Jump to content

USUrobert

Members
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About USUrobert

  • Rank
    Beginner

Profile Information

  • Team
    Utah State

Recent Profile Visitors

6,529 profile views
  1. What it sounded like to me was the coach that was holding him said "I got you" to him and then he said "Nobody got me, n**a", rather than "Nobody calls me n***er".
  2. It's not clear that the wars were viewed as struggles for independence or self-rule at the time they happened regardless of whether a cohesive, unified India existed.
  3. While I agree with you on non-violence as an effective strategy, just as MLK was not the only actor in the Civil Rights Movement, neither was Gandhi in the Indian Independence movement. Subash Chandra Bose had raised an army to fight the British and on the other side having the British Indian Army as the largest volunteer force in human history also helped as the Indian masses were loyal to Gandhi. Mass civil disobedience showed that if the movement were to turn violent, the country would become ungovernable. Most importantly, after WW2, Great Britain no longer had the resources to govern India, so, while indirectly, war did help the country achieve independence. Regarding the topic at hand, while Gandhi was personally against any use of violence, he also opposed the Indian Arms Act which restricted Indians from owning weapons (and had been put in place due to the mutiny). The main reason the British left India so hastily (thus causing the Partition violence) was due to the communal rioting stemming from Jinnah's Direct Action Day (and taking a more macro view, the British divide and rule policy along with Nehru's commitment to a centralized socialist government which made Muslims feel alienated).
  4. Your last paragraph is what I was getting at, it wasn't until the beginning of the 20th Century that Indian Independence/self-rule became an idea, there wasn't an India until the British unified it. These other wars were just attempts by rulers to protect/win back their own kingdoms, viewing them as wars for independence is Indian nationalist revisionist history.
  5. Wouldn't really consider the Sepoy Mutiny or Anglo-Mysore Wars as wars for Indian independence, but rather wars between the British empire and individual smaller kingdoms that would later become part of what is now India. Gandhi, FDR and WW2 all had huge effects on independence.
  6. I enjoy reading both of their posts, but I don't understand jack's feud with lofazzs, whom I consider to be one of the most underrated posters on here.
  7. I take that as a compliment. We've come to take Utah/BYU's place.
×