歷史上，英國對待美國和對待印度的殖民政策相似嗎?（一）

Charles Hiikie
No.
In India we have the native people's laws respected and codified. The people increase in number exponentially. Colonisation by Europeans is prohibited.
America was where religious extremists and criminals were sent. When the British authorities tried to stop their kin from expanding and killing the natives - the British authorities were expelled.
From that point the so called Americans steal an entire continent.
Imagine if the Indian population had gone from 60m to 2m and were replaced by white people. That's the USA.

不相似
在印度，我們尊重并編纂了原住民的法律。人口數(shù)量呈指數(shù)級增長，禁止歐洲人殖民。
美國是宗教極端分子和罪犯被送往的地方。當英國當局試圖阻止他們的親屬擴張并殺害當?shù)厝藭r，英國當局反而被驅(qū)逐了。
從那時起，所謂的美國人偷走了整個大陸。
想象一下，如果印度人口從6000萬變?yōu)?00萬，取而代之的是白人，那是成為另一個美國了。

Dr. Balaji Viswanathan
Indian History : Do Indian history books state the true picture of events that happened during the colonial period? Was the British Raj as cruel as we are told?
Indian government's history books don't fully state the true picture. They just gloss over the evils of colonialism and various invasions. Negativity is often pushed under the carpet and the history books put a brave, optimistic face. In fact, many Indian students graduate school with a sort of Stockholm syndrome thinking colonial era as a sort of good period. Thus, they easily succumb to the Rudyard Kipling's notion of "white man's burden" - the Europeans "civilizing" the "savage" masses. In fact, it always blows my mind that some Indian students think of colonialism as good to India.
In the history books we had, the emphasis was primarily on Indian freedom activists and very little was covered on key periods such as the carnage that came after 1857. Indian students know a lot about Sepoy Mutiny and what happened in Meerut. The question is do they know what happened in the few years post that period? The nation was brutally silenced and Indians stopped even contemplating a struggle for decades. The composition of institutions such as the Army was radically changed whose dregs carries to this date.
Again, Babur's rule didn't come on a bed of roses. Indian books just quickly move over the details on how Mughal rule came up and Aurangzeb's role on breaking up India. Regarding Marathas, the books neither talk about their glorious expansion nor about the reign of terror they brought in India's east.
In general, Indian school history books take a very gentle route, both to protect children from gory details as well as to please every bit of political constituency.

印度歷史：印度歷史書是否真實描述了殖民時期發(fā)生的事件？英國的統(tǒng)治像我們被告知的那樣殘酷嗎？
印度政府的歷史書并沒有完全說明真實情況。他們完全是在粉飾殖民主義和各種侵略的罪惡。消極情緒經(jīng)常被掩蓋，歷史書展現(xiàn)了一副勇敢、樂觀的面孔。事實上，許多印度學生在畢業(yè)時都有一種斯德哥爾摩綜合癥，認為殖民時代是一個好時期。因此，他們很容易屈服于魯?shù)蟻喌隆ぜ妨郑ㄋ鶎懶≌f）闡述的“白人的負擔”觀念——歐洲人“教化”了“野蠻”大眾。事實上，一些印度學生認為殖民主義對印度有好處，這總是讓我感到震驚。
在我們現(xiàn)有的歷史書中，重點主要放在印度的自由活動人士身上，而對1857年之后發(fā)生的大屠殺等關鍵時期的報道卻很少。印度學生對印度兵士的叛變和密魯特發(fā)生的事情知之甚多。問題是，他們知道那之后的幾年里發(fā)生了什么嗎？這個國家被殘酷地壓制了，印度人幾十年來甚至沒有考慮過斗爭。軍隊等機構的組成發(fā)生了根本的變化，其糟粕一直延續(xù)到今天。
同樣，巴布爾的統(tǒng)治并非一帆風順。印度書籍很快就跳過了莫臥兒王朝是怎么來的以及奧朗則布在分裂印度中的扮演的角色的細節(jié)方面。關于馬拉塔人，書中既沒有提到他們輝煌的擴張，也沒有提到他們給印度東部帶來的恐怖統(tǒng)治。
總的來說，印度學校的歷史書走的是一條非常溫和的路線，既保護孩子們免受血腥細節(jié)的傷害，又取悅每一位政治選民。

