It
has become an offhand response to any discussions about Mahatma Gandhi and the
non-violent struggle for independence in colonial India to say “well, it wouldn’t
have worked against the Nazis” which implies that a democratic society albeit one
that has colonies is on a higher moral level than a fascist, undemocratic one
as it has a moral conscience that can be jerked into action by film or photos of
unarmed unresponsive protestors being beat down by truncheon wielding thugs.
I
would disagree not so much with the statement but with the false premise that
is the foundation of the statement.
First
off, The British in India and their other colonies were thugs maybe not as bad
as the Dutch in Indonesia or the French in Africa or Indochina but they were
pretty bad. Here’s a list of some
British massacres during colonial times http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100402031023AAzFofX
Second,
it wasn’t morality that forced the British to leave India. It was a combination of being bankrupt after
World War II and skillful use of the media by Gandhi and the non-violence
movement. The civil rights movement
would learn a very important lesson from that.
“The whole world is watching”
Third,
there has been a move on the last few decades to slander Gandhi as much as
possible. It seems to be mostly people
of a right wing bent doing this – good god fearing “Christians” who love to
attack anyone who doesn’t fit in with their autocratic sexually repressed materialistic
dogma. According to these folks, Gandhi
was any number of things (take your pick) – Pervert, anti-semite, bisexual,
hypocrite, liar, all around weirdo etc. The same folks also
hate Martin Luther King by the way.
You
can’t make an “if” statement if the premise is incorrect. Britain did not give up India due to it being
a more moral society as I’ve already discussed.
Arguing that Britain is anymore “moral” in the colonialist sense vs.
Nazi Germany. Yes, the Nazis killed
millions of people but how many people died globally over time as a result of
the displacement of colonialism? The
forced famines etc? Using non-violence against a state like Nazi Germany may
seem ridiculous but you’ll have to come up with a better way to critique it
than praising British colonialism and/or slandering Gandhi.
No comments:
Post a Comment