Bulldog Drummond;202183 wrote:Newbie;202172 wrote:Bulldog Drummond;202092 wrote: 'Clive of India'.
You should know better BD.
This was discussed and documented in the Oxford Union debate by a certain Dr Tharoor, not so long ago.
"
Meanwhile, colonialists like Robert Clive brought their rotten boroughs in England on the proceeds of their loot in India while taking the Hindi word loot into their dictionary as well as their habits.
And the British had the gall to call him Clive of India as if he belonged to the country, when all he really did was to ensure that much of the country belonged to him"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
What have I said to warrant this woke nonsense? I just mentioned his wealth, gallstones and suicide. A controversial figure even in his day, it can't be disputed that he was a military genius. And arguably less rapacious than the local Indian rulers before the arrival of the British.
I attended many OU debates in my time there and they were all deeply silly, as that was the OU debating style. I am still a lifetime OU member, my card must be in a drawer somewhere.
No doubt you will have views also on Mountbatten of Burma, Montgomery of Alamein, and the Duke of Westminster.
You are beginning to show bad form BD.
A person or object is 'of' a place which is their origin or birth. Else they are given a titular reference - so William of Normandy raided England and became the 'King' of England. Clive was neither born in India and his titular reference is either 1st Baron or Governor of India (a tool reference of the EIC / Monarch). In fact after his controversial actions had led to him being recalled from India.
As a learned individual (and someone who is in compliance and therefore versed on a linked subject of Nationality, Residence, Origin etc) one would expect you to know better.
As for Woke nonsense, semantics is where we are at, not political or social viewpoints. I can only surmise that this outburst and throwing out of the term from you, is another simple means of diverting away from the issue, which seems to be your standard defence mechanism every time someone questions or challenges you, even if it is to seek further clarification.
Now if you are in the view of promoting a notion, despite being given logical evidence to the contrary at the very prestigious institution where such evidence was carried put and forward and, one where you had learned your views and take every opportunity to show your academic and knowledgeable prowess with quotes and references, then there must be an irony in there somewhere.