Nistha Tripathi
No, I think our history books (I hope you mean textbooks) do NOT depict as true a picture as they should. I did not end up understanding how much British Raj hurt India and its development by reading those books. But now, after getting a broader perspective by reading more books and following more informed people, I think I get a sense of how much we were robbed of not only wealth, but our glory, dignity, heritage, and skills.
I would recommend you watch this video in which Dr Tharoor does an epic job of articulating it -
Britain Does Owe Reparations on youtube.com
Highlights from it-
India's share of the world economy when Britain arrived on the shores was 23% and by the time Britain left, it came to below 4%
India went from being a world-famous exporter of finished cloth to an importer, went from having 27% to world trade to less than 2%
Colonialist dislike Robert Clive bought their rotten boroughs in England on the proceeds on their loot in India while taking the Hindi word loot into their dictionaries as well as their habits
Between 15 and 29 million indians died of starvation in British induced famines the most famous example of course was the great Bengal famine during the second world war when 4 million people died because Winston Churchill deliberately diverted essential supplies from civilians in Bengal to reserve stockpiles for Europeans. Churchill's only response to a telegram from the government in Delhi about people perishing in the famine was to ask why Gandhi hadn't died yet. (read more on The Ugly Briton)
India had to supply goods worth of 1B pounds in First and 1.25B pounds in Second World War - a debt never repaid.
There are so many other facts that you can find out. This is just a glimpse.
Lastly, while not factual, got to love this nice quote from him - "No wonder that the Sun never sets on the British Empire because even God couldn't trust the English in the dark"

不相似，我認為我們的歷史書（我希望你指的是教科書）沒有描繪出應有的真實畫面。讀了這些書，我最終沒搞明白英國統(tǒng)治對印度及其發(fā)展的傷害有多大。但現(xiàn)在，在通過閱讀更多的書籍和關注更多知情人士獲得了更廣闊的視角后，我想我意識到我們不僅被剝奪了財富，而且被剝奪了榮耀、尊嚴、遺產(chǎn)和技能。
我建議你看這段視頻，在視頻中，塔魯爾博士出色地闡述了這一點：油管上的英國確實拖欠賠償款（Britain Does Owe Reparations ）
它的重點：
當英國抵達印度時，印度在世界經(jīng)濟中所占的份額為23%，而當英國離開時，這一比例降至4%以下
印度從世界著名的成品布出口國變成了進口國，從占世界貿(mào)易的27%變成了不到2%
殖民主義者不喜歡羅伯特·克萊夫(Robert Clive)，他們用在印度掠奪的收益買下了英國腐朽的行政區(qū)，同時把印地語單詞“掠奪物（loot）”和他們的習慣納入了他們的詞典
1500萬到2900萬印度人死于英國引起的饑荒，最著名的例子當然是二戰(zhàn)期間的孟加拉大饑荒，當時有400萬人死亡，因為溫斯頓·丘吉爾故意把孟加拉平民的基本物資轉(zhuǎn)移到歐洲人的儲備中。丘吉爾對德里政府關于人們在饑荒中喪生的電報的唯一回應是問甘地為什么還沒有去世。（閱讀更多關于《丑陋的英國人》）
印度在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)中不得不供應價值10億英鎊的商品，在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)時不得不供應價值125億英鎊的貨物——這筆債務從未償還。
你還可以發(fā)現(xiàn)很多其他的事實，這只是冰山一角。
最后，雖然不是事實，但我很喜歡他的這句名言——“難怪大英帝國的太陽永不落，因為即使是上帝也不信任黑暗中的英國人。”
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Yellapu Koorma Pramodh
I would like to tell you a story.
A merchant does business with a village. He buys their produce and sells them finished goods. The merchant knows the true potential of the amenities available in the village - cheap labour, mines, raw material and a big market to sell to. In order to aid his goods loading process, he has built a ramp where goods can be carried easily from his trucks. Villagers look at the ramp and think that the merchant is doing a lot for their village selflessly. British is no different. The legacy they left - railways, barrages, roads - can be compared with the little ramp. If they have built that much infrastructure to aid their goods transport, imagine the raw material they shipped.
Shashi Tharoor gave a wonderful overview of effects Colonialism had on India -
British have built trains, barrages and dams but the big picture is to transport raw material easily, earn more revenue from the resources available through India.

