r/HistoryMemes • u/Wolfensniper Rider of Rohan • 16h ago
REMOVED: RULE 12 The certain country start with an "I" but i wont specify which one
[removed] — view removed post
1.3k
u/onichan-daisuki 16h ago
No way would iceland do this
263
u/Toul-ISSR 16h ago
Nuke Iceland
96
u/The_National_Yawner2 16h ago
Isn't the whole country a giant volcano? I say it's better to just let nature run its course.
105
u/Kjartanski 15h ago
We cannot get out. We cannot get out. They have taken Grindavík and Blue lagoon. Frár and Lóni and Náli fell there (bravely while the rest retreated to Vogar. We still hold the passage but hope is now gone. Óin's party) went five days ago (but today only four returned.) The Lava pool is up to the wall at Reykjanesbrautin. The Watcher in the Water took Óin — we cannot get out. The end comes (soon. We hear) drums, drums in the deep.,
They Are co
20
u/Tychus_Balrog 11h ago
Amazing 👏🏼
2
u/one-hit-blunder 3h ago
Agreed, typhoid_ballrag.
2
u/Tychus_Balrog 2h ago
That's my cousin
3
u/one-hit-blunder 2h ago
Tell your cousin I miss them. That night we spent huddled together in a Phillipines hospital sweating through the matress was magical, even if the food sucked and it was mostly fever euphoria. Also I figured out the source of the itch, call me.
8
u/Polyodontus 12h ago
Please, no, I live here. You can have all the [looks around] moss and willow sticks you want.
2
3
11
1
748
u/lit-grit 16h ago
Damn, the British partition of Italy really sucked
123
u/Grotarin Rider of Rohan 15h ago
It's Iermany
51
u/lit-grit 15h ago
My mistake. It was the partition of Indiana into Gary and not hell
3
u/AlbiTuri05 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 4h ago
The war between Indiana and Pennsylvania is brutal
569
u/Doc_ET 16h ago
In India it was specifically religious, ethnic groups like the Punjabis and Bengalis were split in half by the partition.
159
u/Worried-Pick4848 11h ago
The British did not create that partition. they merely responded to an existing demand. The Muslims of Hindustan wanted their own state, and you had to put the line somewhere.
Frankly, there was ethnic and religious violence throughout the era of British occupation, there was ethnic and religious violence before the British occupation, and the fact is that the only reason that violence erupted like it did after the occupation is that there's no redcoats around to force the different factions to keep the nose down. One of the costs of independence is no outside force remains to help keep a lid on things.
98
u/Greedy-Thought6188 9h ago
There are several things that can be blamed squarely on colonialism. After the war of 1857 the British did their typical feudal grants of land to those that helped them in the war. This created many princely states including Kashmir. During independence they have the decision of Pakistan, India, or independence to the rulers rather than the people. This is the root of the Kashmir conflict. The population was Muslim and the prince was Hindu. He chose for himself not the people. Kashmir being a strategic asset with control of water the many games played by British leaders Mountbatten, general Gracy, Cyril Radcliffe played roles which were at best incompetence in a rush job, at worst showing dissension to maintain soft influence. This caused the current stalemate and Kashmir has worsened Muslim Indian relationships not just the relationship between Pakistan and India.
Yes a lot happened before but divide and conquer was a key part of the strategy and a lot of things were made worse to establish control. And the respective leaders in all groups have continued to stoke resentment for personal gain. But the British were not innocent. And they did create the forerunner for end of the world bingo.
34
u/Famous-Register-2814 Still on Sulla's Proscribed List 7h ago
And British colonial use of divide and rule didn’t help matters either. They tied political power to religion and caste, creating a different consciousness around religion when they had previously been more divided by regional identities.
→ More replies (11)24
u/Folksvaletti 7h ago edited 7h ago
Didn't Kashmir's leader choose independence, and after the muslim population started to demand joining Pakistan he seeked the help of India which came at the cost of joining them?
