Los bericht bekijken
Oud 2 januari 2011, 02:26   #1
porpo
Europees Commissaris
 
porpo's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 20 juni 2009
Berichten: 6.053
Standaard Wat Darwin in 'ethiek' impliceert: Churchill en India 'uitgehongerd' als voorbeeld

It is 1943, the peak of the Second World War. The place is London. The British War Cabinet is holding meetings on a famine sweeping its troubled colony, India. Millions of natives mainly in eastern Bengal, are starving.

(....)

In the end, Mukherjee writes eloquently, it was "not so much racism as the imbalance of power inherent in the social Darwinian pyramid that explains why famine could be tolerated in India while bread rationing was regarded as an intolerable deprivation in wartime Britain". For colonial apologists, the book is essential reading. It is a terrifying account of how colonial rule is direly exploitative and, in this case, made worse by a man who made no bones of his contempt for India and its people.

Bron (bbc.co.uk)

Indien Darwin (of darwinisme en geen theïstisch/deistisch darwinisme) gelijk heeft, waarom mogen we over een 'moraal' spreken? Proberen we onszelf te misleiden of is dit (zoals de wereld buiten ons bewustzijn zelf misschien?) ook een 'grote' illusie?
porpo is offline   Met citaat antwoorden