历史上，英国对待美国和对待印度的殖民政策相似吗?（一）
正文翻译
Do British history books treat US and Indian colonialism similarly?
历史上，英国对待美国和对待印度的殖民政策相似吗?
Do British history books treat US and Indian colonialism similarly?
历史上，英国对待美国和对待印度的殖民政策相似吗?
评论翻译
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，我们尊重并编纂了原住民的法律。人口数量呈指数级增长，禁止欧洲人殖民。
美国是宗教极端分子和罪犯被送往的地方。当英国当局试图阻止他们的亲属扩张并杀害当地人时，英国当局反而被驱逐了。
从那时起，所谓的美国人偷走了整个大陆。
想象一下，如果印度人口从6000万变为200万，取而代之的是白人，那是成为另一个美国了。
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，我们尊重并编纂了原住民的法律。人口数量呈指数级增长，禁止欧洲人殖民。
美国是宗教极端分子和罪犯被送往的地方。当英国当局试图阻止他们的亲属扩张并杀害当地人时，英国当局反而被驱逐了。
从那时起，所谓的美国人偷走了整个大陆。
想象一下，如果印度人口从6000万变为200万，取而代之的是白人，那是成为另一个美国了。
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.
印度历史：印度历史书是否真实描述了殖民时期发生的事件？英国的统治像我们被告知的那样残酷吗？
印度政府的历史书并没有完全说明真实情况。他们完全是在粉饰殖民主义和各种侵略的罪恶。消极情绪经常被掩盖，历史书展现了一副勇敢、乐观的面孔。事实上，许多印度学生在毕业时都有一种斯德哥尔摩综合症，认为殖民时代是一个好时期。因此，他们很容易屈服于鲁迪亚德·吉卜林（所写小说）阐述的“白人的负担”观念——欧洲人“教化”了“野蛮”大众。事实上，一些印度学生认为殖民主义对印度有好处，这总是让我感到震惊。
在我们现有的历史书中，重点主要放在印度的自由活动人士身上，而对1857年之后发生的大屠杀等关键时期的报道却很少。印度学生对印度兵士的叛变和密鲁特发生的事情知之甚多。问题是，他们知道那之后的几年里发生了什么吗？这个国家被残酷地压制了，印度人几十年来甚至没有考虑过斗争。军队等机构的组成发生了根本的变化，其糟粕一直延续到今天。
同样，巴布尔的统治并非一帆风顺。印度书籍很快就跳过了莫卧儿王朝是怎么来的以及奥朗则布在分裂印度中的扮演的角色的细节方面。关于马拉塔人，书中既没有提到他们辉煌的扩张，也没有提到他们给印度东部带来的恐怖统治。
总的来说，印度学校的历史书走的是一条非常温和的路线，既保护孩子们免受血腥细节的伤害，又取悦每一位政治选民。
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.
