I wonder if there are any instances of imperialism that aren't considered morally reprehensible. For example, what if the United States randomly decided to take over Sierra Leone and dispose of the warring parties, but instead of ruling the country with an iron hand and exploiting it for blood diamonds they set up a fair and equal government that brought about an era of peace? Indeed, it's an unlikely scenario, but I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate for imperialism and think of a possible hypothetical.
 |
| If some type of invading force decided to take over Sierra Leone, they would have the capability to put an end to the atrocities being committed, such as the constant mutilation that currently occurs. Is imperialism really that bad then? |
"Take, for instance, the issue of the very naming of the conflict. Scholars have taken for granted that the term "mutiny" as applied to the Indian upheaval is a demeaning one meant to minimize and criminalize what ought properly to be portrayed as a broad-based civil insurrection and a war of national liberation" (144-145).
This quote made me really think about the minutiae of word choice. It's true that "mutiny" does cast the rebellion in a negative light, but not much can be done considering that "history is written by the victors." I think this is a really good example of that quote.
 |
| It seems that the British are often on the winning side of the history--there's a reason that they are rarely portrayed in a negative light. |
"A Muslim family was attacked three weeks ago...by a Hindu mob that suspected the family of eating beef....The father, Mohammed Ikhlaq, 50, was killed, and his son was seriously injured" (147).
Stories like this always make me think, "why?" I appreciate religion for the hope and faith it instills in people, but at a certain point extremism totally crosses the line.
 |
| The human-human violence over cow slaughter in India is just as horrible as the human-cow violence that occurs in slaughterhouses. |
