Can British Colonialism in India really be described as racist?

Depends

Would you be fine with me punching you 100 times as long as you got 1000 bucks out of it?

im not sure if i would take the deal

>>1845900
I'd probably suck it up 2bh. I could upgrade my pc for a thousand quid.

>>1845898
It was moneyist, but pretty evil. There were some racist officials, but most of the evil in the Raj was "let's steal everything that isn't tied down"

>We helped them

No, no you didn't.

"For reform-minded medical officers like Ronald Ross, British imperialism was first and foremost a civilising force. He believed that the British were 'superior to subject peoples in natural ability, integrity and science ... They [had] introduces honesty, law, justice, order, roads, posts, railways, irrigation, hospitals ... and what was necessary for civilisation, a final superior authority.'"
Page 151
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PShpbwti_3EC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=ronald%20ross%20superior%20to%20subject%20peoples%20in%20natural%20ability%2C%20integrity%20and%20science...%20they%20had%20introduced%20honesty%2C%20law%2C%20justice%2C%20order%2C%20roads%2C%20posts%2C%20railways%2C%20irrigation%2C%20hospitals..%20and%20what%20was%20necessary%20for%20civilisation%2C%20a%20final%20superior%20authority&source=bl&ots=RqqwmERoxz&sig=ZQXS6dTJN3v9-njxyYBvp-Qeb2A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib59Dx7ubPAhVrIsAKHfiHC4sQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=ronald%20ross%20superior%20to%20subject%20peoples%20in%20natural%20ability%2C%20integrity%20and%20science...%20they%20had%20introduced%20honesty%2C%20law%2C%20justice%2C%20order%2C%20roads%2C%20posts%2C%20railways%2C%20irrigation%2C%20hospitals..%20and%20what%20was%20necessary%20for%20civilisation%2C%20a%20final%20superior%20authority&f=false

File: ross.png (128KB, 279x384px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 279x384px

>>1845913
based ronald ross

>>1845906
Yeah, we did.

>>1845900
1000 bucks is 1000 bucks anon

>>1845906
The British were no different from previous tyrannical rulers and they brought new technology and enlightenment ideas like not burning widows.

>>1845927
Nope. "You" didn't. Britian pretty much took the wealthiest country in the world in 1600 and sucked it completely dry in 200 years, furthermore they made the social system more rigid and made what used to be appointed governors into total tyrants.
>Muh railroads

Care to explain why they all lead to the coast?

There's pretty much total scholastic consensus on the fact that Britain ruined the people of India, in the same way it ruined the Irish,It's own peasantry and what it was planning to do to the Americans if it won the Revolutionary war.

The only saving grace is that they were kleptomanics, but that doesn't excuse throwing down a hundred thousand Sri Lankans into an open graves while they were still alive.

Britain is pretty much the cause of 90% of the evil shit that happens today, the rest is split between Soviets and America.

File: pepe3452.png (260KB, 563x542px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 563x542px

>Indians also began to criticise their own people for their neglect of public health, and to spread the Western gospel of hygiene

(M. Harrison)

>>1845946
>The British were no different from previous tyrannical rulers

The fact that they didn't tax salt and latrines show that Britain was kookoo for cash. Plus that whole taking food from Bengal just so they could sell it aboard, and forcing the farmers to grow Opium afterwards so they could sell it to China.

Britain was on a whole other fucking level of evil, the fact that they were never punished for it unlike the Nazi's, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

>>1845913
Wow. So Genghis Khan killed millions but he is great because he was religiously tolerant while Ronald Ross saved millions of lives but he is evil because he did a racism.

Really makes you think.

>>1845898
If they were genuinely concerned about helping them in the long run, they wouldn't have annexed most of their land.

>>1845948
>Care to explain why they all lead to the coast?
So the Indians can go on seaside holidays. We're nice like that.

>>1845900
Depends how strong you are.
Dental may cost more than a 1000.

>>1845954
None of that is unusual as far as tyrants are concerned, you should read what the Mughals did to the Sikhs. Colonialism was obviously a form of tyranny, but all this britbong bashing isn't historically accurate.

>>1845948
>wealthiest country in the world in 1600 and sucked it completely dry in 200 years
not him but this is a meme, the economy grew just not as fast

www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_02-2010.xls

India 1896: 150,699
India 1939: 256,924
India 1953: 248,963

world 1900: 1,971,881
world 1950: 5,335,860

>>1845898
I think most Indians would prefer a predominately Christian/Capitalist invader versus the Muslim alternative. At least the British colonists by that time were mainly focused on capital gains, and less worried about suppresing religious beliefs. Not saying there wasn't some of that, but not nearly at the extent you'd see if it was a Muslim invader.

>>1845946
>bongs make sati into a common law
>a few years later Ram mohan roy campaigns successfully to end it
>BEIC just pays for his ticket
>takes all the credit.

>>1846023
which is what happens when you suppress local industry and turn the entire country into a base for raw resources.
>>1846023
>the mughals
>the sikhs
the sikhs were part of the mughal empire and were treated like religious rebels. The mughals didn't funnel indian wealth into mongolia and claim they were helping.

>>1845962
This thread is Shitposting.
Anyone who actually wants to learn something should read Late Victorian Genocides.

>>1846049
>I think
the british of the later company era began peddling their aggressive branch of anglican christianity in india and began to piss off most of their sepoys and their vassal nawabs with their constant meddling in religious and local matters.

>>1846063
Pissing people off is a far cry away from the removal of statues/carvings/paintings depicting false idols of worship and also removing the person/people worshiping them.

I'm not trying to make the Brits sound like gentle giants reaching out to help the little guy, while depicting the Muslims as evil incarnate, but the fact is, if it wasn't the Brits, it would be someone else. Choose your poison. The strong dominate the weak. It still goes on in todays world, though through different means.

>>1846072
no dumbass.
There were no muslim powers in india when the brits made their power grab.Tipu sultan was a small fish to the marathas given that he lost to the malabar kingdom, and the marathas were actively recovering from the 3rd battle of panipat and becoming stronger in the north even while they began to splinter. The sikhs were becoming more organized in northern india and the muslim rulers in eastern india were muslim in name since they kept hindu advisors and forces.

Most muslim looting was economic in nature: see nader shah ravaging delhi. The only major ruler in forever who chimped out was Aurangzeb and he crashed the mughal empire with no survivors.

>>1846098
>There were no muslim powers in india when the brits made their power grab
Never said anything of the sort.

>>1845898

As an Indian I can wholeheartedly say that India was screwed way before British colonization. Ever since the fall of the Gupta Empire India lacked a strong native power which left it vulnerable to foreign invasions (Arabs, Persians, Mughals, British etc.) and also caused nearly 10 centuries of constant civil war which ravaged our subcontinent. While the British can't be blamed entirely for the state India is in right now, they kinda rubbed salt into the wound by destroying the Maratha Empire which was in the process of undertaking a Meiji style modernization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_de_Boigne

>>1846247
The Sikhs were also modernizing at the time, their army containing many European advisors. The Sikh wars were some of the bloodiest on the subcontinent at the time. There was a real scare of the British losing, and some people argue that if not for greed and treachery among the generals of the Sikh army, the Sikhs could have won or at least caused a stalemate of sorts.

>>1845898
Yes and no

On one hand, the British destroyed the local economy of several Indian states, keeping millions impoverished as either laborers or farmers with no strong middle class.

On the other hand, the British helped establish the idea of Pan-Indian nationalism and its system of government has kept India surprisingly stable since independence.

Don't ever think colonialism was done for altruistic reasons, the British could care less about the welfare of their Indian subjects as long as the tea kept flowing.