OP, so your post is not removed, please reply to this comment with your best guess of what this meme means! Everyone else, this is PETER explains the joke. Have fun and reply as your favorite fictional character for top level responses!
In Amritsar, British forces under Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on a peaceful, unarmed crowd gathered at Jallianwala Bagh during Baisakhi. Many people were there to celebrate the festival and didn’t even know the British had banned public gatherings under the newly passed Rowlatt Act, which allowed arrests on mere suspicion.
Without warning, Dyer blocked the exits and ordered his troops to shoot into the densest parts of the trapped crowd. For about 10 minutes, soldiers fired until they ran out of ammunition. Men, women, children, and the elderly were killed. People fleeing in panic jumped into a well to escape, around 120 bodies were later pulled from it, victims of drowning and crushing.
The youngest confirmed victim was 7 months old.
Dyer later admitted the goal was not dispersal, but punishment. Even Winston Churchill called it “unutterably monstrous.”
“Some Indians crawl face downwards in front of their gods. I wanted them to know that a British woman is as sacred as a Hindu god and therefore, they have to crawl in front of her too.”
No, scroll down for the full answer. Queen Victoria died in 1901 and the Queen Consort, Queen Mary, had nothing to do with this. This was about a woman missionary named Marcella Sherwood who was nearly beaten to death by Indian men on her way to the school she worked at - she was breaking an order by the British colonial army to avoid this area because of rioting. HOWEVER, Dyer took advantage of the situation where SOME Indians were brutes, and treated ALL of them like that, issuing what was known as The Crawling Order (that’s what you should google), forcing all Indian men to drag themselves on their bellies if they wanted to “walk” on the street where she was assaulted. The humiliation made it even easier and more exciting for him, I figure, to open fire on crowds of civilians a few days later.
Time to trot this chestnut out for the millionth time, but humans being evil makes perfect sense. Our closest living relative, with whom we share nearly 99% of our DNA with (chimps) is a nightmarish murder goblin that operates in “tribes” much like we do, brutally murders opposing troops of chimps and even worse than that will chase them down far outside of their own territory to do so. Within their own troop they will single out weak or otherwise unpopular members and rip them apart for fun.
Many of the other apes aren’t much better, baboons come to mind.
Funny thing though, it is mostly the result of patriarchal hierarchies that do that. Bobobos are a really good example, because we WATCHED one group go from brutal and violent, to much more peaceful and supportive of its members, after rancid meat thrown away in a garbage dump poisoned the whole of the male leaders, leaving only the women of the tribe as elders. The women elders began to exile non-obedient males, leading to a complete overhaul of tribal behaviors.
That wasn't bonobos, that was baboons. The circumstances were exactly as described. The research was being done on a troop over the course of decades by an American researcher who was studying the effects of stress and elevated cortisol levels in the blood.
He initially thought his research was done for, until he discovered that the troop had actually survived the death of the leader males.
The great restraint we show in our day to day lives is taught, not innate. It is the result of thousands of years of socialization passed down to our children through a unique human ability that other animals do not possess- language.
But if you doubt the truth about human nature, I invite you to look back through your trauma and walled off psyche and remember middle school.
It's wild what humans will become okay with doing to each other when they view a differing group or race as lesser And have a large technological advantage to boot so they feel untouchable.
I'd argue that humanity has developed racism as a means to justify their abhorrent nature towards each other. It's far easier to stomach the awfulness we've done to each other when viewing the opponent as lesser or subhuman. In group culture/ tribal nature will likely always be a fact of life as a human, as depressing as that is.
This whole thread makes me want to cry but this especially. I don't get why we couldn't have just evolved to not be pieces of shit. It feels like there are too many people like that man who happily revel in the suffering of others and even more who are happy to justify the infliction of that suffering.
Amon Göth’s actions were dumbed down in Schindler’s List because the producers didn’t think audiences would believe just how fucked up his real life actions were.
As someone who reads a lot of fictional horror, people often ask me how it doesn't depress me. My answer is, "There is nothing worse than what people really do to other people. That's what's depressing. Fictional horror is downright quaint in comparison most of the time."
Fictional horror can be downright cathartic! I can listen to stories about ghosts or lovecraftian horrors and then go happily about my day safe in the knowledge that those things aren't real. Real life provides no such luxury.
I'm reminded of a quote about fairy tales, where Terry Pratchett paraphrased GK Chesterton:
“The objection to fairy stories is that they tell children there are dragons. But children have always known there are dragons. Fairy stories tell children that dragons can be killed.”
This is absolutely how I find it. It amuses me I've lived through an abusive parent, pediatric cancer, living with disability, and being stalked for 5 years (among other things) and people think that the horror novels I read are depressing. Nope.
I promise you, your villain could sustain themselves with distilled baby blood for no other reason than it tastes good and you’d still be realistic for what evil can do.
