Reply to How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "How much is Queen E to blame for Britain's colonism, really?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Indian Subcontinent was leading the world in it’s GDP prior to British Colonization. More than 25% of the world’s GDP.

When the Brits were through looting, pillaging, enslaving, and genocide-ing it was 2%. They stole, in today’s value, upwards of 45 TRILLION. Money that the subcontinent is only now starting to climb back too.

Please use your Anglophile reasoning to exploit these numbers. I’m sure it makes you feel justified. Warm fuzzies for the Queen all around.

[/quote]

+
Queen had nothing to do with this. Nothing.  Nor did an royal.  By the time this happened royals held no power.   And your numbers just don’t make any sense. No India never had that much economic power.  [/quote]

Perhaps you should crack open a real history book not just the one the Queen sent out to all households under the taxpayers dime.

[/quote]

+100. The queen's ancestors caused the death of 4-10 million Indians. Some would call it a genocide but of course, history is written by the victors so we don't call it that.
She could have changed things by 1) giving all the stolen jewels back, 2) apologizing for all the atrocities 3) reparations.

Do you understand that the British forced Indians to grow crops/produce resources for British mainland use, to further their industrial revolution, while India was dealing with intense famines? Indians were barred from growing food for their own use, in their own country.

She was an old lady with no power and lots of money, and her death makes no difference in my life now at all. I'd appreciate it if the media outlets would stop covering this so much. But I would have appreciated her memory more if she had behaved as a compassionate human being, and at least freaking APOLOGIZED for her forefathers' actions.

[/quote]

Exactly, members of the royal family were in Indian running various parts of that plundering murderous operation. The information is available to you to read if you just look. Or you can continue to read the history sanitized by that family.[/quote]

It's not ancestors as in ancient history. Mountbatten was her uncle and Philip's relative as well. He was the colonial governor of India until 1947 and responsible for Partition where millions died.[/quote]

Partition where Indians killed those of different religions.  Ummm... I guess the British were keeping that from happening before they left?[/quote]

That was pre-meditated and stoked by their indiscriminate slicing of entire villages and ancestral lands to create two separate countries, one based on religion, that they knew would be perfect to keep the region unstable.

There’s a reason nearly all middle eastern countries are of one religion. Neighbors that aren’t the same, tend not to survive or remain in constant states of war.

There’s a lot of nuance that led to the atrocities of Partition and people from both countries acknowledge that it was bloody and awful. This was recent history.  My uncle was burned alive in a train trying to get from one side to the next.

Between the atrocities at the northern border and the Hindu Genocide in Bangladesh from East Pakistan, the South Asians are the ones that suffered this. And she was witness to the rape and murder. The explosion of emotions after being colonized for so long. The throne on which she sat and watched is tainted with blood from her family.

[/quote]

+1. Well said. The British used divide and conquer to their advantage but racists today rewrite history and call them peacemakers  :roll: [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics