- Oct 2011
Agreed, but a lot of the time I have seen the guilt expanded from colonialist states and governments to whole population, not just of those states but even Europe. I guess I had an automatic reaction.Did you even read what I said? I explicitly said that not all Europeans should apologise. Learn to read. Stop saying "we" or "our":
"Apologies come from the states, which are not understood by the non-Europeans to be the whole population of a country. No one is saying the average Dutch is to blame for the millions of deaths from Suriname and South Africa to Papua and New Zealand by Dutch colonial ravage. Only the state of Holland has responsibility. This is as dumb as saying that all Cambodians are to blame for the Cambodian genocide instead of just the Khmer Communists under Pol Pot."
Also, what do you want me to call far-right Hindu sectarianism, an ultra-conservative, militaristic and dictatorial ideology then if not fascist?
Fascism brings connotations of imperialism. Considering all the crap going on in India, I see Hindu far-right as being inherently defensive, protectionist phenomenon.
Maybe, maybe not. A millenia is a long time to make up for demographic losses, although there is certainly a possibility that 400 millon number is overblown. But even individual Muslim rulers killed quite a lot: going by Wiki, Ghiyas ud din Balban killed 100 000 Hindus, Firuz Shah Tughlaq 180 000 Hindus, Bahmani Sultanate 500 000 in just two years, Delhi Sultanate 100 000 in 1398... these are just named massacres, but comparing it, scales of mass murders during Muslim rule were much greater than during British occupation. Keep in mind that 400 million was not necessarily number of murders, just demographic loss, which can include reduced natality, deaths due to hunger, disease etc.I really don't buy this seeing how Hinduism is the third largest religion and has numbers rivalling the worldwide population of Muslims. They certainly outnumber Muslims in the Indian subcontinent alone by as much as half a billion. What I think is that you're taking the numbers of conversion, not mass murder, to Hinduism in Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India alone that used to have large numbers of Hindus that gradually lost ground to Islam as the Muslims advanced.
And again, read above. No one is asking Europeans as a whole to apologise or holding them responsible as a whole, so it's ridiculous to hold Muslims with collective blame and guilt. Now, you could still say that the likes of Turkey or Saudi Arabia should apologise, but this is also ridiculous since none of the Muslim states that conquered in the past exist (virtually all modern-day Muslim states are post-colonial states either created and left by European colonisers or created artificial nation-states through anti-colonial liberation struggles) unless one wants to say Turkey is the legitimate successor of the Ottoman Empire. Certainly none of the Muslim states that conquered India in whole or in part, like the Umayyads, survived to this day, not to mention that the conquest of India involved few Muslim states, most actually involving individual Muslim warlords who carved and created their own states independent of existing Muslim polities that, again, no longer exist.
Turkey is as much of a successor to Ottoman Empire as modern-day UK is to British Empire, France is to French Empire, or modern-day Germany is to German Empire and Third Reich. Which is to say, it is the same bloody state. It is not like Austria-Hungary or Yugoslavia which fell apart (and even then, you could make a case about Austria/Hungary and Serbia, respectively, being primary successor states). So if UK should apologize for its colonialist past, then Turkey should apologize for its own. As for conquest of India, I actually agree with that.
And if you said that (about Anglo-Saxons) you would not have been wrong. That is how things were done in the day - and even today, for that matter (e.g. NATO intervention in Afghanistan). But they lacked the capability to do such a thing. As for colonization of Austrialia and Americas, yeah, that stuff had no excuse.This is hogwash. This is like saying the Anglo-Saxons should have invaded, conquered and subjugated Scandinavia and its population because Scandinavian kings supported the Vikings. In any case, that is only for the Algerian case. You're not going to say that Aboriginal Australians or Native Americans were raiding the coast of England, now, do you?
I do agree with your last sentence, however, except for the term "globalism" which I don't really know what it means. I prefer the term imperialism.
Globalism is an ideology which holds that all important matters should be solved on global scale with no regard to sovereignity of nation-state. You can say that colonialism and imperialism are early forms of globalism (or else that colonialism and globalism are forms of imperialism). They both were justified in the same way that globalism often is, that is, that peoples / nation-states are incapable of properly governing themselves and thus require "benevolent guidance from above". I used term "globalism" because, in my mind at least, "imperialism" has connotations of active state involvement ("Imperium" as used in Roman Republic was power given over something by the state), and is thus too narrow; while globalism can also include activities of non-state actors (individuals, NGOs, multinational corporations etc.).
Globalization is a process, and some aspects of it are possibly impossible to arrest. Globalism, however, is an ideology which is helping drive globalization. I explained it in more detail in the last paragraph of my reply to Escritor.Read it already, thanks.
One note: Why you use the term "globalism" and not "globalization"?