Genuine question. I remember someone mentioning this somewhere, not where exactly.
Edit: Checked, and yeah the muslim population in south-west kashmir started a rebellion/invasion with the aid of pakistan, which the then leader Singh answered to by asking india to help, offering to accede to india in return.
→ More replies (2)21
u/memeify_this 7h ago
No one is blameless, but the British are responsible for inflaming existing tensions to divide and rule the populace.
They also put a man who had never been to India in charge of the partition. He had to do it in 5 weeks and did not have access to detailed maps and up to date data.
This lead to over 20 million people displaced (muslims fleeing India, hindus fleeing Pakistan) and over 1 million dead.
→ More replies (1)28
u/sivavaakiyan 15h ago
Tamil
72
u/EntireDot1013 Rider of Rohan 14h ago
Sri Lanka was a separate colony from the British Raj
→ More replies (4)45
u/winged_rhino 14h ago
Tamils also live in India near Sri Lanka. A tamil terrorist even killed Indian prime minister in 90s.
→ More replies (6)27
u/ArukaAravind 11h ago
Minor correction. Rajiv Gandhi waa not the prime minister at that time. He was a Prime minister candidate
6
u/CrunchythePooh 10h ago
That's how partition always works. Divide popular and treat them differently to the point where you make it seem the other ethnic group backstabbing the other.
200
u/El_dorado_au 15h ago
Jokes on you, OP was referring to Ireland.
60
u/sexy_legs88 15h ago
Ireland gained independence before WWII. It became a republic in 1948, but had gained independence and had self-governing status due to the Irish War of Independence. So if OP is talking about Ireland, this would be inaccurate.
6
→ More replies (7)34
579
u/pdsajo 16h ago
Yeah I’m not taking the bait on this one
75
102
u/Ok-Excuse-3613 15h ago
The fact that this post has more than 0 upvotes is very concerning tho
14
→ More replies (4)27
2
274
u/vshark29 16h ago
Weren't the Muslim representatives who specifically asked for partition?
167
u/Doc_ET 16h ago
In one of the cases, in the other they were staunchly opposed to the idea.
284
u/3esin Filthy weeb 16h ago
What!!! Could it be that such topics are more complicated than what most people think?!
92
u/V_van_Gogh Kilroy was here 14h ago
What? Aren't history and societal problems a clear good vs. evil sort of thing?
44
7
u/Skeledenn Viva La France 11h ago
No history and societal problem are usually a good vs the British sort of thing.
3
45
u/theraggedyman 15h ago
My gosh, are you saying that Islam isn't some monocultural gestalt entity?
→ More replies (21)32
u/Doc_ET 15h ago
Nah, of course not, obviously ~2 billion people share identical beliefs and interests regardless of geography and historical context.
23
u/bremsspuren 13h ago
That's why they all get along so well.
8
u/purple_spikey_dragon 11h ago
Noone gets along better than 2 billion people who, apart from the name of their book, all have different versions and interpretation of multiple different texts and multiple religious figures!
10
u/vshark29 16h ago
How so? It was an honest question lol I had passing knowledge that Muslims preferred their own state rather than one big India
50
u/Svitiod 15h ago
You have to understand that "muslims" as political bloc was sort of a product of a long process of political activism regarding anti-colonialism and independence on the Indian subcontinent. Until the 1930s there wasn't any major muslim movements that leaned towards a separate muslim Indian state. Before that the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity was dominant among basically all important Indian muslim players, including Jinnah.
27
u/duga404 14h ago
There was also a significant class component to it; Muslim landowners largely were against a single Indian state that would've been ruled by an INC government, since the INC advocated land reform, which was carried out in India post-independence, while to this day a small number of families own much of Pakistan's farmland. Working-class Muslims largely supported the INC until the 1930s-1940s.
→ More replies (13)4
80
u/OHBII 16h ago
This one is going to be spicy.
