Was the British empire evil?

[Schizophonia]

7 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

India was a singular entity in religious scriptural history under emperor Yudhisthira, and in official recorded history as well  under the emperors Chandragupta Maurya (350–295 BCE), Bindusara (320 BCE – 273 BCE), Ashoka the Great(304 – 232 BCE),  Samudragupta (335–375 CE)and Vikramaditya  (375-415 CE) to name a few.

Adi Shankaracharya in the eighth century CE created four mathas or monasteries in the four distant corners of India showcasing its cultural unity.

This singular identity and sovereignty was used by Indian freedom fighters and leaders to project their future vision of India back then during the freedom struggle against western colonialism.

The Brits themselves were colonised by the Romans for centuries and the later Normans who now form the snobbish british upper class and suppressed the local english population. Much of the earlier Norman rulers of Britain only used French and did not even know english.

Through conquest of Ireland and Scotland, the norman rulers created the foundation of modern UK as well.

That doesn’t contradict what I said

[Elliott]

3 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

The “lack of empathy” is relative; for a Jain it's wrong even to crush a fly.

I remember a guy here (maybe it was you? I can't remember) told me that hunting was bad. Personally I think I don't give a fu** and whoever says that is just a wimp.

But what intellectual point is there in calling each other bad or conversely fragile? The closest thing to something objective with possible sociological value/use is the link between mental structures and social conditions; history in general.

I just mean toward people, no regard for a person, not "lack" of empathy but zero regard for a person. Evil is a social term, sociability being required for human survival, even though it is just intuitive, that is how the term is used. It's anti-human, 'inhumane', 'white devils'.

Edited yesterday at 03:26 PM by Elliott

[enchanted]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Is the American empire evil?

Yes that is my question. What is more correct:  American (or European) Exceptionalism? Or should we all have white guilt? 

On one hand European culture brought the enlightenment and technology to the world. But on the other hand European empires were particularly oppressive to non whites. More oppressive than any non-white Empire to another non-white people or white people (has Hassan argues in the video) even Genghis Khan didn't treat his subjects as poorly as the British Empire.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, enchanted said:

What is more correct:  American (or European) Exceptionalism? Or should we all have white guilt? 

Both are wrong.

You don't need exceptionalism nor guilt. Just understanding.

Empire is inherently evil because it is coercive and extractive. Violates the sovereignty of others for profit.

Edited yesterday at 03:27 PM by Leo Gura

[Basman]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Every empire is evil.

When a random third world country has oil

 

[Ajay0]

15 hours ago, enchanted said:

But on the other hand European empires were particularly oppressive to non whites. More oppressive than any non-white Empire to another non-white people or white people (has Hassan argues in the video) even Genghis Khan didn't treat his subjects as poorly as the British Empire.

European empires were oppressive to whites as well. Sectarian,religious and nationalistic wars claimed millions of lives in europe. Both the two world wars which originated in europe killed over a hundred million people. 

This was followed by the cold war between european nations, and the present russia-ukraine/nato war.

The two world wars mainly fought between european nations had a positive in the global south perspective, in that it weakened the european powers to the point that they could not hold on to their colonies anymore, and many gained independence and became major powers in their own right.

The fact that most european powers became second-rate powers in the new global order is one of the reasons why they decided to unite to form the EU and NATO so as to become a strategic power again, forgetting their past history of numerous conflicts and linguistic differences temporarily at least.

At present they are using cultivated hatred against Russia to create unity and cohesion among themselves, but I am not sure whether they can stand on their own without a common external enemy to hate as a uniting force.

Edited 15 hours ago by Ajay0

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

16 hours ago, Basman said:

When a random third world country has oil

 

Sounds like someone's democracy needs some saving!🇺🇸🦅

[Human Mint]

Good question. They extracted capital like there was no tomorrow, milking the shit out of those poor countries which in turn fueled the industrial revolution. The problem is how they did it. They've left a scar in every country they put a foot on.

But guilt is nonsense and cheap. Plus they were not the only empire.

It is a good question asking in what ways it was dysfunctional.

Edited 6 hours ago by Human Mint

[Elliott]

@Schizophonia

 

"The second major proposition of the mimetic theory proceeds from considering the consequences of the mimetic nature of desire as it relates to human origins and anthropology. The mimetic nature of desire allows for the anthropological success of human beings through social learning but is also laden with potential for violent escalation. If the subject desires an object simply because another subject desires it, then their desires are bound to converge on the same objects. If these objects cannot be easily shared (food, mates, territory, prestige and status, etc.), then the subjects are bound to come into mimetically intensifying conflict over these objects. The simplest solution to this problem of violence for early human communities was to polarize blame and hostility onto one member of the group who would be killed and interpreted as the source of conflict and hostility within the group. The transition from the violent conflict of all-against-all would be transformed into the unifying and pacifying violence of all-except-one whose death would reconcile the community together. The victim who was persecuted as the source of disorder would then become venerated as the source of order and meaning for the community and seen as a god. This process of engendering and making possible human community through arbitrary victimization is called, within mimetic theory, the scapegoat mechanism.

Eventually, the scapegoat mechanism would be exposed within the Biblical texts which categorically reorient the position of the Divinity to be on the side of the victim as opposed to that of the persecuting community. Girard argues that all other myths, such as Romulus and Remus, for example, are written and constructed from the point of view of the community whose legitimacy depends on the guilt of the victim in order to be brought together as a unified community. Once the relative innocence of the victim is exposed, the scapegoat mechanism is no longer able to function as a vehicle for generating unity and peace. The categorical moral innocence of Christ therefore serves to reveal the scapegoating mechanism in scripture, thus enabling the possibility that humanity might overcome it by learning to discern its continued presence in our interactions today."