From: "jamin" <ben2-AT-mail.microserve.net> Subject: Re: FW 347 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:39:25 -0800 This only makes sense if we think of the creation of this empire as one resulting from a nation setting forth with the foreknowledge that it would face "poorly armed natives." However, it wasn't a nation that built the empire but small individuals with the fears common to them. More to the point these individuals did not desire to conquer simple challenges, they wanted to be men of action and make names for themselves as any man of action does. I don't think it is true that England faced simple tribes either. I think this is a mistake that we make by assuming certain things. A lack of technological sophistication combined with a seemingly underdeveloped desire to wage our kind of war seems to equal simplicity in our eyes. There are plenty of non- Western leaders who would undermine this assumption and who would have turned England back had not her representative used diplomacy instead of force. BenB. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Zhonu-AT-aol.com> To: <nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 5:25 PM Subject: Re: FW 347 > I think part of the answer is that the British Empire was acquired in 'fit of > forgetfulness' that is to say that there was no heroic conquest. Little > battles usually against poorly armed natives required that Britain do > something with what they got. Not out of pride of conquest but out of a sense > of white mans burden and the spread of, all things, Christianity. > > Chris > > > --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005