The Myth of White Supremacy

Dang! I hit the bulls’ eye. I mean I didn’t hit it, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra did that job but at least I had opportunity to read his thoughts. So its like I banged the target. Anyways. I guess I am going to write bunch of short column related to the columns, The Myths of Hindu Sameness.

British people ruled the world with the sense of superiority. Of course they didn’t start conquering world or had ambition to rule the world just to free people, business always comes first. But I think they assumed the superiority once they start getting success, at least in India. The sense of superiority always puzzled me. Our religion was definitely more progressive, rational and advanced than Christianity. We were super rich nation.. In fact, they arrived only because we were super rich. But then, how did they assumed the superiority over us? Because of their skin color? I doubt that. India have fair share of fair colored people, who look lot better than British people. Then is it that they became superior because they ruled us or conquered us? Partly, but their Christian faith played very important role.

Its better to read what Mr. Malhotra wrote in his column.

In the Bible, God gives man ownership of all animals and nature, for man's own pleasure. To support the plunder of other peoples, this supremacy was extended by Church theologians to argue in favor of the slavery of blacks and the genocide of millions of Native Americans, on the basis that they were heathens, i.e., not Christians. It was argued that the men who were given ownership of the bounty of nature were Biblical men and not the heathens.

By the early 1800s America, this had evolved into the well-known doctrine called Manifest Destiny, which was the basis for the conquest of new territory (such as Texas) from Mexico, along with the territorial expansion Westwards by conquering the Native Americans. This doctrine explicitly gave white Americans the right to 'civilize' others by whatever means they considered appropriate, and to take over their lands, property and cultures.

In British India, the argument of 'fitness to self-govern' was very explicitly used to remove various native rajas and install the East India Company's governance. A prominent example was the removal of the Queen of Jhansi (who had led the war of independence against the British) on the basis that she was an 'immoral person' and that this made her 'unfit to rule'. The phrase 'regime change' that is so common in the media today was used in the 19th century by the British to force their rule upon Indians – argued on the basis that they brought 'freedom' and better 'human rights' than the local Kshatriya rulers.

See, thus from now onwards, British people are superior in India and Spanish and Portuguise are superior in South and Central America.

And George W. Bush and his country is superior over Iraqi people. Dang! Now I understand the logic of regime change in Iraq.