Readings in ethnocentric policy making

When one ponders on the reasons why European colonialists were so arrogant and condescending towards their subjects (the British Raj in India offers stark examples, the Belgians in Congo is another one that readily spring to mind), one often makes connections between the brutalities and their perpetrators; one often concentrates on the individuality behind the viceroys and administrators who bought their own brand of iron fisted justice to the faraway lands they lorded over... In fact, many history books in India explicitly deal with individuals and their racist actions paying little attention to the fact that many of them were schooled to think that the white race was the superior race. The reality included the fact that this was a standard and rational way to think about ethnic superiority in the nineteenth century. It was fashionable to do so and individuals espousing contradictory viewpoints were relegated to the fringes. A new book by James Bradley titled ‘The Imperial Cruise A Secret History of Empire and War’ offers clues into indoctrination into an Aryan mindset that was prevalent even in the Americas of the nineteenth century. It chronicles Americas forays into colonialism and the decidedly ethnocentric Anglo-Saxon thoughts of leaders like Theodore Roosevelt.

"One after another, White Christian males in America’s finest universities ‘discovered’ that the Aryan was God’s highest creation, that the Negro was designed for servitude and that the Indian was doomed to extinction... Another chapter describes the means by which the idea of exporting suffrage and democracy to primitive societies needed to be adjusted for Hawaii, with its existing native monarch and vastly outnumbered white population. Here and in its discussion of China, the book particularly emphasizes the way American assumptions of white superiority made the patriotism of other populations hard to understand. Roosevelt’s “inability to recognize third-world nationalism” is cited again and again, not simply as a prejudice but as an obstacle to effective policy.

Yes, many times public policy could be determined and shaped by ones own ethnic prejudices that paradoxically one is most comfortable with. A stark example of this is seen today in America's very public exasperation over the inability of the elected Iraqi parliament to finalize an election law out of very democratic structures that we helped erect in the name of democracy (apparently passing a comprehensive election law seems to have stalled for the 12th time via a veto yesterday by one of the two vice presidents of the Presidency Council of Iraq) while at home we are perfectly OK with the clear intransigence of our Senators who have been bickering over universal healthcare for over 20 to 30 years and it still has not come to pass.

British army blowing Sepoy mutineers from guns in 1857

From the February 15, 1862 issue of Harpers Weekly:  A late mail from India brought accounts of two such executions. On 12th June, at Pashawar, forty men were tried, convicted, and sentenced to be blown from the guns. The execution was a dreadful sight. Three sides of a square were formed by British troops, and in the centre ten guns were planted, pointing outward. In dead silence the decree of the court was read, and this ceremony concluded, a prisoner was bound to each gun-his back placed against the muzzle, and his arms fastened firmly to the wheels. The signal is now given, and the salvo fired. The discharge, of course, cuts the body in two; and human trunks, heads, legs, and arms may be seen for an instant flying about in all directions. As there were only ten guns used on this occasion, the mutilated remains had to be removed four times. All of these forty criminals met their fate with firmness, with the exception of two; and to save time, they were dropped to the ground, and their brains blown out by musketry. Another execution of a similar nature took place on the 13th of June, at Ferozepore. All the available troops and public establishments were convened to witness the scene. Some of the mutineers were to be hung, and around the gallows, erected during the night previous, the soldiers were drawn up. The mutineers were then brought into the centre, and the proceedings of the general Court-Martial was read. Upon being informed that if they would become Queen's evidence they would be reprieved, twelve of the criminals accepted the offer and were marched to the rear. Two were taken to the gallows. They ascended the ladder with firm steps, and to the last moment betrayed no emotion of fear. The remaining ten were now led away to the artillery guns, and while their irons were being struck off some cried, "Do not sacrifice the innocent for the guilty!" Two others rejoined, "Hold your sniveling: die men and not cowards—you defended your religion, why then do you crave your lives? Sahibs! they are not Sahibs, they are dogs!" Others then began to upbraid their commanding officer. The wretched beings were quickly fastened to the muzzles of ten guns, charged with blank cartridge. The commanding officer directed port-fires to be lit. "Ready!" "Fire!" and the drama was played out. An eye-witness says: "The scene and stench were overpowering. I felt myself terribly convulsed, and could observe that the numerous native spectators were awe-stricken—that they not only trembled like aspen-leaves, but also changed into unnatural hues. Precaution was not taken to remove the sponge-and-load men from the muzzles of the guns; the consequence was that they were greatly bespattered with blood, and one man in particular received a stunning blow from a shivered arm!"