--- "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I would feel profoundly relieved; and if there's > some embarrassment in > that I won't mind. But I'm also trying to think > beyond just Iraq. It > seems to me that there are lots of post-colonial > regimes in the world that > don't live up to our moral standards and yet pose > little threat, but whose > cooperation and goodwill would be really, really > useful for a global war > against terrorist networks. I can't see how Bush's > rhetoric about a > God-given American destiny could serve any positive > purpose in winning > over portions of the world that will inevitably be > skeptical about US > motives and methods. And I don't see how those > nations who used to be > colonial powers can do anything but laugh at such > talk.
Well, Bush's rhetoric is partly aimed at an American audience, and I think largely reflects his own feelings. Post-colonial powers may understand that. But the nations who used to be colonial powers will laugh at that because the cynicism of "Old Europe" is such that the idea of doing something out of idealism is laughable to them. They know that they never meant it when they used such language, so they assume that we don't either. But we do. Shakespeare wrote - in Hamlet, I think - "Angels are bright, though the brightest fell / though all things foul would wear the brows of grace / yet grace must still look so." His point is equally applicable here. The fact that other people have used such language to justify barbarism does not mean that the language implies barbarism, it simply means that they were cynical. As we are not, it is not fair to judge us that way. People who are wont to see the US as an imperial power will use the language as "proof" - but they would use _any_ language as proof, and convincing them otherwise is impossible, so why try? But those who are likely to give the Administration a fair shake will recognize that they are, in fact, sincere when they expresss their desire to do well for the people of Iraq, not just for their own interests. Idealistic language has often (always) been used to camouflage self-interest. But the language is still idealistic for all of that, and when you truly are engaged in noble work, the language of noble causes is all that you have, debased as it has been by those who perverted it for their own ends. > A question about India - to what degree was the > success of colonialism in > India a consequence of Britain's sagacity, and to > what extent was it due > to the resources Indian culture had to bring to bear > on the problem of > being colonized in the first place? Not all > colonizers are equally bad, I > agree; but not all colonizees will present > colonizers with the same > issues, either. I'm genuinely curious here: my > knowledge of Indian > history is woefully deficient. > > Marvin Long I would describe mine as inadequate as well - but I would say, on the whole, that it was some of both. The leaders of the independence movement were _all_ educated in England and took their vision of post-Imperial India from the British model (for good and bad - my parents have often said that India would be an industrialized state today if Nehru had gone to Harvard instead of Oxford, and there is probably some truth in that). Did India have more cultural potential than most of the other post-colonial states? Well, it had a (very small) hyper-educated class that could establish a fairly good government. People like my family, where both great-grandfathers on my Mom's side (for example) were college-educated engineers. That didn't happen much in the African colonies and was largely a product of the Brahmin tradition. OTOH, there isn't really anything in Indian history that I am aware of that suggests an intrinsic thrust towards democracy, and the Indian founders clearly drew upon the British (and American) traditions in creating a relatively decent country. Had they been ruled by any other European state, I find it impossible to imagine that India would have done anything but collapsed into anarchy and dictatorship after independence. One of my uncle's occassionally comments that it was very brave of Gandhi to lie down in front of trains to protest Britain's rule. But if he had laid down in front of trains under German, French, Spanish, or Belgian rule - the train would have kept going. I have to agree with him. The fundamental decency of the British people and government was what kept the Raj from becoming an unimaginable barbarism, and the sentiments that Kipling expressed were a very large part of that. Gautam __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
