I read this book last year about a 17th century British pirate whose brutal attack on ships returning to India from Mecca threatened the East India Company’s relations with the emperor but ultimately empowered the British to add more forces to “protect” India. The pirate hid out in the Bahamas and then disappeared. Some of the coins from the Muslim ships were discovered in New England a few years ago.

He was one of the most hunted men on Earth — and then he disappeared
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/he-was-one-of-the-most-hunted-men-on-earth--and-then-he-disappeared/2020/05/28/5ff9b584-7ffb-11ea-9040-68981f488eed_story.html

As Steven Johnson notes in his page-turner of a book, “Enemy of All Mankind,” Every was at one time the most hunted man on Earth. He and his band of pirates brought terror to the Indian Ocean, upsetting Britain’s dance with the Mughal Empire, most notably one Abu Muzaffar Muhiuddin Muhammad Aurangzeb Alamgir, or Aurangzeb for short, also known as the Universe Conqueror.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

China has spent enough time in Korea to be considered a former colonizer.

Again, my point is not that China did not colonize.

Wrong!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

Shanghai is a major city thanks to European imperialism (not to mention Hong Kong).

No other major world power has held control of China, ever. China has always controlled China. That is the only thing I'm saying. There isn't a city on the planet that hasn't been influenced by outside cultures but the effect of another country coming in and asserting power over the indigenous population is what we're discussing here. It is weird to me that this is thing people are nitpicking about my post though, as this was a minor point and really not central to my overall point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

Shanghai is a major city thanks to European imperialism (not to mention Hong Kong).

In spite of

Because of. It became a major commercial center thanks to the treaty of Nanking

By your theory, the rest of China devolved into barbarism and savagery because British colonialism was MIA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

China has spent enough time in Korea to be considered a former colonizer.

Again, my point is not that China did not colonize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

Shanghai is a major city thanks to European imperialism (not to mention Hong Kong).

In spite of

Because of. It became a major commercial center thanks to the treaty of Nanking

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

Shanghai is a major city thanks to European imperialism (not to mention Hong Kong).

In spite of

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

Shanghai is a major city thanks to European imperialism (not to mention Hong Kong).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Some cultures have been fortunate to remain fairly untouched for thousands of years like China and Japan and others have been through repeated upheavals.

China used to occupy about 1/3 of its current area.

My point was not that China did not colonize, but that Chinese culture has not been impacted by the invasion of a different culture, it has been shaped primarily by their people and their governments. Unlike say India and South Africa where there are clear markers of the UK culture in the countries.

China has spent enough time in Korea to be considered a former colonizer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But, Indians worship white people , no?

Used to. That's slowly fading.

My great grandfather was apparently a supporter of the Brits, and whipped one of his sons, for being active in the resistance (said son ran away from home, continued to participate in the resistance, and only passed away recently).

Well , thanks for your honesty . But, from my vantage point, I still see a lot of white Anglo worship amongst Indians, especially the women .

Anonymous wrote:Without the Brits far more would have died from malaria, cholera etc.

Win for the Brits- Indians are lucky to have had them.

India has had no major famine since independence, due to using the Indian Famine Codes developed by the British. The last big famine in India during British rule was in 1943, during wartime, when the codes were not followed.

Without the Brits far more would have died from malaria, cholera etc.

Win for the Brits- Indians are lucky to have had them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would all of you be OK with the Holocaust if there were benefits to civilization?

Not okay with the British killing 50m or 100m Indians. But I'm not sure the study supports that.

The Great Leap Forward is supported by history, fwiw. Seems to be okay because there were benefits.

I guess the end justifies the means.

A lot of you seem to be confusing two concepts

- This terrible thing happened but there were some good consequences that moved the world forward

does not mean the same thing as:

- It is good that this terrible thing happened and I would choose for it to happen again in this way because of the inadvertent positive consequences that came from it

DP. I'd say there's a difference between famine, even famine caused by stupidity or human error or by civil unrest (as the majority of famines are) rather than purely due to drought or flood or crop failure, is different in kind than the intentional genocide of a people. Calling one of them the other isn't helpful. Inflammatory, yes; helpful, no

I would argue that exacerbating a famine is equivalent to genocide. The Brits have been there done that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would all of you be OK with the Holocaust if there were benefits to civilization?

Not okay with the British killing 50m or 100m Indians. But I'm not sure the study supports that.

The Great Leap Forward is supported by history, fwiw. Seems to be okay because there were benefits.

I guess the end justifies the means.

A lot of you seem to be confusing two concepts

- This terrible thing happened but there were some good consequences that moved the world forward

does not mean the same thing as:

- It is good that this terrible thing happened and I would choose for it to happen again in this way because of the inadvertent positive consequences that came from it

DP. I'd say there's a difference between famine, even famine caused by stupidity or human error or by civil unrest (as the majority of famines are) rather than purely due to drought or flood or crop failure, is different in kind than the intentional genocide of a people. Calling one of them the other isn't helpful. Inflammatory, yes; helpful, no

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would all of you be OK with the Holocaust if there were benefits to civilization?

Not okay with the British killing 50m or 100m Indians. But I'm not sure the study supports that.

The Great Leap Forward is supported by history, fwiw. Seems to be okay because there were benefits.

I guess the end justifies the means.

A lot of you seem to be confusing two concepts

- This terrible thing happened but there were some good consequences that moved the world forward

does not mean the same thing as:

- It is good that this terrible thing happened and I would choose for it to happen again in this way because of the inadvertent positive consequences that came from it