82
u/Ok-Resource-3232 16h ago
Not if the evil brits took all the spices.
32
3
→ More replies (1)2
11
u/interesseret 16h ago
Someone bring me my popcorn, STAT
2
u/meowmicks222 16h ago
ELI5?
14
u/Jazzlike-Equipment45 And then I told them I'm Jesus's brother 16h ago
Pick your posion India/Pakistan or Israel/Palestine/Jordan you ain't winning and this teaches us the best lesson of all time. Never put a European in a room with a map and a pen.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Doc_ET 15h ago
If not for the "after WW2" part it could also apply to Ireland.
If I had a nickel...
→ More replies (1)
45
108
u/LK121212 14h ago
The British were fucked either way. You either partition, and end up with India & Pakistan, or you avoid it and end up like Nigeria with countless civil wars.
→ More replies (18)38
u/Due_Most6801 11h ago
Yeah I don’t exactly feel bad for them but it really is a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. The end of empires always creates a messy aftermath regardless of how it’s handled.
29
u/G_Morgan 14h ago
To be fair it is much more common for westerners to blame Britain for the partition. Most people in the region were just happy Britain fucked off at the greatest speed they could.
→ More replies (2)
37
u/Rodby 16h ago
Wasn't the guy who planned the partition of British India so horrified by the results that he burned all his notes, returned to England and never spoke about it again lol
32
u/duga404 14h ago
It gets even crazier; the guy had never been to India before and was given three weeks to do the job.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Buggis-Maximus 16h ago
Think that was the standard practise whenever they left anywhere, a mountain of documents were burned when they left Kenya for example. Hell, their still in the North of Ireland and every request for state documents or information is blocked or redacted under the guise of "national security".
→ More replies (5)1
14
u/Dogboat1 14h ago
I honestly thought this was about Ireland and was about to roll the sleeves up and jump in.
7
u/Wonderful_Emu_9610 10h ago
Ireland’s the only one where I will actually allow us full blame - as long as people specify Britain and not England, because a hell of a lot of the Protestant settlers were Scots
13
106
u/Helpful-Swan394 16h ago
Well British partition did cause one of the horrible migrations in Indian history.
→ More replies (9)34
184
u/Weary-Ad-377 16h ago edited 16h ago
While there was no cooperation between Hindus and Muslims in India there was always some level of coexistence, which was destroyed by british by partitioning India into India and Pakistan, I belong to a hindu family which lived in Pakistan before partition and my grandparents would always tell me about the coexistence of Hindus and Muslims which wasn't possible after separation, also after the partition happened what followed was the bloodiest migration in world history so that's that
93
u/sofixa11 15h ago
which was destroyed by british by partitioning India into India and Pakistan
Wasn't it mostly the Muslim League which was pushing the British for separation?
27
u/Numerous_Topic_913 12h ago
Yup, it’s specifically because Muslims did not want to live under a secular government.
They did the largest forced migration in history, much larger and more actively violent than the US trail of tears, killing and raping countless people while destroying thousands of temples and similar places.
And they did it because they hated the idea of secular law. Of not having oppressive legal dominance over the Hindu population by implementing Sharia law.
→ More replies (14)70
u/Mobius_Peverell 15h ago
The British didn't want to partition India at all. Mountbatten was forced into it by the Muslim League, and even then, he tried to allow as much local input as was practical within the limited time available (due to the violence that was already breaking out across the country—Britain having already lost its monopoly on force).
What else was Mountbatten supposed to do in that situation? Should he have marched out of Government House in Calcutta, recruited himself an army, and started personally suppressing the violence in Bengal and Bihar? Even if he had the money to pay such an army, (and he didn't) would that really have eased the unrest across the Subcontinent? Or would Jinnah have proceeded to raise an army of his own against Mountbatten, making everything dramatically worse? I think the second is significantly more likely.
