lbo-talk-digest V1 #4706

Michael McIntyre mmcintyr at wppost.depaul.edu
Thu Aug 9 09:51:35 PDT 2001


Let's see now. I claimed that the Brits did not "suppress" sati but created perverse incentives to make it more common. And you read this as my saying either "the man made them do it" or that sati was never more than an "urban legend". (The notion that ALL or even MOST Hindu widows burned themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres, by the way, IS an urban legend).

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Michael McIntyre

(oops - that's three for me today! Guess I'll have to forswear further responses!)


>>> sokol at jhu.edu 08/09/01 10:36 AM >>>
At 09:51 AM 8/9/01 -0500, Michael wrote:
>The Brits certainly milked sati for all the propaganda value it was worth,
but any notion that they "suppressed" it has to be taken with all the grains of salt you can afford, given the heavily taxed imperial salt monopoly. It's simply an urban legend that sati was anything like a universal practice, even in Bengal, before the Brits got there. Even the Brits saw it from the first as a practice of particular high-caste groups. And there's the rub. Since the Brits were also engaged in sorting out who was high-caste and who was low-caste (and treating them accordingly), they created perverse incentives for the more widespread practice of sati. After all, if your widows threw themselves on funeral pyres, it was prima facie evidence for the Brits that your caste was twice-born.
>

Yeah, that's it, the man made them do it.

Wife burning in India is also an urban legend, I presume.

wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list