我想給你們講個故事。
一個商人與一個村莊做生意。他購買他們的產(chǎn)品，然后將成品賣給他們。這位商人知道村里可用設施的真正潛力-廉價勞動力、礦山、原材料和一個大市場。為了幫助他裝載貨物，他建了一個斜坡，貨物可以很容易地從他的卡車上卸下來。村民們看著斜坡，認為這位商人無私地為他們的村莊做了很多事情。英國人也不例外，他們留下的遺產(chǎn)：鐵路、攔河壩、公路，這些可以與小斜坡相提并論。如果他們建造的那么多的基礎設施來是為了幫助他們運輸貨物，想象一下被他們運輸走的原材料吧。
沙?！に敔枌χ趁裰髁x對印度的影響進行了精彩的概述。
英國人建造了火車、攔河壩和水壩，但更大的目標是方便地運輸原材料，從印度可獲得的資源中賺取更多收入。

Anna Kuriakose
Were the British benevolent with India?
If:
a smart, savvy man knocked on your door,
made obeisance and requested a room to live in,
flattered you and gave you gifts, gained your trust and bribed your friends away,
then started giving you counsel on how to run your home; slowly started re-arranging your home,
eventually took over your best room, your best linen and best china, and your business and livelihood,
took your kids' toys away, and decided what they should and should not learn in school, decided what career they should choose,
and then one day, got hold of your bank cards and cheque books and started writing large cheques to himself,
spent your money to make his own place bigger, his business better and clothe/feed/educate his family better,
built an extension to your house to make his stay more comfortable - with your money,
bought new appliances and gadgets, with your money, all of which he kept primarily for his own use,
made you and your family work hard to feed his needs, made you dress to please him, talk in his accent to please him,
killed your first-born when he dared to protest at the this mistreatment,
smartly eliminated further opposition by getting your kids to fight among themselves,
fed you and your family scraps from his table, and put your kids to fighting his battles elsewhere,
starved one of your kids to death by stashing your food away behind locked doors,
even re-wrote the story of your family so that you never can explain to someone what your life would have been if he hadn't interfered,
and, eventually boasted to the world about all the wonderful changes he has brought to your house…h(huán)ow he brought new technology to your home, and how he has taught you to talk/walk/behave more fittingly like him…
Then:
even if other people believed him, would you? and would you call him benevolent?

