Freedom fighting isn’t a cover for raping a bunch of white women but okay, history. OK.
It’s difficult to find discussions of this.
As Jenny Sharpe has shown, other accounts invoked the ultimately unrepresentable rape of British women through hints and innuendoes
If you want to liberate your race, why murder white babies and rape the mothers or their daughters?
This was the rape gang scandal of its time and inspired paintings.
There are some acts of atrocity so abominable that they will not even bear narration…
We cannot print these narratives—they are too foul for publication. We should have
to speak of families murdered in cold blood—and murder was mercy!—of the violation
of English ladies in the presence of their husbands, of their parents, of their children—and
then, but not till then, of their assassination
Who talks about this?
In similar terms of unrepresentability, the Englishwoman’s Review reported in August
1857 that “the details of the sufferings and barbarities endured by English women and
children almost surpass imagination
Back when men were men and protected their women.
Unless you wanna claim you can install the greatest Empire ever and not be a Patriarchy.
Which I don’t think anyone is going to claim.
The Englishwoman’s Review (and Drawing Room Journal of Social Progress,
Literature and Art) was published from 1857 to 1859 and was, according to Margaret
Bentham, a “proto-feminist” journal that sought “to address the women of England
from the women’s point of view”. Although it identified the lack of occupation for
middle class women as a pressing social problem, the Englishwomen’s Review refused
“to prate of women’s rights”, and rather redefined “rights” and “occupation” in more
feminized terms as “usefulness and kindness”. In its extensive coverage of the conflict
in India, the Englishwomen’s Review focused on the fate of British women. As Vron
the paper adopted the tone of the aggrieved victim, giving full encouragement to the
brave men who survived to avenge their sex. Accounts of dead children, of rooms filled
with blood, matted hair, mangled toys, rotting clothes, would all have had a particular
impact in the pages of a woman’s paper which aimed to reinforce the conventional
female role in the domestic sphere.[
The men were scared to cover this.
In its coverage of female victims in the ‘mutiny’ and its calls to avenge their suffering,
articles in the Englishwoman’s Review closely resembled those that appeared in more
mainstream newspapers with largely male readers such as the Times and the Illustrated
London News. But, at the same time, another newspaper that was addressed to female
readers interpreted events in India in markedly different ways. Although the Lady’s
Newspaper and Pictorial Times reflected the same domestic concerns as the Englishwoman’s
Review, its interpretation of events in India was very different. Unlike the
Englishwoman’s Review, the extensive coverage of the ‘mutiny’ in the Lady’s Newspaper
included several vehement protests against ‘the war cry “For the Ladies and the
Those are the SJWs. Nowadays they’d work in Rotherham.
But its coverage of the Indian uprising came to eclipse all other
stories in 1857 because “every other matter is just now of secondary importance. The
magnitude of the atrocities and the immensity of the stake have united to secure the
public mind, and it is satisfied only with what has reference to the great rebellion”.
This used to be common knowledge, do your schools mention this? Haha no. Don’t be silly. All Indians were Gandhi and their holy men never rape little girls, they just sleep in the same room alone to “test” themselves.
In August, the Lady’s Newspaper pleaded that:
If there is a political necessity for wholesale butchery, let it not be done in the name of
woman; if the women and the children of our country have been the victims of the
heathen, it is not so we would have them avenged; if we cannot raise these barbarians
to our own light, let us not sink into their darkness; if we sicken with horror at their
atrocities, let us not follow in their blood-stained footsteps.
Victorian “If you kill your enemies, they win”.
Honour doesn’t win you wars but it’s a good start.
In the context of masculine discourses of honour, heroism, and revenge,
the prestige of the British army and its success in reestablishing British rule were
inextricably linked to its ability either to protect or to avenge British women.
If you can’t defend your women and children you are not a man and deserve neither.
It’s very simple.
That’s their traditional purpose of living!
Anyway, read around.
Indians were not dorky sidekicks in a shitty sitcom.
That’s like thinking all gay men are toe-tapping effete sweethearts.
In 1857, British rule in India was challenged when Indian sepoy troops of the British Indian Army began a year-long insurrection against the British. To the British, the most shocking aspect of the events in India was the massacre of white women and children by Indian men. There was extensive coverage in the press and illustrated journals, which stimulated calls for revenge..
In newspaper accounts, parliamentary debates and visual images, the severity of the conﬂict came to be embodied by the fate of British women and the deﬁlement of their bodies and their homes.
Historically, we’ll be the same.
Paton’s famous painting In Memoriam was dedicated by the artist to the Christian heroism of “British Ladies in India during the Mutiny of 1857.” In 1858, the first version of the painting, which depicted Indian sepoy troops bursting through the door, was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Art in London.
Ideologically, the Rebellion dramatically increased racial antagonisms between Britons and Indians. On the British side, this was in large part due to the savage attack on British women and children, who were allegedly being raped and murdered by fanatic soldiers in alarming numbers. The British had to have a heroic fight against depraved sepoys intent on rape and murder of innocent and helpless English women and children.
The depth of public reaction to the murders was due in large part to the lurid nature of the published accounts. Though papers frequently argued that the ‘vile tortures’ practised upon British women and children should “be remembered, not told,” all of them did in fact ‘tell’ of rape and torture in graphic detail.
but not the babies
Indians had the original fetish for baby rape, it’s the tribal rumour thing. I wouldn’t be shocked if the African HIV thing originally came from India. They cover wounds in cow shit and drink from the corpse strewn Ganges. I saw a photo taken of what looked like a dog playing with a football, just out of a tourist area. No, head of a child.
None of them care. It’s savagery of the first order.
To assume everyone has a conscience is very white privilege.
Letters and telegraphs flooded the papers with accounts of women being raped in front of their children before being killed, of matted blood, gory remains of children’s limbs, and of the suffocation of living children among their dead mothers when the victims were thrown into a well.
Such graphic tales of rape and murder inflamed public sentiments calling for vengeance on a massive scale. The Illustrated London News voiced its indignation in tandem with most other national, provincial, and local papers when it claimed that “every British heart, from the highest to the humblest of the land, glows with honest wrath, and demands justice, prompt and unsparing, on the bloodyminded instruments of the Rebellion.”
Strangers (swarthy strangers) on the internet encourage you not to care, because women and children supposedly “deserve it” for things voted in before their birth. Well, if we do end up running a black flag over a monarch’s dead body, the men who refused to defend this country will “deserve” to lose their head.
You had one job.