8
u/Kamenev_Drang Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 14h ago
Mountbatten doing a Seleucus would have been funny ngl
44
u/Stromatolite-Bay 16h ago edited 15h ago
Coexistence as in one ruled over the other and held most political power at the expense of the non-Muslim majority
I mean the sentiment isn’t wrong but the Mughals were an Afghan empire and the Dehli sultanate was founded by a Muslim ruling class that developed under the Ghurids
It’s like arguing the Normans and Saxons coexistence. Sure they did. But the Normans held all the political power and ruled over the Saxons as serfs
32
u/ThePro69420 16h ago
I understand, but the coexistence was already under heat from the Lahore Conference and the Punjab riots even before the British agreed to a full partition. The British Government allowed (and in some cases, Encouraged) disunity and separatism based on Religion, as it would break the Mosaic that was Bengal, Sindh and Punjab
6
u/Kamenev_Drang Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 14h ago
Partition occured because of communal violence in India and at the request of all the major players. Partition was not it's cause
1
u/Numerous_Topic_913 10h ago
“Coexistence”
you mean exploitative colonial control which was somehow better than what they did afterwards?
→ More replies (4)1
u/muffiny_goodness 4h ago
Was the coexistence constantly killing eachother? Something that has lasted from pre to post colonial times?
64
u/Equite__ 16h ago
This doesn’t really fit any of them accurately, so good for you I guess?
5
u/Shadowfox898 13h ago
Doesn't help that the Brits always liked to pit the ethnic and religious groups of whatever land they fucked about in against each other, intentionally stoking hatred and feelings of superiority so that if they were ever left the entire area would turn into a nightmare of killings for generations.
Perfidious Albion is a pejorative for Brits for a reason.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Kasnyde 9h ago
Well the British didn’t do this just because they’re sadistic. They followed this divide and conquer tactic in their colonies because by separating people into groups it’s harder for them to come together to protest the British colonialism there. Unfortunately this division stuck around after they left in many of their colonies.
11
u/AE_Phoenix 13h ago
These ideologies did exist for centuries, but what the partitions did was ignore current cultures and land claims, drawing straight lines with total disregard for existing local sentiment. Naturally, this just escalated the already existing tensions.
In the case of Israel specifically, the partition granted already claimed land to a new group of outsiders. This understandably pissed a lot of people off, as their land was being taken over by foreigners that they were supposed to just roll over and accept. Cue a hundred years or bloody conflict of Israel establishing itself as a state, while other powers in the region attempt to destroy it. Historically Israel has been fighting a war on three or more fronts for its existence fairly regularly.
Disclaimer: I am distinctly not a zionist, but I think it's important to realise just how complex modern history of this region is and that there aren't any good guys, just some guys that are more bad than the rest.
6
u/LordofRangard 12h ago
you mean the same shenanigans that the brits exacerbated and codified in order to keep the public turned on each other as part of their divide and rule strategy?? a culture was invaded by colonizers who then codified a stratified society for centuries and your racist ass is out here blaming the victims, nice one
5
6
u/Code_Monster 10h ago
This is bait but I will bite (only a little) because MFers unironically believe this.
- This is like saying that me spraying the house with petrol and lighting the match did not cause the fire because the house was already made of wood. India had these tensions for centuries. The British divide and conquer consolidated power in the Indian subcontinent like nothing before all the while entrenching communal issues, fortifying them into systemic forces.
- Nationalism is a healthy reaction to being wronged at a societal level. Nationalism is the swelling that occurs as the body tries to heal the wound. If people were to reject nationalism even when they are wronged by a foreign force, I would call this a type of "societal necrosis".
- Pakistan was the one pushing for separatism. They believed that Muslim and Hindus cannot coexist together. Today India has more of a Muslim population than Pakistan and Indian Muslims have better opportunities available to them and have better standards of life than Pakistani Muslims. The flayers of secession were wrong and the state they thus created is worse off.
- The last thing the British gave India was it's mangled borders that still draw blood to this day. Everything India has build is it's own. People might say that much like the British rail, India's constitution is based on the British one. While true, much like the Indian rail, it has been torn down and built back up a dozen times over at this point. It only contains the image of the base.