英國對印度仁慈嗎？
如果：
一個聰明、精明的人敲你的門，
鞠了一躬，請求給他一個房間住，
奉承你，給你禮物，贏得你的信任，賄賂你的朋友，
然后開始就如何管理你的家給你建議；慢慢地開始重新布置你的家，
最終接管了你最好的房間，最好的亞麻布和最好的瓷器，以及你的生意和生計，
拿走孩子的玩具，決定他們在學校應該學什么和不應該學什么，決定他們應該選擇什么職業(yè)，
然后有一天，他拿到了你的銀行卡和支票簿，開始給自己開具大額支票，
花你的錢讓他擁有更大的地方，讓他的生意更好，讓他的家人在穿衣/吃飯/教育方面變得更好，
用你的錢擴建你的房子讓他住得更舒服，
用你的錢買新的電器和小工具，所有這些都是他自己用的，
讓你和你的家人努力滿足他的需求，讓你穿那些能取悅他的衣服，讓你用他的口音說話以取悅他，
殺了你的長子因為他敢于抗議這種虐待，
通過讓你的孩子們自己打架，巧妙地消除了進一步的反對意見，
讓你和你的家人吃他餐桌上的殘羹剩飯，讓你的孩子去別處為他而戰(zhàn)，
把你的食物藏在鎖著的門后餓死了你的一個孩子
甚至重寫了你的家庭故事，這樣你就永遠無法向別人解釋這些：如果沒有他的干涉，你的生活會是什么樣子，
最后，他向全世界夸耀他給你的家?guī)砹硕嗝雌婷畹淖兓?，他是如何把新技術帶到你的家里，他是如何教你更像他那樣說話、走路和表現(xiàn)。
然后：
就算別人相信他，你會相信他嗎?你會認為他是仁慈的嗎?

Sadaf Jamil
During the colonial period, India was ruled by the British government, and many British administrators played important roles in governing the country. Here are some of the notable British administrators who served in India:
1. Warren Hastings - the first Governor-General of India who served from 1774 to 1785.
2. Lord Cornwallis - served as Governor-General of India from 1786 to 1793 and is known for his administrative and legal reforms.
3. Lord William Bentinck - served as Governor-General of India from 1828 to 1835 and is credited with introducing significant social and educational reforms.
4. Lord Dalhousie - served as Governor-General of India from 1848 to 1856 and is known for his infrastructure development projects, including the construction of railways and telegraph lines.
5. Lord Curzon - served as Viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905 and is known for his efforts to modernize and streamline the administration of India.
These administrators played important roles in shaping the political, social, and economic landscape of India during the colonial period, but their legacies are also controversial and contested, as they were often criticized for their policies of exploitation and oppression.

在殖民時期，印度由英國政府統(tǒng)治，許多英國行政人員在治理國家中發(fā)揮了重要作用。以下是一些在印度任職的著名英國行政長官:
1、沃倫·黑斯廷斯，1774年至1785年任印度首任總督。
2、康沃利斯勛爵，1786年至1793年擔任印度總督，以其行政和法律改革而聞名。
3、威廉·本廷克勛爵（Lord William Bentinck），1828年至1835年擔任印度總督，被認為引入了重大的社會和教育改革。
4、達爾豪斯勛爵，1848年至1856年擔任印度總督，以其基礎設施開發(fā)項目而聞名，包括鐵路和電報線的建設。
5、寇松勛爵，1899年至1905年擔任印度總督，以致力于印度行政現(xiàn)代化和精簡而聞名。
在殖民時期，這些行政人員在塑造印度的政治、社會和經(jīng)濟格局方面發(fā)揮了重要作用，但他們的遺產(chǎn)也引發(fā)爭論和受到爭議，因為他們經(jīng)常因剝削和壓迫政策而受到批評。

Mohit Yadav
This will be a short answer as this is all I got from a Brit friend (Person of Indian Origin, he is 3rd generation Brit). According to him British History in itself is rather dynamic and to a large extent they remain preoccupied with their own affairs, the battle of kings and what not. There is not much focus on India which makes sense after all from a British perspective it was just another colony. There is a some sort of understanding that colonialism was exploitative, but most of the bad part is swept under the rug. There is no detailed economic analysis of colonialism like the way it's done in India, nor its discussed much in depth.
Also, even though attitude has changed considerably in the past years, but as per him as late as India's independence and even later on, Oxbridge has harbored historians perpetuating the myth that Raj was good for India and even though it was couched differently in words phrased differently from White Man's Burden but more or less it was the same thing.

