On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:56:03 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 07/11/09 10:25, Stephen wrote:
>> I question that figure try 10 million or more than 40 million during the 200
>> years of British rule.
>
>	Due to famines, or overall?
>

Just famines

>> I don't think that the food came to Britian. More likely it was sent to other
>> colonies.
>
>	Could be.
>

I suspect so as 40 or 50 years ago rice was considered quite exotic in Britain,
not a staple food. It is also dangerous to ship for as I'm sure you know when it
gets wet it expands and will not release its water.

>
>	I think what people classify as racism is more often than not  other 
>prejudices. The proper words for each just aren't as trendy as racism.
>

I agree.

>>> 	In any case, it's rare that I hear a lot of "guilt" about the British
>>> in India. Certainly Indians occasionally bring it up. Maybe it's much
>>> more common across the Atlantic.
>>>
>> That may be more to do with the people that go there. The Indians and Pakistanis
>> that settle in the UK tell different stories.
>
>	What I meant is I don't see many white people talk about the guilt of 
>the British Empire (as in, I was wondering why Darren brought it up).
>

We are well aware of it although lots of things are forgotten. Have you heard of
The Great Hedge of India? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hedge_of_India
Another glorious episode of the British Empire.

>> Ask any Jamaican they suffered under both. But African and European slavery
>> pales into insignificance when compared to the American idea. I don't believe
>> that slaves in the rest of the world were considered animals, sub-human or just
>> children at best.
>
>	When you say "American", wasn't that more or less the same as when they 
>were under the English? I believe the English got rid of it earlier and 
>treated them more humanely earlier than the US did, but if we were to go 
>back to the mid-1700's, wasn't the treatment by the English more or less 
>the same as what you're referring to as American?
>

Treatment yes but never, I think, the justification that Africans were sub human
so it didn't count. Although the situation in Australia might have been
different. Australian aboriginal weren't enslaved but they were persecuted
relentlessly with organised Abo hunts.

>>>> I strongly suspect it's because the white folks know their own history
>>>> much better than they know the history of other cultures. Quick, without
>>>> looking, what was going on in Africa and India during the medieval ages?
>>>> Who were the power players?
>> Islam and Arabs
>
>	Mostly only in North Africa and the East coast of Africa. What about 
>the rest of the continent?

I don't know, you said not to look it up. I only know of Shaka the Zula leader.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message