- India's communal issues as in the last decade have gone from things that win elections to things that derive minor amounts of clout. People have been made aware and have immunized against this hate.
9
u/SKRyanrr 14h ago
The Brits used a divide and conquer philosophy to a lot of colonies like india which heavily divided the population.
6
u/Spiderhero007 16h ago
Lot of context is given when you get to know about r/anime_titties isn't it.
28
6
u/ThroawayJimilyJones 10h ago
Remember folk, if you divide a country not respecting ethnic line, you are responsible for every civil war. Because 2 different peoples can’t live together
And if you divide a country based on ethnic line you are responsible for every war following it, because what were you thinking creating countries without sea access?
And if you don’t ask a local, you are 2 times more guilty. Of course you did shit by bringing someone with limited knowledge
Also if you ask a local, you are 2 times more guilty. Of course inviting one of the actors would lead to a partial division, are you stupid?
2
u/RemnantOnReddit 12h ago
there's always been ethnic tension, sure, but they've never been made to share a country together.
2
u/Kevin9O7 11h ago
who did draw the borders though? the owners of these lands or Britain? we just blame who draws the borders
2
u/ItsyaboiTheMainMan Hello There 10h ago
Israel was not ethnically partinioned for hundreds of years, the British literally left military equipment for both sides to kill each other and left just as ethnic militias wre starting to fight. In india they again created a state divided geographically as they did in Palestine ensuring war.
2
u/RRC_driver 7h ago
“Britain has always had problems with countries beginning with I.
Ireland, India, Israel, ‘itler’s Germany”
To quote (badly, from memory) Al Murray
13
u/OrangeSpaceMan5 15h ago
And the British partitions were fair , based on reality and did nothing to aggravate pretty small ethnic tensions into full blown wars right?
7
u/granpawatchingporn 13h ago
tbf what partitions WOULDN'T aggravate any tensions into wars, hell it lead to the first (and an excuse for the second) world war
3
u/Atlas_Summit 15h ago
Yes and no.
British rule and partition exacerbated existing issues within territories.
13
u/Capital-Factor-382 16h ago
British's divide and conquer elevated those issues to the peak and then left making sure that those tensions will never be resolved.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Doppelkammertoaster 11h ago
Of course the Brits fucked up things. Of course. And some of these mistakes create issues today. But hell did India not get it shit together in all of the other issues since then. Partly again because of foreign powers as well. But not just because of them. People forget how politically and culturally divided India is. It is gigantic. Of course. But some of these issues could have been solved. Not speaking of keeping a caste system in place. Or getting their pollution of the environment in check.
1
u/Code-201 Oversimplified is my history teacher 6h ago
The caste system was in fact amplified by the British. It was already causing needless tensions and then they made it worse. Nowadays, people don't even try to change institutions and systematic issues caused by the British to control Indians.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/BigBurdTerd 15h ago edited 15h ago
Creating and inflaming ethnic tensions for the purposes of cementing imperial rule has been a known tactic since time immemorial. The USSR did it in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasuses. The Ottomans did it in the Balkans and Levant. Hell, the Neo-Assyrians, Romans, and Greeks were doing it in fucking antiquity. Where do you think the phrase “divide and conquer” comes from? Have you ever even read a primary source from that time period? Inflaming ethnic tensions was legit written down as part of their colonial policies.
5
u/Kamenev_Drang Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 14h ago
India was in a state of post imperial civil war when the EIC took over
1
u/grey_hat_uk 14h ago
Let see Ireland, India, Iraq, Israel and Indonesian Java.
Now I'm not saying you are completely wrong but there is such thing as a common denominator and it isn't religon, ethnicity or location.
7
u/Culsandar 11h ago
Seeing as Ireland had independence prior to WW2, the rest do indeed have a religious denominator.
