[thrance]

Have you considered that maybe the instability in those regions is due to their prolonged subjugation? Maybe progress towards ending the caste system would have been faster had the British not brutalized the country.

On wikipedia:

> Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the post-Mughal period and the British colonial period, which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.

Section "History", subsection "During British rule" of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Also I think you'll have to review your understanding of the history of slavery.

Your rationalization of imperialism is kind of weird.

[boxed]

> Have you considered that maybe the instability in those regions is due to their prolonged subjugation?

The central tenet of anti-imperialism is that everything good was despite imperialism, and all bad things because of it. This is a classic "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.

> which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.

Hmmm.. that article goes against everything I've read before. Yea, the British adapted to the caste system that was in place, but to blame it on the British rule seems very strange.

> Also I think you'll have to review your understanding of the history of slavery.

I was only talking about one specific thing, namely the destruction of the atlantic slave trade by the British Empire (at great cost to them btw). You just ignoring that and then hand waving isn't even close to an argument or even coherent.

> Your rationalization of imperialism is kind of weird.

I'm not rationalizing it. I'm saying the blanket "Imperialism is to blame for everything bad" is overly simplistic at best. The Monty Python sketch exemplified by "what did the romans ever do for us?" shows the madness quite clearly.

The Roman Empire was corrupt, stupid, and culturally imperialist. Sure. But the collapse brought the Dark Ages.

I think also that ethnic cleansings of nations is a bad thing. You might disagree. That's fine. But the ethnic cleansing of muslims from India into the division of India into (eventually) India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, that's a historical fact. As are the dark ages mentioned above.

We have to see the good of empires as well as the bad. Only by seeing clearly the problems and advantages can we make improvements to the world.

[thrance]

To me, the central tenet of anti-imperialism is more "it brings more harm than good", which is backed by the outcomes of many historical instances and I think is a pretty reasonable stance.

It should be possible to intervene to prevent genocides without then grabbing the region's natural resources and putting in place a despotic leadership.

Also, just on a side-note, if I'm not mistaken, Rome did not simply occupy conquered territories, it assimilated them and gave citizenship to the conquered people (those who were free at least). Imperialism is often described as beginning around the 18th century.

[boxed]

> Imperialism is often described as beginning around the 18th century.

Yea, because otherwise it might include the Roman Empire ;)