印度历史：印度历史书是否真实描述了殖民时期发生的事件？英国的统治像我们被告知的那样残酷吗？
印度政府的历史书并没有完全说明真实情况。他们完全是在粉饰殖民主义和各种侵略的罪恶。消极情绪经常被掩盖，历史书展现了一副勇敢、乐观的面孔。事实上，许多印度学生在毕业时都有一种斯德哥尔摩综合症，认为殖民时代是一个好时期。因此，他们很容易屈服于鲁迪亚德·吉卜林（所写小说）阐述的“白人的负担”观念——欧洲人“教化”了“野蛮”大众。事实上，一些印度学生认为殖民主义对印度有好处，这总是让我感到震惊。
在我们现有的历史书中，重点主要放在印度的自由活动人士身上，而对1857年之后发生的大屠杀等关键时期的报道却很少。印度学生对印度兵士的叛变和密鲁特发生的事情知之甚多。问题是，他们知道那之后的几年里发生了什么吗？这个国家被残酷地压制了，印度人几十年来甚至没有考虑过斗争。军队等机构的组成发生了根本的变化，其糟粕一直延续到今天。
同样，巴布尔的统治并非一帆风顺。印度书籍很快就跳过了莫卧儿王朝是怎么来的以及奥朗则布在分裂印度中的扮演的角色的细节方面。关于马拉塔人，书中既没有提到他们辉煌的扩张，也没有提到他们给印度东部带来的恐怖统治。
总的来说，印度学校的历史书走的是一条非常温和的路线，既保护孩子们免受血腥细节的伤害，又取悦每一位政治选民。
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，我认为我们的历史书（我希望你指的是教科书）没有描绘出应有的真实画面。读了这些书，我最终没搞明白英国统治对印度及其发展的伤害有多大。但现在，在通过阅读更多的书籍和关注更多知情人士获得了更广阔的视角后，我想我意识到我们不仅被剥夺了财富，而且被剥夺了荣耀、尊严、遗产和技能。
我建议你看这段视频，在视频中，塔鲁尔博士出色地阐述了这一点：油管上的英国确实拖欠赔偿款（Britain Does Owe Reparations ）
它的重点：
当英国抵达印度时，印度在世界经济中所占的份额为23%，而当英国离开时，这一比例降至4%以下
印度从世界著名的成品布出口国变成了进口国，从占世界贸易的27%变成了不到2%
殖民主义者不喜欢罗伯特·克莱夫(Robert Clive)，他们用在印度掠夺的收益买下了英国腐朽的行政区，同时把印地语单词“掠夺物（loot）”和他们的习惯纳入了他们的词典
1500万到2900万印度人死于英国引起的饥荒，最著名的例子当然是二战期间的孟加拉大饥荒，当时有400万人死亡，因为温斯顿·丘吉尔故意把孟加拉平民的基本物资转移到欧洲人的储备中。丘吉尔对德里政府关于人们在饥荒中丧生的电报的唯一回应是问甘地为什么还没有去世。（阅读更多关于《丑陋的英国人》）
印度在第一次世界大战中不得不供应价值10亿英镑的商品，在第二次世界大战时不得不供应价值125亿英镑的货物——这笔债务从未偿还。
你还可以发现很多其他的事实，这只是冰山一角。
最后，虽然不是事实，但我很喜欢他的这句名言——“难怪大英帝国的太阳永不落，因为即使是上帝也不信任黑暗中的英国人。”
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，我认为我们的历史书（我希望你指的是教科书）没有描绘出应有的真实画面。读了这些书，我最终没搞明白英国统治对印度及其发展的伤害有多大。但现在，在通过阅读更多的书籍和关注更多知情人士获得了更广阔的视角后，我想我意识到我们不仅被剥夺了财富，而且被剥夺了荣耀、尊严、遗产和技能。
我建议你看这段视频，在视频中，塔鲁尔博士出色地阐述了这一点：油管上的英国确实拖欠赔偿款（Britain Does Owe Reparations ）
它的重点：
当英国抵达印度时，印度在世界经济中所占的份额为23%，而当英国离开时，这一比例降至4%以下
印度从世界著名的成品布出口国变成了进口国，从占世界贸易的27%变成了不到2%
殖民主义者不喜欢罗伯特·克莱夫(Robert Clive)，他们用在印度掠夺的收益买下了英国腐朽的行政区，同时把印地语单词“掠夺物（loot）”和他们的习惯纳入了他们的词典
1500万到2900万印度人死于英国引起的饥荒，最著名的例子当然是二战期间的孟加拉大饥荒，当时有400万人死亡，因为温斯顿·丘吉尔故意把孟加拉平民的基本物资转移到欧洲人的储备中。丘吉尔对德里政府关于人们在饥荒中丧生的电报的唯一回应是问甘地为什么还没有去世。（阅读更多关于《丑陋的英国人》）
印度在第一次世界大战中不得不供应价值10亿英镑的商品，在第二次世界大战时不得不供应价值125亿英镑的货物——这笔债务从未偿还。
你还可以发现很多其他的事实，这只是冰山一角。
最后，虽然不是事实，但我很喜欢他的这句名言——“难怪大英帝国的太阳永不落，因为即使是上帝也不信任黑暗中的英国人。”
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.
