DireWolfSpirit Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Koh-i-Noor How it was stolen- Its new owner, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, willed the diamond to the Hindu temple of Jagannath in Puri, in modern-day Odisha, India.[21] However, after his death in 1839, the East India Companydid not execute his will.[22] On 29 March 1849, following the conclusion of the Second Anglo-Sikh War, a British flag was raised over the citadel of Lahore (now in Pakistan), and the province of Punjab was formally annexed to British India, which enforced the 1846 Treaty of Lahore, ceding all the Maharaja's assets to the company. The Governor-General in charge of the ratification of this treaty was the Marquess of Dalhousie. The manner of his aiding in the transfer of the diamond was criticized even by some of his contemporaries in Britain. Although some thought it should have been presented as a gift to Queen Victoria by the East India Company, it is clear that Dalhousie strongly believed the stone was a spoil of war, and treated it accordingly, ensuring that it was presented to her by Maharaja Duleep Singh, the youngest son of Ranjit Singh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 6 hours ago, Crixus said: I know right? The audacity! This made me laugh, especially the sheer number of letters the petitioner's been writing in vain, and Cameron's words at the end: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/12034509/Pakistan-petition-demands-return-of-Kohinoor-diamond-from-Britain.html I mean, it's almost as though the British PM acknowledged the sheer amount of looting the Brits indulged in during colonial times, isn't it? Saying their museums would be 'empty' if they started returning stolen appropriated stuff. Hilariously, India has its own petition for the Kohinoor... ah, subcontinent! Never change. Sounds like they'll get it back at the same time Greece receives the Elgin Marbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britannia Pacificatrix Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 On 13/02/2016 at 3:58 AM, The King In Black said: I have many thoughts on this subject, but first : who was so desperate to create an alt account just for this argument, and why are you so afraid to use your real account ? I have seen many pathetic things happening here, but this just might be the worst. Was this and your other comment directed at me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Honestly, I think lumping about 450 years of history together as "colonialism" is... A bit problematic. The concept isn't entirely vacuous, but the consequences, methods, time periods, etc. were so varied that it's hard to lump it together in one thing. The slave-merchants of the 17th and 18th century were not the EIC officials of the 19th, or were they the spanish conquistadors of the 16th centuries. I think that when speaking of colonial atrocities it's probably more useful to look at specific issues/countries rather than trying to put 450 years of history involving hundreds of modern-day countries into the same box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 13 hours ago, Galactus said: Honestly, I think lumping about 450 years of history together as "colonialism" is... A bit problematic. The concept isn't entirely vacuous, but the consequences, methods, time periods, etc. were so varied that it's hard to lump it together in one thing. The slave-merchants of the 17th and 18th century were not the EIC officials of the 19th, or were they the spanish conquistadors of the 16th centuries. I think that when speaking of colonial atrocities it's probably more useful to look at specific issues/countries rather than trying to put 450 years of history involving hundreds of modern-day countries into the same box. Common sense and appreciation of differences? on the internet? what's wrong with lazy ad hominems and cross-boarder stereotyping? That's what I want to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britannia Pacificatrix Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 On 12/02/2016 at 10:35 PM, Fat Mac said: I'm not big on saying one civilization is better or worse than another, but 29 million Indians died from famine caused by British policies. Never mind the hundreds of thousands to millions that died violently in rebellions and insurrections. Or the fact that the British got an entire people hooked on proto -heroin so they could force them to be dependent. It wouldn't call it a drop in the ocean compared to the Communists, especially if you compare just one civilization to several. Not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 What, precisely, is not true about those allegations? Because to me, they seem pretty much founded in fact and reliable sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 54 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said: What, precisely, is not true about those allegations? Because to me, they seem pretty much founded in fact and reliable sources. He tried to claim Howard Zinn was a poor academic/historian earlier in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.