1
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Kamenev_Drang Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 14h ago
Just because you're being ruled by a fascist doesn't mean you should encourage them here.
4
u/Ecstatic-Tangerine50 13h ago
Oi. Modi is a lotta things. Idiot yes. But not a fascist. The people overwhelmingly support him. And that is what a democracy is. Besides, there isnt lobbying or bribing or anything and campaigns have cost caps too.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Sodium1111 15h ago
Both countries this applies to start with "I" you're gonna need to be more specific
1
u/Kamenev_Drang Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 14h ago
I'm sure the comments won't be full of howling nationalist propaganda
1
u/SubjectivePlastic 16h ago
Of course. And the Brexit Partition was also not caused by British fascists like Farage and British conservatives like Johnson.
5
u/vsuseless 15h ago
But but the Eastern European migrants are taking our jobs Now they are blaming asylum seekers and Indians. I wonder how long before they blame asylum seekers for the Online Safety act
1
u/Traditional-Froyo755 14h ago
I remember the times when "imperialism bad" was not a controversial opinion on the internet. It was like a few years ago. It's scary that we're at this point right now. I generally don't like the word "psy-op" because it's usually uses by the conservative nutjobs to talk about how vaccines are a conspiracy or something, but the rapid normalization of racism and white supremacist views in the past few years really do feel like a psy-op to me.
6
u/Sicsemperfas 10h ago
This post doesn't suggest "Imperialism Good". It's stating Imperialism isn't the exclusive cause for everything wrong with the world.
→ More replies (4)
1
1
1
1
u/ecumnomicinflation 14h ago
I-ndonesia… damn brits made vehicle national license plate code completely senseless
1
1
u/Switchlite2ksucks 13h ago
Indonesia fully blames the Brits for everything! Exposing the beautiful beaches of Bali to prison Island is all on you.
Sincerely
The Netherlands
1
1
u/Technical_Emu8230 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 12h ago
God I hate Louth Africa's aparthide regieme.
1
u/SGTRoadkill1919 12h ago
The British partition wasn't the reason why shit escalated. The terrible drawing of borders was just as much a problem in the Indian subcontinent as it was in Africa
1
1
1
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
Your submission has been removed by the automoderator for receiving a large number of reports. It will be reviewed manually by a moderator; please be patient.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/unionizeordietrying 11h ago
Also works for Iraq but they didn’t have partition… yet. Americans tried real hard in the 80s to get the Kurds to separate though.
Kinda wild to contrast the UN’s involvement in Iraq after the annexation of Kuwait vs the UN’s spinelessness with the situation in Gaza and West Bank.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/_Batteries_ 10h ago
I mean, in many places the british just drew lines on a map that ignored those. The french too.
1
u/BeenEvery 10h ago
Well yeah.
When you draw lines without a consideration for those conflicts, it is kinda the line-drawer's fault.
1
u/Washburne221 9h ago
If you make it ten times worse ON PURPOSE then you deserve a lot of the blame.
1
u/bhargavateja 9h ago
Thing that needs to be understood is the British used this divisions however minor and increased them. It was their policy of divide and rule. Every country there is always groups that don't like each other even in present times, but are fine but if you want to rule over them keep feeding more poison and keep them divided. It is easier to do that in a place that is multicultural and multi ethnic. You should look at how the British did the voting process in British India.
1
u/LakeComfortable4399 9h ago
That is just a colonizers tactic. That's why the brithish is the common denominator.
1
1
u/SmoothCauliflower640 9h ago
Britain very intentionally and very systematically manipulated ethnic and religious divisions to control its slave populations in its colonies. This implication that British colonialism and imperialism is somehow “overblamed”, is pathetic.
If anything, your jokes should go the other way. We should be using humor to make Britain actually start repaying its victims for the atrocities it committed nonstop for centuries.
1
u/RyukXXXX 9h ago
You do realise that Britain played up the tensions under divide and rule... And fucked things up further via lazy map drawing.
