Comment by geofft
10 years ago
Napier is one of my favorite historical figures, but wasn't sati banned based on the requests of (native) Hindu reformers, and Napier merely spoke in favor of the ban when other Hindu priests complained? It seems like a stretch to argue that it was Napier who worked to put an end to sati.
None of the other sensible men like Napier gave such a pithy and powerful quote on the topic.
Ah, yes, pithy and powerful quotes! I should be thankful for colonialism for providing pithy and powerful quotes. Take up the white man's burden of speechwriting.
Seriously, there are much better arguments for the position you're espousing. I can come up with half a dozen without trying. If you're really interested in contributing to discourse, try making them.
The topic was the banning of Sati. It was just one example of the benefits of British rule. That it is such a salutary example is why I mentioned it. You are welcome to keep crying on Twitter that people said things you don't like but I have nothing further to say to you.
2 replies →