Poems by the man who romanticized the colonization of my grandparents' country are always cool, but the logic doesn't hold up. If you're not as well-armed as the British Empire, and you very much do not have the resources to defeat the Dane, it's nice that the end of the game is oppression and shame, but you're going to lose well before you even get to endgame.
You do realize why the British called it the "dane geld" and not tribute right? Because the Dane used to plounder the English and demand gold to go away, and the English learned to their sorrow what happens when you pay the dane geld.
This is told to me by a Danish classmate (while intoxicated at a party).
He asked me: do you know why we say "Skull" when we drink?
I said: No I don't.
He Said: Well, back then during the Viking times. The Danes would fight all the way to the kingdom and cut the off the Skulls of the English princes; Dump out their brains and use the skull as cup for drinks. Hence the word "Skull".
I said: Huh? Interesting!
"And then we also took all their good looking women. And that's why all the Danish girls are soo good looking" Add him.
That's a false dichotomy if there ever was one. The alternative to being colonized by the British was not to be colonized by Belgium but not to be colonized at all.
It is arguable that India benefitted from being under British rule compared to be in under the rule of mad Moghal emperors though. I'd say gp was not a false dichotomy. Of the options available, British rule was not the worst possible outcome in hindsight.
To my Indian friends, please be wary of ultranationalism and the far right. It never does anyone any good. Just look at us and learn from US' shortcomings.
> was not to be colonized by Belgium but not to be colonized at all.
There was no such alternative if you were a weak, divided nation in the first place. Please look at what happened in other places with a similar situation (even China during a long time). Once the European nations stopped fighting each other they looked for other territories to conquer at the time - and this, by the way, not limited the the recent world history at all. Territorial conquest is something that started that was documented even in Antiquity, although we did not call it colonization then.
Most countries have been colonized many times and there's almost no connection nowadays between the actual "natives" and whoever is currently ruling.
If it were my country, I'd have picked British rule over self-rule. A robust system of laws is nothing to sneeze at.
Look all over the former British Empire, and you'll see robust, healthy democracies peacefully trading with their former rulers. Countries that were never colonized got left out of the huge technological race that modernized the rest of the world after WW2.
The Anglosphere nations are among the most powerful on Earth.
Napier is one of my favorite historical figures, but wasn't sati banned based on the requests of (native) Hindu reformers, and Napier merely spoke in favor of the ban when other Hindu priests complained? It seems like a stretch to argue that it was Napier who worked to put an end to sati.
Ah, yes, pithy and powerful quotes! I should be thankful for colonialism for providing pithy and powerful quotes. Take up the white man's burden of speechwriting.
Seriously, there are much better arguments for the position you're espousing. I can come up with half a dozen without trying. If you're really interested in contributing to discourse, try making them.
The topic was the banning of Sati. It was just one example of the benefits of British rule. That it is such a salutary example is why I mentioned it. You are welcome to keep crying on Twitter that people said things you don't like but I have nothing further to say to you.
It's not even close to salutary. You can't defend your point, that's why you have nothing further to say to me. You are wrong on the facts, and you don't even know how to lose an argument graciously.
What argument is there to be had with someone who will not even admit the elimination of the ritual immolation of widows as a salutary benefit of colonial rule? There's clearly no reason involved in such a stance but simply reflexive chauvinism.
If you are talking about India, it wasn't a "country" before the British. It was a mixture of disparate kingdoms and sultanates. Not to mention that before the British, most of India was under Muslim colonizers i.e. the Mughals.
The Indians have always been a conquered people, it is only in the last 70 years that they have had freedom; you should thank the British for it.
The Mughals were not colonizers. The definition of a colony is: "country or area under the full or partial political control of another country". The Mughals were ousted from Central Asia; India was the only country they ruled. So, by definition, they were not colonizers.
That's not the context the OP used... It was: "you should thank", not "you should be thankful". A very subtle difference, but in this case (to you), it's the difference between offending and not.
I think both wordings are rude, particularly because of the word "you". OP doesn't know anything about his family's history. It's different from making a general argument that talks about the benefit to the whole country.
Define "country". To make your statement above to be true you will need a pretty narrow and tautological definition.
I presume you are not the brightest bulb as far as Indian history is concerned so it will help a bit if you read up a bit on Indian history, even Wikipedia would be a good start.
