[afandian]

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes lots of nations commit atrocities and have done through time.

If anything that's less of a reason to disbelieve that your taxes, and those of your predecessors, are being spent on atrocities.

[golergka]

I think that the parent comment author meant the usual anti-colonialism which attacks western colonialism as something unique and blames virtually any hardships of former colonies on it. I recently saw an article which argued that honor killings in Pakistan are to be blamed on colonialism — because, apparently, palistani men felt oppressed by colonial past and had to take it out on their wives, daughters and sisters. Unfortunately, this absurd position gets a lot of support nowadays, and often when you try to argue against it you're insantly labeled all kinds of things.

[throwaway-hn123]

I guess people get upset about this sort of thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I...

Or this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/7991820...

But sure, focus on some absurd strawman, and ignore the millions of deaths that the British were responsible for.

[lobotryas]

No one in this thread is claiming the Brits were innocent lambs. Parent is pointing out that violence is endemic to empire, regardless whether that empire was built by the west, asia, or africa.

Engaging in "what-about-ism" will not get a conversation far.

[throwaway-hn123]

There is a very common narrative that tries to say that the British Empire was good for India, and wasn't like all the other savage empires.

[golergka]

Once again, you're taking my comment, throw out all attempt to be detailed and nuanced and assume that I have a radical point of view just because it's easier for you to digest and argue against. Can we please stop this pattern in internet discussions? You're arguing against a strawman that is completely absent here.

[throwaway-hn123]

You've taken one absurd article (not even cited), and used it to fuel some specious argument that just people regard western colonialism as unique. I'm just pointing out that British colonialism (directly relevant, because of Pakistan) was a bad thing, regardless of whether other empires also acted savagely, and regardless of whether a handful of people use it as an excuse for current abhorrent behaviours.

Not sure what's so hard to understand.

[golergka]

You understand that I never contradicted the fact you're pointing out, right?

[ganeshkrishnan]

Not sure about Pakistan but such honor killings exist in India too. I never heard anyone blame colonialism for these behavior. Infact social reformers were working on eradicating these behavior years before the British even arrived in India (For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Mohan_Roy).

That said: We just elected our first ever PM that was born in post-colonial India and you are implying that colonialism didn't have much effect on our mentality when infact most of our 'backward' mentality is due to colonial principles. See "Doctrine of Lapse", "Divide and Rule", "Zamindars" (British policy of awarding land to "higher caste" who were sympathetic to British)

The GDP contribution of India to the world was 25% (It's ~15% for USA now) and during colonial times it was less than 1%. We are back to around 3% now

Colonial mindset and Colonization is very recent and has much more effect than you think. Most of the British museum have all the goods stolen during colonization. Like John Oliver said "The entire British Museum is basically an active crime scene"

To top it off the British government has not paid a single dollar as reparations (http://www.britishreparations.org/facts.php). Not that we need it but put the money where your mouth is if you are really apologetic about your past actions.

[golergka]

No, I'm not implying it. Once again: if you're trying to guess opponents position and put words in his mouth, this kind of discussion becomes meaningless very fast.