When you compare that to the 300,000 British killed it kind of puts things into perspective.
Constructed memory is a problem in many countries, not just the ones who were the cause of the world wars.
In Australia we celebrate ANZAC Day, a day which most aussies remember war veterans who proudly fought in Gallipoli, but we lost the battle significantly. I bet half of us Australians wouldnt even know we lost that particular battle
instead of 'celebrating' ANZAC day, shouldnt it be a 'commemoration'.... its hard to 'celebrate' a slaughter isnt it...
waging war and causing genocides are not the same thing. alexander and hitler are two different animals.
if its war you are talking about, then yes, pretty much everyone. if its deliberate hacking of people in village after village you are talking about, then i stand by my point.
well it certainly wasnt all the european peoples. it was mainly the 6 colonial countries and then the would-be colonial, germany.
if you mean rome, yes the first to mordenise. if you mean entire europe, then i have to differ.
of the 4 peoples i mentioned the ones to cause the first widespread mass murder were the mongols.
i find it very useful. at least that way we know that all of humanity wasnt to blame but only certain pockets. thats why i different from you said "european peoples" caused a lot of damage - cos that makes it seem like all of europe was colonial and/or nazi. when it was about 7-8 countries out of 40 odd.
i would feel just as smug had i been vietnamese, scandinavian, or from bolivia. these arnt the countries who did the attacking or mass killing.
The Muslims and Hindus in India are a fine example of attempted genocide. Wiping out an entire religion can be classed as genocide and that is exactly what was attempted during Partition.
The Indians have always been involved in violent acts, right from the beginning of the Mughal Empire. The Mughals, Marathas and whoever else were always warring with each other. Over history, every race or religion has had their attempt at power.
India was already in tatters when the British arrived....thanks to the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb....if Aurangzeb had kept on the same path as the great Emperor Akbar India would have beaten off the British. The fact that Aurangzeb had weakened the empire made it easier for the British to set up and colonise...no in that regard you are wrong
you have your brain in your arse.
the mughals are people from turkmenistan who cvame and ruled india after killing as many hindus as they could. pretty much the way today's australins rule australia after wiping out - in this case entirely - the natives.
the marathas were indians to the core for all known history and they offered tremendous challenge to the mughals and the other muslims (who were with no exception from arabia or afghanistan or turkmenistan or iran or uzbegistan etc. ie. all invaders). if you are saying that challenging an invader/oppressor is a crime then you are insane.
but you are right in your first paraghapgh tho - wiping out an entire religion is indeed an attempt to genocide and thats what the muslim rulers from various invading countries tried to do. it wasnt attempted during partition - it was attempted from the 7th century AD when the first arabs came to india - and continued till partition - when all the bottled up animosity of both sides (hindus for having received all that stick for 100 years and having to leave behind a land that was always theirs - and muslims for having failed to establish "dar-ul-islam' in india) spilled out.
get your facts right.
and read this page - i could supply 100s, including history books from all top american colleges - but for now only this -
and maybe these books -
question - why are the "hindu kush" mountains called so and what do they mean??
no india wasnt in tatters at all. at least we still had 25% of the world economic output up till year 1800. i can show you research papers by the HIER (harvard institute of economic research) to that effect.
the british filled their "raj indian army" with muslims dear, to rule over us.
well if youre saying the indians are not the mughals...which they obviously did not originate in Indian, then who are the indians? The Indus Valley Civilisation was taken over by Arians from the Iranian Plateau. This would mean that the Indians have an Arian background wouldnt it? It is possible though that the Indus Valley inhabitants did migrate east but it is yet to be proven
so you must be a Hindu then Indian Summer?
Well, I agree, Hindus have been on the recieving end of many wrong doings.
i am saying the mughals are not indians, not indians are not mughals (which is also true).
as for the "indus valley civilization" thing you keep refering about - and the way they were "taken care of" by iranians... i cant really explain all of that here even if i tried. you could see the wiki entry on "aryan invasion theory" or read this book.
if you have questions, then send me a pm, i shall supply you all the links.
FACT - the first use of the word "arya" was in india, in a language called sanskrit, and means "noble". the chronologically second use of the word was in "aryana/airan/iran" or persia (who are the desendants of "parasu" - which is where persia gets its name from). the other people/countries who get their names from the root word "arya" are the germanic people called "allans" and the country/people called "ireland". the first time the word "hindu" was used, was when the iranians/persians/"descandants of parasu", started calling the people on the eastern side of the "sindhu" (indus) river, as the "hindus", since the sanskrit "s" is equivalent to the iranian "h". before that the word hindu never existed. we called ourselves "arya" and our "ism" was called "sanatan dharma" = (eternal duty)
harvard paper....your paper is probably opiniated, supporting a particular argument, as most papers do!
the raj army also had hindus....
as aslo have been guilty of one of history's greatest crimes - inflicted on its own people, (like the commie holocousts) - the caste system. i have no defence for that.
its not my paper. read history of economics or keep shut. i can supply the research paper if you want.
its a known fact that till 1800, china and india shared 50 percent of the world's wealth.
china always had the monolopy on silk. we on spices. we have been the leading producer of pepper for a mere 4000 years now. dig?? read Pliny and Arrian (roman historians) and see how they blamed india for making rome hedonistic (we dupmed our surplus goods on rome, the way china dupms on usa today). or better yet read a bit of hisroty of economics and see which countries were traditionally rich and which werent.
the way today's australins rule australia after wiping out - in this case entirely - the natives.
the facts are that the mughal empire was breaking up when the british arrived. The marathas were rebelling and other states were also starting to break away from the mughal empire. My argument is that if Aurangzeb did not reintroduce the jizya and actually supported the hindu faith like Akbar than the mughals could have defeated the british
of course u fucking had a nice wealth base.....fucking the majority of the trade from east indies to europe went through india....nothing to do with the crumbling of the mughal empire though....it wasnt a lack of wealth that brought down the mughal empire it was too many differing attitudes towards your fucked up religions (muslim and hindu)
well wait and see until they decipher the Indus language...then we will know who the Indians are
yes and we dont differentiate between mughals and british. both were oppressors and both were invaders. one caused religion based carnage and another caused economic loot.
marathas (sachin tendulkar is a maratha) were amongst the only indians who had managed to weather the islamic onslaught and keep fighting the muslims till the last day and then fought the british too.
akbar never supported the hindu faith at all - he wanted to make islam more acceptable to hindus, by taking/inducting a piece or two from hinduism into his brand of islam, the way the missionaries do it all over the world (eg - in scandivavia the churches are built on/like viking temples. the festival of christmas likewise has nothign to do with Christ. it is an act of christianity inducting the pagan concept of celebrating the winter solstice, to make christianity more acceptable. btw, the date for christmas, was also chosen in similar ways - 25th december is when Mithras was supposedly born, and the cult of Mithras was very popular in rome).
The indian sub-continent had one of the wealthiest economies in the world before the British took control of it, and re-directed the wealth back to blighty. A bit like the way the U.S takes control of foreign economic wealth today and redirects it back into American business under the guise of the free market, and with the help of corrupt puppet regimes and officials, and the threat of military intervention - i.e, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq.
not only did it go through india - it CAME from india. all the raw materials. most of the rest came from china.
i know that...im not argueing against that
read my posts
im argueing that the break up of the mughal empire made it easier for the british to colonise!
The break up wasnt caused by a lack of wealth beacues they were wealthy, it was caused by trouble amongst the peoples attitudes