Historical Perspective
Posted: Mon May 30, 2016 6:05 am
I made an observation recently in another thread about how the actions of the British in the formation of their Empire were of the same order of terrorism and 'comply or be killed' attitude as ISIS now operate in the building of their 'caliphate' - and how it is sobering to see yourself in he cold light of day as 'the ISIS that won', but simply 150 years down the track.
For was it not actually so: were not the 'white man's burden' and 'spreading the cause of civilisation and Christianity' simply ideological justifications used to cover the true purpose of the policy of colonialism - the extension of power and the accrual of wealth by the established order of the day simply because they had the military might and rapacious desire to do so.
Here's a corollary question that may seem simplistic and even ridiculous, but at least give it some thought and try to tell me where my misunderstanding of history lies in my even asking it. Why was India returned to its people for self rule, why the same for African and Asian countries (and it is absolutely right that they were for the above mentioned colonial activity of Britain must rank as one of the greatest perpetrated crimes of man against man of all times) yet the USA and Australia were not. Was it because the indigenous peoples of those countries did not adopt and comply with the occupying powers of their countries in the same way that the Indians did and were thus so depleted and reduced that there was effectively none left to hand it back to. Or were they (the indigenous peoples) so thinly spread in number in the first place that the appropriation of their lands was effectively an historically inevitability, expedient to the general increase in the human population as a whole. Or was it simply that the occupiers, once having cut their ties with the countries from whence they came, had no countries to return to (that and having populations composed of many differing originating nationalities making ordered hand-over of power more difficult.
Tricky thinking and probably not productive to persue, but never the less it remains undeniable that the path of history for the the indigenous peoples of the USA and Australia has been markedly different from that of indigenous Indian ones who now oversee their own thriving country.
For was it not actually so: were not the 'white man's burden' and 'spreading the cause of civilisation and Christianity' simply ideological justifications used to cover the true purpose of the policy of colonialism - the extension of power and the accrual of wealth by the established order of the day simply because they had the military might and rapacious desire to do so.
Here's a corollary question that may seem simplistic and even ridiculous, but at least give it some thought and try to tell me where my misunderstanding of history lies in my even asking it. Why was India returned to its people for self rule, why the same for African and Asian countries (and it is absolutely right that they were for the above mentioned colonial activity of Britain must rank as one of the greatest perpetrated crimes of man against man of all times) yet the USA and Australia were not. Was it because the indigenous peoples of those countries did not adopt and comply with the occupying powers of their countries in the same way that the Indians did and were thus so depleted and reduced that there was effectively none left to hand it back to. Or were they (the indigenous peoples) so thinly spread in number in the first place that the appropriation of their lands was effectively an historically inevitability, expedient to the general increase in the human population as a whole. Or was it simply that the occupiers, once having cut their ties with the countries from whence they came, had no countries to return to (that and having populations composed of many differing originating nationalities making ordered hand-over of power more difficult.
Tricky thinking and probably not productive to persue, but never the less it remains undeniable that the path of history for the the indigenous peoples of the USA and Australia has been markedly different from that of indigenous Indian ones who now oversee their own thriving country.