coolest username ever :) This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 6, 2017 8:59 AM MST
      March 6, 2017 8:59 AM MST
    0

  • 372
    Arabic numerals and Sanskrit are hardly justification for claiming India invaded Europe in pre-history. There are many ways other than invasion that these influences could have (and did) enter Europe.

    You are too fast and loose with your history, but your interest is welcomed.
      March 6, 2017 9:42 AM MST
    0

  • 343
    And India was subjected to the greatest seaborne invasion in history (by number of invading troops - to be clear). But that was long before the European 'colonists' appeared. If you are a pub quizzer you probably already know all this.  This post was edited by rattbagge at January 15, 2018 9:05 AM MST
      January 15, 2018 9:05 AM MST
    0