Popular misconceptions about 19th century History

[Lampiao]

I'm stealing the other's thread concept to complain about weirdest misconceptions that I see often here:

1 - 19th century US is the world's sole superpower, it can kick the British off Canada, annex all Mexico, or even conquer the entire continent, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.

2 - Without Bismarck, Prussia would simply use force to conquer all Germany, including Austria. And it would somehow work.

3 - Every single non-Western nation can "pull a Meiji", the meaning behind what "pull a Meiji" actually is doesn't actually matter.

...What else?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

4. Leopold's Congo was uniquely horrific, as opposed to taking existing colonial horrors to an extreme that even the public of the jingo era blanched.
5. For that matter, the Congo could have been ruled by any country under the sun, never mind how narrowly it came to being divided by the French and Portuguese.
6. The British Empire was benevolent, and a few wise reformers could have transformed it into a federation that lasts to the current day.

 

[Lampiao]

6. The British Empire was benevolent, and a few wise reformers could have transformed it into a federation that lasts to the current day.

7. Anglos are the world's master race, just throw a handful of Englishmen in a random temperate region and it somehow becomes richer and more stable.

 

[Augenis]

Any German invasion of Russia no matter at which point in time will result in Brest-Litovsk borders.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

That there was anything positive about the British, French and other European colonial empires.

The reality was simply too horrible to describe. The evils done in Africa, the Arab world, India and beyond by colonialism are an incalculable human tragedy.

 

[DreadDjinn]

That there was anything positive about the British, French and other European colonial empires.

The reality was simply too horrible to describe. The evils done in Africa, the Arab world, India and beyond by colonialism are an incalculable human tragedy.

It is a very human tragedy. I could easily envision the reverse (and it is actually pretty applicable during ages of Muslim expansion).

It really isn't due to the people involved. White people are not more evil or ambitious. They just happened to be on top at the time. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What people don't think about are the degrees of power. A little power corrupts a little too.

Every faction that has dominated has been accused of crimes. And since they have the power to exploit, sometimes they are actaully guilty of said crimes.

We are as we were made to be. Our free will exists, but not in an absolute sense. There are natural factors conatraining how we act.

 

[longsword14]

The evils done in Africa, the Arab world, India

Don't know about the other two, but Britain in India was no worse than what came before them.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

Don't know about the other two, but Britain in India was no worse than what came before them.

Nah they pretty much were though- sure you’d get the odd Islamic ruler that goes on a conversion spree and persecuted Indic religions but for the most part, they did see themselves as Indian. The British, by the time they got any power were well into the classic nineteenth century racism ideologies and did nothing but outlaw and persecute Indic traditions. Under the British, a european feudal model was imposed on many areas of India, which pushed many more peasants under the poverty line than there were a century or two ago. People were forced to grow cash crops to fit into the British economy, even though it meant they weren’t growing enough food to feed themselves. To say nothing of the conscious strangling of industry and commerce that occurred at the time.
The system of government that emerged in India until the mutiny divorced the company from responsibility over maintaining law and order as they acted under the nominal suzerainty of Indian rulers but also divorced Indian rulers from the power to maintain law and order, with the end result that there was no law or order. British policy reinforced and strengthened the caste system at every opportunity.

Just twelve years after the battle of plassey, a company official visiting Murshidabad wrote “It must give pain as an Englishman to have reason to think, that since the accession of the Company to the Diwani, the condition of the people of this country has been worse than it was before; and yet I am afraid the fact is undoubted. The fine country which flourished under the despotic and arbitrary government, is verging towards its ruin, while the English have really so great a share in the administration.”

 

[Lampiao]

It is a very human tragedy. I could easily envision the reverse (and it is actually pretty applicable during ages of Muslim expansion).

It really isn't due to the people involved. White people are not more evil or ambitious. They just happened to be on top at the time. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What people don't think about are the degrees of power. A little power corrupts a little too.

Every faction that has dominated has been accused of crimes. And since they have the power to exploit, sometimes they are actaully guilty of said crimes.

We are as we were made to be. Our free will exists, but not in an absolute sense. There are natural factors conatraining how we act.