這將是一個簡短的答案，因為這是我從一個英國朋友(印度裔，他是第三代英國人)那里得到的全部答案。據(jù)他說，英國歷史本身是充滿活力的，在很大程度上，他們?nèi)匀粚Ｗ⒂谧约旱氖聞眨瑖踔畱?zhàn)等等。對印度的關注并不多，畢竟從英國的角度來看，它只是另一個殖民地，這是有道理的。有一種理解是殖民主義是剝削性的，但大部分不好的部分都被掩蓋了。沒有像印度那樣對殖民主義進行詳細的經(jīng)濟分析，也沒有對其進行深入討論。
此外，盡管態(tài)度在過去幾年里發(fā)生了很大變化，但據(jù)他說，直到印度獨立，甚至更晚，牛津劍橋大學一直庇護著歷史學家，他們一直認為英國統(tǒng)治印度對印度是有好處的，盡管它在措辭上與白人的負擔不同，但或多或少是一樣的。

Sumit Mishra
I assume that "defeat" here means British loss of Jewel of The Crown "India". First of all, British defeat better say loss of the colony of India was nothing like a war where results were decided in number of days, and we came out at the result on a particular day. It was a movement. And the most important point is that "British loss of India" is actually "India winning freedom". Now it's upto us that we want to highlight British loss by making Indian freedom more of a British failure rather than India's extraordinary feat of winning freedom from greatest Empire of the time. We have chosen wisely to resort to celebrating India's freedom rather than celebrating British loss (a pessimistic look of the same event of history).

我認為這里的“失敗”意味著英國失去了皇冠上的寶石——“印度”。首先，英國的失敗更確切地說，失去印度殖民地不像一場在幾天內(nèi)決定結(jié)果的戰(zhàn)爭，而我們是在特定的一天得出結(jié)果的。這是一場運動。最重要的一點是，“英國失去印度”實際上是“印度贏得了自由”。現(xiàn)在輪到我們來強調(diào)英國的損失了，把印度的自由說成是英國的失敗，而不是印度從當時最偉大的帝國那里贏得自由的非凡壯舉。我們明智地選擇了慶祝印度的自由，而不是慶祝英國的損失（對同一歷史事件的悲觀看法）。

Rhys Matthews
British Colonialism is where the people of the British Isles (the United Kingdom, which at the time when colonialism occurred included the whole of Ireland), took ships around the world, and set up towns and military outposts in far off lands which had, prior to that point, no actual connection to the British Isles.
The British would establish their base in the region, and gradually take control of a territory through various means (like the other European countries like France and Germany), and once they controlled a territory, they could make it a colony - like South Africa, India (the British Raj) or Canada.
Gradually, more self-rule was given to British Colonies (such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand) with a few exceptions (Hong Kong for instance), until they were given independence and became their own countries.

英國殖民主義是指不列顛群島的人民(英國，在殖民主義發(fā)生的時候包括整個愛爾蘭)乘船環(huán)游世界，并在遙遠的土地上建立城鎮(zhèn)和軍事哨所，在此之前，這些土地與不列顛群島沒有實際聯(lián)系。
英國人會在該地區(qū)建立基地，并通過各種方式逐漸控制一塊領土(就像法國和德國等其他歐洲國家一樣)，一旦他們控制了一塊領土，他們就可以把它變成一個殖民地——就像南非、印度(受英國統(tǒng)治)或加拿大一樣。
漸漸地，除了少數(shù)例外（例如香港），英國殖民地（如加拿大、澳大利亞和新西蘭）獲得了更多的自治權，直到它們獲得獨立并成為自己的國家。

John Symon
The US has never been a British colony.
There were a number of British colonies in the eastern part of the North American continent. Thirteen of them if memory serves me right. They chose to stop being British, to join together in common cause, and to become an independent country.
Other parts of what we now call the United States of America were formerly colonies of other countries.

美國從來不是英國的殖民地。
在北美大陸的東部有許多英國殖民地。如果我沒記錯的話，有十三個。他們選擇不再作為英國人，而是加入共同的事業(yè)，成為一個獨立的國家。
我們現(xiàn)在所說的美利堅合眾國的其他地區(qū)以前是其他國家的殖民地。