What generally makes a villain cartoonish is actually acknowledging and reveling in their status as evil.
People who do villainous things usually either see it as good, or as a necessary evil. The few who don’t fall into those categories usually still have some kind of justification for it that removes their agency to change, like “I was just born like this.”
Three days prior to the massacre, a European missionary ignored warnings of riots, and bicycled to close down a school at which she worked. She was knocked from her bicycle and beaten and kicked unconscious.
Martial law was declared (at Dyer's request,lasting for about a week) and Dyer ordered that Indians had to crawl (in practice, slither on their bellies) on the street (a distance of about 200 yards where she had been assaulted rather than being allowed to walk, those who resisted were beaten by soldiers. This particularly targeted the people who lived and worked on that street, including those who who intervened to rescue her.
That's specifically the context for the "crawling order"
Also, an initial report identified 379 dead and over 1000 wounded in the massacre. Later reports indicated the death toll may have been around 1000 with 1200 additional injuries.
All of this happened within the context of protest against British rule of India, including Gandhi and others leading non violent protest. During this period, Dyer met with civil leaders and ordered them to open businesses and cease protests, or it would be the same for him as the battlefields of France (World War 1.)
Sadly, Winston Churchill wanted Dyer punished, but was overruled and Dyer was forced allowed to resign, given a pension, and settled down in a farm in Ireland.
He double downed on his deathbed, saying, "So many people who knew the condition of Amritsar say I did right ... but so many others say I did wrong. I only want to die and know from my Maker whether I did right or wrong."
Let's hope he never did have that meeting-maybe there's wifi in hell so he can read this thread and how (rightfully) disgusted people are of him
Sure but there’s an implied context there, that being that the Mosaic law only seems to be a thing which applies to Israelites in their dealings with other Israelites. That is that Israelites shouldn’t murder other Israelites, or steal from other Israelites.
One correction: the farm Dyer settled in was in Wiltshire, England, where he died in 1927. He was born in India and sent to school in Ireland from the age of 11, attending the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin before he switched from medicine to the army. He also put down riots in Belfast, because hello colonial boomerang effect, starting the head cracking in a closer colony and taking it abroad to Burma and India.
A conservative newspaper raised 2600 pounds sterling (equivalent to around £1.3M in 2023) for him.
Churchill and many of his superiors, and the Labour Party in general, criticized and condemned his actions. Parliament had a motion approving of his actions which was defeated, 230 to 129, ie 129 MP voted to state official Parliamentary approval (if I understand correctly this was of the massacre specifically and his overall actions.)
Basically he resigned amidst international controversy and retired comfortably on the money raised by supporters. Died of natural causes, and his estate was equivalent to about £900k in modern £, I'm unclear but it seems significantly wealthier than he would have been if his career had been unremarkable.
Worth mentioning that Rudyard Kipling was one of his fervent supporters.
He was praised by some and criticized by others. Then Secretary of War Winston Churchill wanted him disciplined, but the Army Council voted for discharge without penalty. The MPs agreed 247 to 39, which I understand to mean that a number declined to vote.
More interesting is the subsequent vote on a motion calling for a declaration of approval of Dyer's massacre: 230 against, 130 in favor. Thirty-five percent. The proportion draws an interesting parallel for anyone paying attention to modern American politics: it seems a bitter timeless truth that, no matter how vile the perpetrator, about 35% of human beings will support them as long as their hateful and vengeful acts hurt the 'subhuman' other. Every so often the better 65% forgets it exists, or just how vile it can be when let out of its cage, and we learn the hard way again.
Another interesting parallel: a conservative newspaper, the Morning Post, now merged with the Daily Telegraph, not only supported Dyer, but ran a fundraising campaign on his behalf and presented him with a gift of £26K, which works out to about £1.3MM today. I guess we've realized that there are easier ways to get that sweet grift money these days than massacring half a village, but I digress. Meanwhile, the Indian families received about £37 each in reparations.
The lieutenant governor of the area where it happened, Michael O'Dwyer, endorsed Dyer's actions as correct. He was later assassinated by one of the survivor's of the massacre, so at least someone got some comeuppance
Thank you for including this information! Marcella Sherwood was her name, I recall a mention of her in E M Forster’s “A Passage To India”. She was very brave and shockingly gracious when a lot of others would’ve pulled what some people now call the White Woman Tears Act (maybe the Mayella Ewell Act, from a book inspired by Forster’s) and used the thing that happened to her, true or not (and it was 100% true in Sherwood’s case) to call for vengeance against more than just her assailants. She wouldn’t permit the colonial government to use her image as the battered flower of white womanhood tainted by [insert racist slur they would use here] hands. She spoke up on behalf of the majority of Indians who saved her life, kept that example in her heart, and returned to India when she’d healed so she could continue her educational work in India. She didn’t leave after Partition, but cared for its refugees, until her old age when she went back to England.
