Both the British and Rebels caused a lot of harm to each other. There was a lot of murder and killing between both sides. But the question is which side was worse?
I think that the British side was the worse. The rebels had a reason for causing a lot of harm because they were fighting for something. The British wanted revenge and they later regretted their actions.
I personally don't think either side was better or worse. The rebels did have a reason to rebel and stand up for their own rights, although they took it too far, especially with the Cawnpore massacre of women. The British should have been more considerate of the land and people they were ruling over but did have reason to enforce the Siege of Delhi, even if that too, was overly extreme. Both sides were just reacting to one another's actions, which were sometimes misinterpreted. Each response became more and more severe which makes it difficult to point the finger.
I believe that the British were worse.The rebels had a reason to fight back the British. The British tried to 'invade' the rebel's land and benefit themselves, however this caused harm to the rebels. Morally, this is unjust and the British were causing harm to the rebels to gain from them. The rebels did fight back with a purpose and to protect themselves.
While it might be true that the Rebels had something to fight for, I do not think it was appropriate for the the British to retaliate in the way that they did. Besides posing problems for Britain's rule over India, the British retaliating only further agitated and provoked the Rebel's anger. That being said, England had an effective way of dealing with this, and that was to directly rule India instead of ruling throught the East India Company.
I think that the British side was the worse. The rebels had a reason for causing a lot of harm because they were fighting for something. The British wanted revenge and they later regretted their actions.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't think either side was better or worse. The rebels did have a reason to rebel and stand up for their own rights, although they took it too far, especially with the Cawnpore massacre of women. The British should have been more considerate of the land and people they were ruling over but did have reason to enforce the Siege of Delhi, even if that too, was overly extreme. Both sides were just reacting to one another's actions, which were sometimes misinterpreted. Each response became more and more severe which makes it difficult to point the finger.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the British were worse.The rebels had a reason to fight back the British. The British tried to 'invade' the rebel's land and benefit themselves, however this caused harm to the rebels. Morally, this is unjust and the British were causing harm to the rebels to gain from them. The rebels did fight back with a purpose and to protect themselves.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the British then regretted what they had done.
ReplyDeleteWhile it might be true that the Rebels had something to fight for, I do not think it was appropriate for the the British to retaliate in the way that they did. Besides posing problems for Britain's rule over India, the British retaliating only further agitated and provoked the Rebel's anger. That being said, England had an effective way of dealing with this, and that was to directly rule India instead of ruling throught the East India Company.
ReplyDeleteboth. #muricaftw (for the win)
ReplyDelete