This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
India has been having famines since at least as far back as Sanskrit existed. It's in the Purana. There were plenty of famines under the Mughals and other empires too, e.g. this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_famine_of_1630%E2%80%931632
In any case, I am merely disputing the claim that the British were not invested in the long term success of India. They clearly were, and on long timescales. I wish my region had rulers with the effectiveness and foresight of the EIC instead of our current NIMBY with globohomo characteristics.
I am not claiming to have clear econometric proof that the British were better than other empires which might plausibly have ruled India. (Though I am fairly convinced that the Mughals were terrible.) Perhaps India would have been better off had the Marathas or the Bengalis driven the British out and taken over, or perhaps not. I don't know.
"Carts belonging to banjaras (carriers) transporting grain from the more productive regions of Malwa were intercepted and supplies diverted to feed Shah Jahan’s [Mughal Emperor] royal army in Burhanpur, who were fighting territorial wars in the Deccan (southern) provinces." - Peter Mundy, a firsthand observer
Not so different. Here's another, this time caused by a combination of bad years plus Maratha armies devastating all the cropland on their way to Mysore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doji_bara_famine
That's the story of most famines around the world, at least since the early modern period - bad weather combined with bad policies, e.g. looting grain carts and trampling fields.
As for the Mughals, I didn't say they were less "oppressive" and I'm not sure what you mean by that. I said they were terrible.
They are generally accepted to have average tax rates on the poor of approximately 50%. That's a lot of money going into state coffers and significantly exceeded other empires, including the British. Where did the money go? Traveling as a tourist shows us many opulent palaces and tombs built by the Mughals, and history books also tell us of the opulence of their courts. History books also tell us of their many wars.
Put aside the historical romanticism - that's a story of warlords looting a nation, building very little, and spending the proceeds on luxuries for themselves. And it still wasn't enough - Shah Jahan's fundamental problem was that money spent on luxuries for the rulers was growing faster than the economy, and his empire was so corrupt that he couldn't stop it. Slapping a rainbow flag with a brown stripe on top of this - I mean a "we love hindus too" flag - doesn't change it. (Yes, I'm throwing in a western culture war reference since America is waking up soon.)
The British did not have that problem. Their stated goal, which they do seem to have acted on, was to grow the economy of India faster than the fraction they extracted. Kill the thuggees because the hurt trade. The Nizams of Hyderabad, with whom they were closely aligned, felt similarly. Hyderabad became so rich that India eventually conquered them to capture that wealth.
And if you travel to Bombay as a tourist you see this. There is no British palace, but there is a a British train station. It's nice and you don't need to be royalty to use it.
I don't see much evidence the Marathas thought things through at that level - there is certainly no Maratha equivalent of John Stewart Mill writing essays for them - but at the same time their culture did not seem as corrupt as the Mughals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link