我想给你们讲个故事。
一个商人与一个村庄做生意。他购买他们的产品，然后将成品卖给他们。这位商人知道村里可用设施的真正潜力-廉价劳动力、矿山、原材料和一个大市场。为了帮助他装载货物，他建了一个斜坡，货物可以很容易地从他的卡车上卸下来。村民们看着斜坡，认为这位商人无私地为他们的村庄做了很多事情。英国人也不例外，他们留下的遗产：铁路、拦河坝、公路，这些可以与小斜坡相提并论。如果他们建造的那么多的基础设施来是为了帮助他们运输货物，想象一下被他们运输走的原材料吧。
沙希·塔鲁尔对殖民主义对印度的影响进行了精彩的概述。
英国人建造了火车、拦河坝和水坝，但更大的目标是方便地运输原材料，从印度可获得的资源中赚取更多收入。
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.
我想给你们讲个故事。
一个商人与一个村庄做生意。他购买他们的产品，然后将成品卖给他们。这位商人知道村里可用设施的真正潜力-廉价劳动力、矿山、原材料和一个大市场。为了帮助他装载货物，他建了一个斜坡，货物可以很容易地从他的卡车上卸下来。村民们看着斜坡，认为这位商人无私地为他们的村庄做了很多事情。英国人也不例外，他们留下的遗产：铁路、拦河坝、公路，这些可以与小斜坡相提并论。如果他们建造的那么多的基础设施来是为了帮助他们运输货物，想象一下被他们运输走的原材料吧。
沙希·塔鲁尔对殖民主义对印度的影响进行了精彩的概述。
英国人建造了火车、拦河坝和水坝，但更大的目标是方便地运输原材料，从印度可获得的资源中赚取更多收入。
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…how 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?
英国对印度仁慈吗？
如果：
一个聪明、精明的人敲你的门，
鞠了一躬，请求给他一个房间住，
奉承你，给你礼物，赢得你的信任，贿赂你的朋友，
然后开始就如何管理你的家给你建议；慢慢地开始重新布置你的家，
最终接管了你最好的房间，最好的亚麻布和最好的瓷器，以及你的生意和生计，
拿走孩子的玩具，决定他们在学校应该学什么和不应该学什么，决定他们应该选择什么职业，
然后有一天，他拿到了你的银行卡和支票簿，开始给自己开具大额支票，
花你的钱让他拥有更大的地方，让他的生意更好，让他的家人在穿衣/吃饭/教育方面变得更好，
用你的钱扩建你的房子让他住得更舒服，
用你的钱买新的电器和小工具，所有这些都是他自己用的，
让你和你的家人努力满足他的需求，让你穿那些能取悦他的衣服，让你用他的口音说话以取悦他，
杀了你的长子因为他敢于抗议这种虐待，
通过让你的孩子们自己打架，巧妙地消除了进一步的反对意见，
让你和你的家人吃他餐桌上的残羹剩饭，让你的孩子去别处为他而战，
把你的食物藏在锁着的门后饿死了你的一个孩子
甚至重写了你的家庭故事，这样你就永远无法向别人解释这些：如果没有他的干涉，你的生活会是什么样子，
最后，他向全世界夸耀他给你的家带来了多么奇妙的变化，他是如何把新技术带到你的家里，他是如何教你更像他那样说话、走路和表现。
然后：
就算别人相信他，你会相信他吗?你会认为他是仁慈的吗?
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…how 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?
