[apsec112]

"In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not... In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that.

We have such labels today, of course, quite a lot of them, from the all-purpose "inappropriate" to the dreaded "divisive." In any period, it should be easy to figure out what such labels are, simply by looking at what people call ideas they disagree with besides untrue. When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention."

http://paulgraham.com/say.html

[asimov42]

Wow really? Apparently pointing out the obvious bias and rewriting of history is "racism." I mean I get that the victor gets to write the history, but this is the empire that put "No Dogs or Indians Allowed" in front of its bars, please done shove "civilization" down my throat so hard.

There seems to a be a large rise in popularity of such articles which cherry pick certain facts to paint a rosy picture of the colonial empire. I believe its the classic case of people wanting to read a history they wish was true rather than deal with the uncomfortable truth.

While I have no problems with people writing about the many positives of the raj, I believe that omitting to mention certain genocides and atrocities is akin to misinformation.