mhaze,

Brilliant story.

Loved it - and will tag it for my future files.

Dear Big Nana,

Thank You for replying.

Bless you and a big hug.

Hi Foxy,

Some might say, "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Not that I agree with burning widows, or people in general. Seems the British custom changed somewhere between the 17th and 19th centuries. poor Eddie was born a bit to soon.

Nah Indy, they were burning them at the stake because they were Public Servants, who did not pay the pension on time

Hi Paul,

Hmmm ...... a certain amount of projection there :). Nobody would claim that the inevitable invasion of Australia, similar to the invasion of every other part of the world over the last four thousand years or more, didn't cause immense hardship and loss for the Aboriginal people here. There were shocking 'casualties' of history here, Marx would concede, and cultural loss and malaise hasn't stopped yet. How many times do you reckon the Kurds have been invaded - two hundred, three hundred ? And their ordeal is not over yet, thanks partly to Trump and his gutless concessions to Turkey.

And not too many people would claim that Aboriginal people should be grateful (projection again, Paul?) History happened, it was dreadful, AND it was inevitable, given the imperialist nature of pretty much every group on the planet. We can make recompense by either fully embracing Aboriginal people into the arms of Australian society, or by preserving what can be preserved of traditional culture, or both. That recompense should be on-going, on the basis of need and the specific legislation that relates to Indigenous people and land.

Certainly, nobody much expects Aboriginal people losing praises of history, but neither should they ever again be shut out of Australian society. In reality though, the great majority of Indigenous people live and study and work and marry amongst non-Indigenous people. They're getting on with life and the opportunities it offers, as are Maori people in New Zealand.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

I took your sage advice and my wife came up with this,

http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-status-of-women-in-pre-independent-India

Now have a good read and then gloat about the dastardly British.

Here's a couple of quotes to warm the cockles of your heart,

"The surprising fact is that these were approved / sanctioned by Hindu religion!. British, who initially accepted these as irreversible and intrinsic part of Indian religions and then they later on helped Indians to abandon these social evils...
Many women were taxed if they want to wear upper cloth. The amount of tax was higher if breast was bigger. This was so cruel and barbaric."

and here's one of the replies and from an Indian,

"Jyotsna Khubchandani, lived in India
Answered Nov 12, 2015 · Author has 249 answers and 224k answer views
The status of women in medieval period was low.
The rule of Mughals introduced many social evils and practices like purdah system,child marriages,sati etc.
But with the advent of Britishers and during their ruling period,the status of women improved to a significant extent.
Many social workers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar worked for the upliftment of women and evil practices like sati were stopped and widow remarriage restarted.
Many legislations were also passed during that time to uplift the status of women."

How're you getting on with the Caste system?

You might read the following,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India
then you can blame all those mediaeval British who were in India.

Just in passing, the Caste system is alive and well all these years after Independence, just have a look in any Indian publication that has Marriage Proposal sections and see how many mention Caste.

Is Mise,

Europeans used the ideology of colonisation to justify
their invasion of far-away continents and their
exploitation of the labour and wealth of the native
populations. Under this colonial ideology, the ruling
class of colonists were not considered invaders and exploiters,
instead they were pictured as the unselfish bearers of the
"white man's burden." The noble but demanding task of
bringing "civilisation" to "inferior" peoples.

The subject peoples seem for a while to have accepted the
legitimacy of colonisation, and vast populations sumitted
to rule by tiny settler minorities.

Eventually, however, they developed a consciousness of their
common plight and created an ideology that expressed their
own interests, nationalism. The entire colonial system
collapsed in the resulting conflict between the layers.

You mentioned the caste system?

This system has been a fundamental feature of Indian life
for over thousands of years. Although the caste system
was officially abolished in 1949, it still persists in
rural areas where it dominates the lives of tens of
millions of people.

I would suggest to you if you haven't already read these
books - try to get a hold of some of them. You'll find
them very entertaining:

1) " Holy Cow: an Indian Adventure," by Sarah Macdonald.

2) " A Suitable Boy," by Vikram Seth.

3) "Midnight's Children" by Salman Rushdie.

There's also the TV series - "The Jewel In The Crown,"
which is brilliant - available on DVD.

Dear Foxy,

Are you suggesting that the British should have left the caste system and sati alone, because it was, after all, part of Indian culture ? That's appalling. Good on imperialism, if it moved the rights of women forward in India (read Marx's scathing comments on Indian culture). Surely improvements in women's rights is step towards improving everybody's rights ?

In the early days here in SA, when an Aboriginal man beat his wife to death, the law treated him relatively leniently (inso far as he wasn't hung, as he would have been under the law), but was given a sentence, usually abut five years, since it was recognised that he did not understand the nature of the new legal system. No Aboriginal man has ever been executed for killing his beloved in SA. Are you suggesting that he should have got off scot-free, given that it was customary for a man to beat a woman to death if she upset him in any way, or if he thought she might be straying ?

I'm worried that the rationales of the extreme far-right, like this bastard's, and those of sections of the 'Left' and Islamists, are often mirror-images of each other - harking on past evils to justify the murder of innocent people NOW. Islamism uses the supposed evils of the past thousand years, to justify killing innocent people, this mongrel used the evil of Islam over the past thousand years to justify the killing of innocent people. So what's the difference ?

Surely innocent people, no matter who or where they may be, should not be killed ?

Including widows.

Love,

Joe