英国对印度仁慈吗？
如果：
一个聪明、精明的人敲你的门，
鞠了一躬，请求给他一个房间住，
奉承你，给你礼物，赢得你的信任，贿赂你的朋友，
然后开始就如何管理你的家给你建议；慢慢地开始重新布置你的家，
最终接管了你最好的房间，最好的亚麻布和最好的瓷器，以及你的生意和生计，
拿走孩子的玩具，决定他们在学校应该学什么和不应该学什么，决定他们应该选择什么职业，
然后有一天，他拿到了你的银行卡和支票簿，开始给自己开具大额支票，
花你的钱让他拥有更大的地方，让他的生意更好，让他的家人在穿衣/吃饭/教育方面变得更好，
用你的钱扩建你的房子让他住得更舒服，
用你的钱买新的电器和小工具，所有这些都是他自己用的，
让你和你的家人努力满足他的需求，让你穿那些能取悦他的衣服，让你用他的口音说话以取悦他，
杀了你的长子因为他敢于抗议这种虐待，
通过让你的孩子们自己打架，巧妙地消除了进一步的反对意见，
让你和你的家人吃他餐桌上的残羹剩饭，让你的孩子去别处为他而战，
把你的食物藏在锁着的门后饿死了你的一个孩子
甚至重写了你的家庭故事，这样你就永远无法向别人解释这些：如果没有他的干涉，你的生活会是什么样子，
最后，他向全世界夸耀他给你的家带来了多么奇妙的变化，他是如何把新技术带到你的家里，他是如何教你更像他那样说话、走路和表现。
然后：
就算别人相信他，你会相信他吗?你会认为他是仁慈的吗?
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.
在殖民时期，印度由英国政府统治，许多英国行政人员在治理国家中发挥了重要作用。以下是一些在印度任职的著名英国行政长官:
1、沃伦·黑斯廷斯，1774年至1785年任印度首任总督。
2、康沃利斯勋爵，1786年至1793年担任印度总督，以其行政和法律改革而闻名。
3、威廉·本廷克勋爵（Lord William Bentinck），1828年至1835年担任印度总督，被认为引入了重大的社会和教育改革。
4、达尔豪斯勋爵，1848年至1856年担任印度总督，以其基础设施开发项目而闻名，包括铁路和电报线的建设。
5、寇松勋爵，1899年至1905年担任印度总督，以致力于印度行政现代化和精简而闻名。
在殖民时期，这些行政人员在塑造印度的政治、社会和经济格局方面发挥了重要作用，但他们的遗产也引发争论和受到争议，因为他们经常因剥削和压迫政策而受到批评。
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.
在殖民时期，印度由英国政府统治，许多英国行政人员在治理国家中发挥了重要作用。以下是一些在印度任职的著名英国行政长官:
1、沃伦·黑斯廷斯，1774年至1785年任印度首任总督。
2、康沃利斯勋爵，1786年至1793年担任印度总督，以其行政和法律改革而闻名。
3、威廉·本廷克勋爵（Lord William Bentinck），1828年至1835年担任印度总督，被认为引入了重大的社会和教育改革。
4、达尔豪斯勋爵，1848年至1856年担任印度总督，以其基础设施开发项目而闻名，包括铁路和电报线的建设。
5、寇松勋爵，1899年至1905年担任印度总督，以致力于印度行政现代化和精简而闻名。
在殖民时期，这些行政人员在塑造印度的政治、社会和经济格局方面发挥了重要作用，但他们的遗产也引发争论和受到争议，因为他们经常因剥削和压迫政策而受到批评。
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.
这将是一个简短的答案，因为这是我从一个英国朋友(印度裔，他是第三代英国人)那里得到的全部答案。据他说，英国历史本身是充满活力的，在很大程度上，他们仍然专注于自己的事务，国王之战等等。对印度的关注并不多，毕竟从英国的角度来看，它只是另一个殖民地，这是有道理的。有一种理解是殖民主义是剥削性的，但大部分不好的部分都被掩盖了。没有像印度那样对殖民主义进行详细的经济分析，也没有对其进行深入讨论。
此外，尽管态度在过去几年里发生了很大变化，但据他说，直到印度独立，甚至更晚，牛津剑桥大学一直庇护着历史学家，他们一直认为英国统治印度对印度是有好处的，尽管它在措辞上与白人的负担不同，但或多或少是一样的。
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.
