Live data from Hacker News

How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

archive.ph

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#11
post #7

[flagged]

> so genetically different Well, it seems likely they were less-well adapted to local diseases than the locals. But I'd guess that childhood exposure may be enough to explain this, plus cultural adaptation? They certainly died in large numbers, in early days; IIRC, only 10% of Company employees made it alive to retirement back home. (I presume, but don't know, that more upper-class Mughals survived to equivalent age.…

It does make me wonder if people from equatorial regions might have a different circadian rhythm than people from the extreme north. Might this dovetail with the (perplexingly simultaneous) perception of daytime "laziness" and an overactive nightlife of the global south?

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#12

[flagged]

Famines were mainly a result of British mismanagement of resources. This mismanagement peaked when World War 2 was the top priority (read: Bengal famine). The British were indeed sloppy when it came to the welfare of Indians and did enact some evil policies. They were imperialists after all. But there's no evidence that the British wanted to "wipe out" the native population.

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#13

[flagged]

Citation needed. The British certainly viewed Indians as expendable , and many decisions during (say) the Bengal Famine made squarely favored military wartime supply at the expense of the local population, but I don't think anybody has seriously proposed that the British intentionally created the famine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Historio...

Genocide by convenient happenstance, as a side-effect of deliberate action, is still genocide.

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#14

[flagged]

I'm no expert on Indian history, but that seems implausible. Famines would only serve to increase unrest and undermine the stability of British rule. The famines seem to be more a result of neglect and mismanagement than active efforts. Furthermore, India in the 1800s-1900s was not exactly like the Americas, Australia or South Africa. The population was much larger, and social, economic or cultural structures were mu…

starving people is more likely to make them stop fighting than make them start

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#15

[flagged]

It's not "tactless drivel" to accurately state what actually happened . The British in colonial India were a highly privileged class, and they did a lot worse than just making their punkahwallahs sweat.

Is punkahwallahs an actual term? Asking as an ABCD.

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#16

[flagged]

Famines were mainly a result of British mismanagement of resources. This mismanagement peaked when World War 2 was the top priority (read: Bengal famine). The British were indeed sloppy when it came to the welfare of Indians and did enact some evil policies. They were imperialists after all. But there's no evidence that the British wanted to "wipe out" the native population.

> there's no evidence that the British wanted to "wipe out" the native population.

No one accused all "the British". If you read my sentence, I used the word, some Brits such as Churchill. There's ample evidence of Churchill's desire to genocide, and even actions taken to genocide non-white people and subsequent whitewashing of the matters. I am sorry if some readers are upset to discover this about their hero, as I do realize a lot of Anglo-Saxon people worship Churchill, but these are unfortunately the facts of the matter.

"I cannot understand this squeamishness about the use of gas," he wrote in a memo during his role as minister for war and air in 1919.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he continued.

"In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission: "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.""

You can also google Hanslope Park papers to see that a lot of other evidence of intentional planning for genocides and other serious crimes against humanity level of wrong doings were erased or blocked from being released. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/foreign-off...

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "tactless drivel" to accurately state what actually happened . The British in colonial India were a highly privileged class, and they did a lot worse than just making their punkahwallahs sweat.

Is punkahwallahs an actual term? Asking as an ABCD.

It is. See also Chaiwallah, Dhobiwallah etc

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "tactless drivel" to accurately state what actually happened . The British in colonial India were a highly privileged class, and they did a lot worse than just making their punkahwallahs sweat.

Is punkahwallahs an actual term? Asking as an ABCD.

Seems so: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/punkahwallah#English

I remember hearing it for the first time watching reruns of It Ain't Half Hot Mum.

Re: How did British officers live in the scorching heat of India?

#20

[flagged]

Citation needed. The British certainly viewed Indians as expendable , and many decisions during (say) the Bengal Famine made squarely favored military wartime supply at the expense of the local population, but I don't think anybody has seriously proposed that the British intentionally created the famine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Historio...

First, I would say that the British should not receive the benefit of the doubt as to their behavior during the Bengal famine, given their intransigence to release grain during the Irish potato famine (and that so many Irish were forced to rely on potatoes leaving them vulnerable was another effect of British rule.)

Here's some scientific evidence that the Bengal famine of 1943 was not linked to soil moisture levels, like the previous five: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/churchill-policies-bl...

Again, the long history of callousness of the British empire towards its colonies should lead one to be skeptical of the official intent at the time.

Post reply on HN