May I suggest that conquest and occupation per se is bad ? (and illegal under international law, but colonists could care less)
The idea of "compassionate colonialism" makes about as much sense as "compassionate rape" (maybe she liked it after all?!? COME ON!). What if Britain had peacefully invested in India instead of pushing it all down their throats ? Could have bought much more civil society, universities etc. for the buck. But then that wasn't the goal... (a collateral benefit at best) (Btw, what about Israel shutting down Palestinian universities? Is less education supposed to DEcrease the # of suicide bombers?) Chris Arthur Cordell wrote: > Lawry, > > 2. There is no doubt that the British handled their responsibilities as > conquerors and occupiers badly > > > Arthur > > Compared to who? All conquerors and occupiers create and leave disruption. > British no worse than others, better than some. An Indian colleague speaks > well of the civil service, sytem of laws and sense of civil society left by > the British. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