I'd go even further by saying that all value judgement is a misconception. There's simply no way to objectively know what's right or wrong. Quoting Ortega y Gasset: "I am me and my circumstances".

EDIT: Of course, we can analyze if something was generally good or bad, but to talk about a Manichean good and evil is simply not useful.

 

[longsword14]

To say nothing of the conscious strangling of industry and commerce that occurred at the time.

Much repeated by nationalist historians of a Marxist bent, but not taken as seriously as before.

The British, by the time they got any power were well into the classic nineteenth century racism ideologies and did nothing but outlaw and persecute Indic traditions.

Varied under different administrations, nor was their any official policy that said it should be so. Outright imposition of European norms over the general populace was neither effective nor consistent.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Don't know about the other two, but Britain in India was no worse than what came before them.

From a legal perspective, this is dubious, to say the least. There were only five capital crimes in Moghul India. The British tore up that system and replaced it with some of the harshest penal laws on the planet, with hundreds of capital offenses.

When combined with the deliberate famines in which Britain continued to export Indian grain while millions starved to death, the brutality of this regime is laid bare.

 

[longsword14]

When combined with the deliberate famines in which Britain continued to export Indian grain while millions starved to death, the brutality of this regime is laid bare.

Not this again. When did this happen ? Let it not be 1943.

 

[Gloss]

As far as famines go most people died in the very early period and both in and outside British territories or British infleunced territories and 1943 was an outlier as no famine happened 4 decades prior AFAIK, famines were certainly not getting worse as the British expanded and solidified in the 19th century. The economical hit was also centred in the early period with a recovery period throughout the middle and later period.

 

[Kerney]

On India where the British ended the practice of Sattee ("encouraging" widows to join their husband's funeral pyres).

An Indian protested the English interference with local custom.

Official's response-- "You are of course free to practice local custom. But we are also free to practice our own custom of hanging people who burn perfectly nice ladies to death."

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Same thing I said in the other thread(s) all of them.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

On India where the British ended the practice of Sattee ("encouraging" widows to join their husband's funeral pyres).

An Indian protested the English interference with local custom.

Official's response-- "You are of course free to practice local custom. But we are also free to practice our own custom of hanging people who burn perfectly nice ladies to death."

The British also introduced their custom of gunning down peaceful protestors to India. Let's stop pretending the British were benevolent colonizers, shall we?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

On India where the British ended the practice of Sattee ("encouraging" widows to join their husband's funeral pyres).

An Indian protested the English interference with local custom.

Official's response-- "You are of course free to practice local custom. But we are also free to practice our own custom of hanging people who burn perfectly nice ladies to death."

Movements to end Sati were nothing new though- many kingdoms had banned them within their own territories, the only way the brits were different is that they were better at enforcing it, with the tools of an industrialised nineteenth century state- though the extent to which even they managed it is also very questionable

 

[longsword14]

The British also introduced their custom of gunning down peaceful protestors to India. Let's stop pretending the British were benevolent colonizers, shall we?

You will never find a "benevolent" coloniser, but as far as things go they were not a let down from India's past.

 

[Lampiao]

This Manichean dualism simply isn't useful. Obviously, the British and the Mughals are very different rulers - the discussion about how British colonialism affected economically the subcontinent is actually a quite controversial and interesting topic that shouldn't be labeled as a "misconception".

IMHO the main issue is: A similar country, with a similar level of industrialization, would treat India that much different than the British did? I don't think so.

 

[Thon Taddeo]

On India where the British ended the practice of Sattee ("encouraging" widows to join their husband's funeral pyres).

An Indian protested the English interference with local custom.

Official's response-- "You are of course free to practice local custom. But we are also free to practice our own custom of hanging people who burn perfectly nice ladies to death."

Initially, Company rule tolerated the practice, and in the early nineteenth century, its incidence actually increased in Bengal. It was largely due to pressure from indigenous Indian activists and Christian missionaries that Sati was banned. And Sati, as evil as it was, was a very rare practice. The British did little to combat more common misogynistic practices, such as female infanticide.

Of course, even if the narrative of heroic Britishers saving Indian women were true, it would not at all absolve the British from their many crimes, most prominently the famines that occurred as a result of the policies of the East India Company and the British government.