Quote:
"The problem with Imperialism is that one set of people are enslaved by another."
Is this really the case, or has rhetoric got the better of our friend? Were Indians really the "slaves" of the English?
|
No. The British were a slave to them.
Note: Indians included your folks too in those days. I am sure they would not say that the British were slaves to them.
Slave also means a society which is completely dominated by some influence. The influence was the British and they controlled every aspect of life excepting domestic.
Quote:
"There is no democracy per se."
Yes, but doesn't the author have a valid point that imperialism brought with it the emancipation of the "natives" - for instance, when in the entire history of India did there were exist ideas of human liberation as forceful as those brought by Western imperialism??
|
Emancipation? They did not bring any 'human liberation'. It was the Congrees Party and the Khilafat Movement, the Gaddar Movement of the Sikhs and things like that. It was influenced by the happenings around the world. Did the Sepoy Mutiny come out by 'human liberation' as you imply by the British? It came about by the tyranny of the British perpetuated by Lord Dalhousie and his indirect way to build an Empire through the 'Doctrine of Lapse'.
Quote:
"The assets of the vassal state goes to the conquering nation."
Especially with relation to INdia, this is most definitely not true, the English continued to run deficits with India
|
I reckon you should read the history again.
All your statements so far is rather odd. It is almost similar to the author whose article you have posted. It appears as if you wish to provoke me.
Even individuals lived off the wealth of India, let alone the British govt. Heard of Lord Clive (who cme as a writer or clerk) became a Lord or Hastings? Both amassed their wealth from the loot in India? No. Read the Impeachment of of Warrran Hastings.
Just a question for you. If India was not the Crown Jewel of the British Empire as it was called so in British history, do you think that they fought wars with the local Kings just because they wanted to test their weapons and decrease the British population in India?
Quote:
|
Ray, a particular theme you continue to have a problem with is the idea that good and bad are not equal but are opposites -- you have cited the case of Iraq as an example "Western" IMperialism (really, is there any other kind - only if we are unlucky) - if tomorrow a elected govt sits in Baghdad, will that be good? If the idea of human liberation and responsibility for the consequences of choices takes hold in Iraq and radiates inward and out, would that be yet another failure of "imperialism"?
|
I am tempt to do a 'Leader' i.e. write 'red herring'.
Quote:
|
you have cited the case of Iraq as an example "Western" IMperialism (really, is there any other kind - only if we are unlucky)
|
What exactly are you implying?
Quote:
|
If the idea of human liberation and responsibility for the consequences of choices takes hold in Iraq and radiates inward and out, would that be yet another failure of "imperialism"?
|
It is a question of a big 'IF'. In Islam which is militaristic and obeys rules and orders without question, the concept of 'human liberation' does not arise. It is and will always be 'Islamic way of life and supremacy'. So long as there is the Mullah and Imam who dictates the lives of individuals (including that of Musharraf), the concept of democracy and human liberation radiating inwrd, outward, sideways does not arise. Imagine Sistani an Ayotollah is the boss who decides the Fate of Iraqis, especially Shias. Individualism is a concept that is absent in Islam.
My knowledge of Islam is borrowed, but if I am wrong, I sure would like to learn.