Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
Deflecting evaluations of one's conduct toward the conduct of another is considered unacceptable even in small children. There can be more than one bad thing in the world at a time.
We are discussing history, not the present. One does not need to like the past but one does need to understand it.

This argument started because Rory said that the British suppression of Thuggee and Suttee was the same as the present CCP's suppression of democracy in Hong Kong. I simply made the point that the fact the British had conquered India had nothing to do with the moral rightness of supressing those cults and that, in many cases, British rule was no worse than local rule for local people in terms of outcomes.

This incoherent principle cannot fairly be applied without producing absurdities. It does not pass the "straight face" test. All you're communicating here is that you dislike post-colonial standards. For some reason.
No, you end up with absurdities if you try to apply modern standards. Absurdities like the belief that the religious authorities burned people at the stake because they were sadistic, or that people reported witches so that they could appropriate their land.

That's what happens when you apply modern standards, but if you try to understand the standards of the time you can try to actually understand the psychology of those involved.

I'm pretty sure British colonial rule was brutal, destructive, and rapacious. You conquered people to steal their resources and labor. The fact that others - Mughals, Belgians, Americans - were doing the same is no excuse. The past was a pretty awful time; it's OK to learn from history.
Really, because I'm not "pretty sure" about anything historical? Again, you're applying a certain prism (Colonialism = evil) and then assuming you know the intentions of the British traders and administrators.

By the way, none should miss the irony of Phil denouncing "moral relativism" while trying to assure us that British crimes were "objectively better" than contemporary powers' crimes. Down with apologism (or soon you'll hear the tankie line about Stalin's methods singlehandedly elevating and rescuing Mother Russia).
I said nothing of "British crimes", I imagine I know more about them than you do, I spoke merely of British Colonial Administration, unless you mean all historical government is a "crime."

Does that pass your "straight face" test?