这将是一个简短的答案，因为这是我从一个英国朋友(印度裔，他是第三代英国人)那里得到的全部答案。据他说，英国历史本身是充满活力的，在很大程度上，他们仍然专注于自己的事务，国王之战等等。对印度的关注并不多，毕竟从英国的角度来看，它只是另一个殖民地，这是有道理的。有一种理解是殖民主义是剥削性的，但大部分不好的部分都被掩盖了。没有像印度那样对殖民主义进行详细的经济分析，也没有对其进行深入讨论。
此外，尽管态度在过去几年里发生了很大变化，但据他说，直到印度独立，甚至更晚，牛津剑桥大学一直庇护着历史学家，他们一直认为英国统治印度对印度是有好处的，尽管它在措辞上与白人的负担不同，但或多或少是一样的。
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).
我认为这里的“失败”意味着英国失去了皇冠上的宝石——“印度”。首先，英国的失败更确切地说，失去印度殖民地不像一场在几天内决定结果的战争，而我们是在特定的一天得出结果的。这是一场运动。最重要的一点是，“英国失去印度”实际上是“印度赢得了自由”。现在轮到我们来强调英国的损失了，把印度的自由说成是英国的失败，而不是印度从当时最伟大的帝国那里赢得自由的非凡壮举。我们明智地选择了庆祝印度的自由，而不是庆祝英国的损失（对同一历史事件的悲观看法）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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).
我认为这里的“失败”意味着英国失去了皇冠上的宝石——“印度”。首先，英国的失败更确切地说，失去印度殖民地不像一场在几天内决定结果的战争，而我们是在特定的一天得出结果的。这是一场运动。最重要的一点是，“英国失去印度”实际上是“印度赢得了自由”。现在轮到我们来强调英国的损失了，把印度的自由说成是英国的失败，而不是印度从当时最伟大的帝国那里赢得自由的非凡壮举。我们明智地选择了庆祝印度的自由，而不是庆祝英国的损失（对同一历史事件的悲观看法）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
英国殖民主义是指不列颠群岛的人民(英国，在殖民主义发生的时候包括整个爱尔兰)乘船环游世界，并在遥远的土地上建立城镇和军事哨所，在此之前，这些土地与不列颠群岛没有实际联系。
英国人会在该地区建立基地，并通过各种方式逐渐控制一块领土(就像法国和德国等其他欧洲国家一样)，一旦他们控制了一块领土，他们就可以把它变成一个殖民地——就像南非、印度(受英国统治)或加拿大一样。
渐渐地，除了少数例外（例如香港），英国殖民地（如加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰）获得了更多的自治权，直到它们获得独立并成为自己的国家。
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.
英国殖民主义是指不列颠群岛的人民(英国，在殖民主义发生的时候包括整个爱尔兰)乘船环游世界，并在遥远的土地上建立城镇和军事哨所，在此之前，这些土地与不列颠群岛没有实际联系。
英国人会在该地区建立基地，并通过各种方式逐渐控制一块领土(就像法国和德国等其他欧洲国家一样)，一旦他们控制了一块领土，他们就可以把它变成一个殖民地——就像南非、印度(受英国统治)或加拿大一样。
渐渐地，除了少数例外（例如香港），英国殖民地（如加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰）获得了更多的自治权，直到它们获得独立并成为自己的国家。
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.
美国从来不是英国的殖民地。
在北美大陆的东部有许多英国殖民地。如果我没记错的话，有十三个。他们选择不再作为英国人，而是加入共同的事业，成为一个独立的国家。
我们现在所说的美利坚合众国的其他地区以前是其他国家的殖民地。
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.
美国从来不是英国的殖民地。
在北美大陆的东部有许多英国殖民地。如果我没记错的话，有十三个。他们选择不再作为英国人，而是加入共同的事业，成为一个独立的国家。
我们现在所说的美利坚合众国的其他地区以前是其他国家的殖民地。
很赞 2
收藏