From: banerjee@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Arindam Banerjee)
Subject: Re: World Culture and Western Culture
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:36:05 GMT

From article <12570@optilink.UUCP>, by cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer):
> In article <19764@ector.cs.purdue.edu>, cutchin@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Cutchin) writes:
>> In article <JMC.92Sep28214354@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> # |# Motivations were mixed.  Individual desire to make money,
> # |# ego and some benevolence.  Even when there was benevolence,
> # |# part ot its motivation was a sense of superiority.  However,
> # |# the innovations were introduced and were useful, e.g. secular
> # |# universities, railroads and a British style judicial system -
> # |# even cricket.
> # |# 
> #     While it is probably accurate to say that many new and beneficial
> #     culture concepts were introduced by the conquering of India by
> #     the British this in NO WAY mitigates that it was the western cultures
> #     view of Indians as inferior, backward and heretical that allowed them
> #     to justify in their minds the slaughter of millions of indians in
> #     their conquest of India.  Mr McCarthy's EXTREMELY selective view of
> 
> MILLIONS of Indians?  Even over the two centuries of British colonialism,
> that comes to at least 5000 Indians a year.  There was a rather
> famous massacre of unarmed and peaceful Indians around 1919 or 1920 
> that played a major part in the loss of British confidence, and the
> strengthening of the Indian nationalist movement.  Several hundred 
> people were killed in that massacre.  Yet it stands out as one of 
> the great atrocities.  Why am I skeptical of "millions of Indians?"
> 
> Could someone provide some more data?
> 
> # |# John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> # |# He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> #      Obviously the speaking of arithmetic is not a necessary condition
> #      for not talking nonsense.
> # Steve Cutchin
> 
> Hmmm.  Perhaps Mr. Cutchin will indulge us, and do arithmetic to
> show that he isn't talking nonsense.

A study of history would help.  The most famous history text is An
Advanced History of India by R.C,Mazumdar et al. This book tells us how
the economy of Bengal was devastated soon after the British got power
there in the latter part of the eighteenth century.  Their rapacity led
to the wholesale destruction of the cotton products manufacturing industry; the
weavers according to our tradition had their thumbs cut off to help the
British in their policy of free trade! Millions of people died as a
result; Bengal has never been the same since.
More recently, in the Second World War, the buffer foodstocks were
abstracted by our loving British masters for feeding their armies
fighting wars which were none of our concern.  Seven million Bengalis
died when there came the drought, and there was simply no food around.
My father has living memories of that situation - he saw many people
simply die of starvation.
True, the British did not behave like Chengiz Khan.  They were far more
subtle.  We absolutely admire them for that.
Arindam

 
>