I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.
It was a different time, with a different culture, and different values. There's no real need to take things much further than that within the context of "acceptable" literature.
I agree that simple analysis isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but the kind of value judgments you're throwing into this simply are not necessary. Wringing our hands over past injustices that people living today had no role in committing isn't going to help anyone.
It simply serves to instill counter-productive cultural self-loathing.
Trying to actively cover up evidence of them is even more troublesome, as it gives people living today an inaccurate view of who our ancestors actually were.
Going by most historical examples, he most certainly would have.
If the people residing in a given society generally live in poverty, and lack access to basic necessities like indoor plumbing, electricity, clean water, and elementary education, then they just might need a helping hand every now and then.I'll take simplistic Eurocentric perspective of complex issues for 600 Alex.
What's the problem then?It did. It has. Today, the only sense you'd have that the DRC was once owned by the Belgians is the modern day carnage handed down by Leopold.
Again man, it was written during the 1930s. Most of the public's views on colonialist endeavors and the colonialist mindset would have been positive during this period. Trying to "white wash" this fact out of our society's cultural record isn't going to change it.Unless of course the depiction of colonialism is one meant to whitewash the atrocities committed. You're being purposely obtuse.
Take the attitudes the book expresses as being a product of their time and simply move on.
I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that you're not going to agree with everything you read.Revisionism, apologism, historical ignorance. That's what the rest of your post boils down to.
It doesn't mean that it necessarily needs to be banned.
Last edited by Gathomas88; 12-03-13 at 10:13 PM.
"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her." -- G.K. Chesterton