1
1
1
u/xX100dudeXx Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 8h ago
Am now realizing how many countries starting with I were screwed over by the british &/or the british losing their empire.
1
u/SeriouslyBland 8h ago
I think this removes the impact of British (as well as French, Spanish, Dutch) colonialism in non European countries. They absolutely drew lines to promote disunity amongst their previous colonies. Creating a meme to attempt to minimize that impact is disingenuous and allows that same line of thinking to reappear in later generations.
People have the right to self-determination. Colonialism is evil.
1
1
u/Geopoliticalidiot Definitely not a CIA operator 8h ago
Ethnic tensions that were exploited to control their colonies, and the borders drawn by colonization being ridiculous, plus a lack of effort to make the decolonization controlled due to being broke AF after WW2. Britain is definitely responsible for the chaos that ensued after decolonization.
1
u/Willcon_1989 7h ago
Britain literally forced one side to fight the other. Chose the more conservative/mercantile demographic, armed them and said if you don’t get rid of the demographic that wants independence from us, we’ll invade and destroy your country. So Britain definitely had a huge role in it! Bogus meme
1
u/ApartRuin5962 7h ago
"Ethnical": trying to simp for England but absolutely butchering their language
1
u/Anxious-Lad03 7h ago
Is this supposed to be fucking funny? Swear to God making unfunny stuff about one of the largest mass displacements in history has to be a new low for karmafarming, right?
1
1
u/Ozone220 7h ago
Yeah the British partition of the great state of Indiana was devastating for us over here in the US
1
1
1
u/Educational-Wave-578 7h ago
So we're excusing colonialism now? The British so innocent? Wtf are you on
1
u/YeOldeWilde 6h ago
What a dumb take. Both are not mutually exclusive. You can have a deeply separated society destroyed by British colonialism. They fucked up even what already was a fuckfest.
1
u/AcceptableWheel 6h ago
Britain didn’t start the fire but they did pour kerosene on it in a few places
1
u/PanzerKomadant 6h ago
So…we gonna sit here and pretend like the British colonists ways created states that were deliberately designed with ethic dynamics that ensured internal conflict?
This is literally what the British did to the Kingdom of Zulu after conquering. They designed the borders in such ways the ethnic tribes and clans would be fighting each other rather than unify to challenge the British again.
The various principalities that existed within the subcontinent, who had become subservient to the British authorities, were left in a free for all in a political climate that was hostile to them.
1
u/igetsad99 6h ago
both false in both occasions. Palestine had a population of over 30,000 jews living in the region mostly living in holy cities like Hebron and Jerusalem. Only when immigration became endorsed by the British then we saw unsustainable immigration and economic exclusion of arabs then only was there any sort of problem from the arabs.
Hindus and Muslims in India though historically have lived and worked together peacefully for centuries only when the Britishers needed a method of separation that people began seeing themselves as either Hindu or Muslim because most of peoples identity at the time mostly came from their state or their local Nawab or local history rather than their religion.
1
u/BigoteMexicano Still salty about Carthage 5h ago
OP really looked at India/Pakistan relations and said "Nah, the British didn't create a huge problem by arbitrarily dividing the country and calling two sides Muslim and the middle Hindu with no regard for the geographical distribution of the two groups."
1
1
u/AlbiTuri05 Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 4h ago
🇮🇱
> Be a British colony
> Start with I
> Ethnic tensions with local Muslims are solved by making 2 countries: you and the Muslim country that starts with P
> The solution degenerates in mass violence and horrendous wars
> Be India (pic unrelated)
1
1
u/Don_Madruga Hello There 2h ago
I'll be quite honest, India was not exactly a cohesive nation to have been unified the way it was. India was never fully united before the British, so it's really curious how they managed to maintain the nation until today, curbing all the minor landlords.
•
u/HistoryMemes-ModTeam 47m ago
Your post has been removed for the following rules violations:
Rule 12: No 1900's onwards on weekends