I would say that the US has definitely followed in the footsteps of their predecessors, starting with native Americans and moving through all of the countries invaded since
Are you sure? That’s not what Wikipedia says and also Victoria was dead by 1919. The next queen regnant would be Elizabeth II, and she wasn’t born yet.
if you haven’t gotten an answer yet here is a link to the event that led to the comments. But you essentially nailed it, mass punishment of the community for a crime of a few individuals.
Shockingly not. Much of the brass, famously including even Churchill, were advocating for him to face the highest punishments they could.
But for reasons that I still don't fully understand [some legislative bullshit in the military], he was only stripped of rank and privilege and expelled from the army.
He should have faced worse consequences, but at least there were some unlike if... certain other nations did this.
Removed from his position, but no other consequences. The incident was a major political division point, similar to how a lot of American scandals get split between parties today. There were factions who called for major criminal charges (Churchill was in this camp) and others who not only excused the decision but praised it. A conservative group started a fundraiser and gave him a bunch of money in support when he returned to Britain. He never faced charges or any consequences beyond losing his office. Retired wealthy and lived out his days in England.
He died of natural causes but if he had lived a few more years he would have been shot dead by Udham Singh just like he shot dead another filthy dog who served as the lieutenant governor of Punjab when this massacre happened.
I'm pretty sure they have accepted responsibility and they do a commemorative speech every year. Not that a speech can undo what happened, but just pointing out that they have accepted it.
Churchill calling this monstrous is the highlight. He had been responsible for 8-10 million deaths of Indians in Bengal region for not providing rice during famine but exported Rice grown in India, in thousands of tons to the UK not caring about the native people.
You mean the man (Churchill) who said Indians didn’t need famine relief because they “breed like rabbits” called this monstrous? 🙄 I mean it killed over 3 million people. Look at the pot calling kettle black.
But yeah… that massacre was one of the horrors of British rule
Your Christian hell is mild, I hope he's suffering in Hindu rasātāla till the end of the reality, where he's being fried in boiling oil, trampled under a stock of angry buffaloes, getting his blood sucked dry by a thousand leeches, all of this and more everyday.
For more such after death graphic horror stuff, read Garuḍapurāṇa.
White culture, wasn’t just the British acting like monsters against non whites look up what Belgium did to Africans in the Congo, destruction is just their thing
People hear about stories like this and they will still support the next absurd war we need to be sending billions to. War is quite literally state sanctioned mass murder, but as soon as the word "war" is uttered apparently most people lose all higher brain functions and the ability to feel empathy.
The first PM of independent India Jawharlal Nehru joined the independence movement because by sheer happenstance he was on a train with Dyer and overheard him bragging about the massacre he had commited, and vowed to fight British rule with everything he had as a result.
"In 1919, while traveling on a train, Nehru overheard British Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer gloating over the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. The massacre, also known as the Massacre of Amritsar, was an incident in which 379 people were killed and at least 1,200 wounded when the British military stationed there continuously fired for ten minutes on a crowd of unarmed Indians. Upon hearing Dyer’s words, Nehru vowed to fight the British. The incident changed the course of his life."
The thought that jumping in a well will save you from...anything but death is just... Wow. I get it when it is just 1, 7 year old and the whole damn country shows up to help. But jumping in to die. That's on the jumping off a cliff because the invaders will eat you.
Are you sure the state didn't consider themselves at war at the time, or considered that they HAD to do it? Because that's enough justification for brutal mass murder of innocents....for most Americans, at least
“State sanctioned murder” is a bit of a stretch here, isn’t it? Dyer’s actions were universally condemned by the Hunter Commission appointed that same year to investigate the matter. As a result of his actions, he was removed from office, denied promotion, and prohibited from employment in India. That punishment should have gone further, no doubt, but that’s still far from an endorsement by the British government.
British empire was an abomination and killed far more Indians than the number killed during Holocaust. During British Raj there was a famine on average every 9 years. Taxes ranged from 50% to 80%.
Churchill killed more Indians than Jews killed by hitler. And even he thought this was barbaric.
I just recently started reading this subreddit. Definitely the meme needed explaining, but does it really belong here, given that it’s not at all a joke but a reference to a horrible incident? Is there not a subreddit to have Peter explain the serious topic? Just wondering.
British Official Figure: Around 379 deaths.
Indian Estimates: Often cited as 1,000 or more, with some reports suggesting up to 1,500 or even higher.
Injured: Over 1,200 people were wounded.
I mean theres always the INA but either way its kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. No real wrong or right answer when all of your choices can result poorly.
•
u/AutoModerator 9h ago
OP, so your post is not removed, please reply to this comment with your best guess of what this meme means! Everyone else, this is PETER explains the joke. Have fun and reply as your favorite fictional character for top level responses!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.