A blanket statement
What is a blanket statement? A statement that encompasses everything, that generalizes and lumps everything together? Yes, that seems about right. Should blanket statements be made or not? That depends. One can very well say that a blanket statement is unfair, that not all are alike. But history is full of blanket statements. Were some native Americans chased off their lands, and others were not? Was it that some tribes that seemed dangerous, criminal minded and totally destructive were deprived of the privilege of owning land, while other tribes that were well behaved, decent, were given ownership rights? Now that, would not have been a blanket statement. Lets take slavery in America. Were slaves from all ethnic races? Whites, native Americans, orientals, negroes, caucasians, etc? Or were they 99.99 percent black? So can we say that that too was a blanket statement. That all slaves are black, or that only blacks can be slaves?
Lets move to Australia. At first it was a convict colony only, with no real interest shown by the British Crown, but then they colonized it also. Now did they just exterminate the aboriginals, or did they also exterminate the whites that were already inhabiting the land, having been sent there as convicts? Did they say lets cleanse this land of all that are there or just the natives? I think this too can be a blanket statement.
Similar is the case of the colonization of the Indies, the carribean, the colonization of Africa, the colonization of Indonesia, of India. The colonization of the middle east. The term colony is significant here. None of the locals ever became full fledged British or French or German or Portuguese citizens. They never enjoyed the same rights as the colonial masters. So this too was a blanket statement.
And while there are instances of the Spain, Holland, England, France, Portugal, Germany and the Italians colonizing, are there any intances of an African nation colonizing a European one? Or an instance of a South American country colonizing a North American one? Or any example of an Arab country colonizing enmasse or even one European country.
The Arabs were at one time conquerors, but not once instance can be found of the Arabs looting and pillaging a conquered land, to simply build their homeland and letting that colonized land to go waste. Hence they never colonized to simply feed their homeland, they inhabited those lands, they became locals as well, and homogenized. Hence those lands became home to both the conquered and the conquerors, that developed a sense of caring, one does not go about destroying his own home, or bleeding it dry.
So if throughout history blanket statements have been made, why can't we make onenow, saying that the West never saw the East as equal, always saw itself as superior, and "born" to rule. If the East was never given that privilege, why should the West now, all of a sudden talk about fairness and ask that blanket statements not be made since such statements are so obviously biased? Are they now? About time the West figured it out. Or has it really?
Are there any European nations under scrutiny for WMDs, or are the nuclear programs of the Western nations ever questioned? Are any Western nations named among the axis of evil, or considered a terrorist threat?
So I ask again, has the West really figured it out that blanket statements are biased?
Lets move to Australia. At first it was a convict colony only, with no real interest shown by the British Crown, but then they colonized it also. Now did they just exterminate the aboriginals, or did they also exterminate the whites that were already inhabiting the land, having been sent there as convicts? Did they say lets cleanse this land of all that are there or just the natives? I think this too can be a blanket statement.
Similar is the case of the colonization of the Indies, the carribean, the colonization of Africa, the colonization of Indonesia, of India. The colonization of the middle east. The term colony is significant here. None of the locals ever became full fledged British or French or German or Portuguese citizens. They never enjoyed the same rights as the colonial masters. So this too was a blanket statement.
And while there are instances of the Spain, Holland, England, France, Portugal, Germany and the Italians colonizing, are there any intances of an African nation colonizing a European one? Or an instance of a South American country colonizing a North American one? Or any example of an Arab country colonizing enmasse or even one European country.
The Arabs were at one time conquerors, but not once instance can be found of the Arabs looting and pillaging a conquered land, to simply build their homeland and letting that colonized land to go waste. Hence they never colonized to simply feed their homeland, they inhabited those lands, they became locals as well, and homogenized. Hence those lands became home to both the conquered and the conquerors, that developed a sense of caring, one does not go about destroying his own home, or bleeding it dry.
So if throughout history blanket statements have been made, why can't we make onenow, saying that the West never saw the East as equal, always saw itself as superior, and "born" to rule. If the East was never given that privilege, why should the West now, all of a sudden talk about fairness and ask that blanket statements not be made since such statements are so obviously biased? Are they now? About time the West figured it out. Or has it really?
Are there any European nations under scrutiny for WMDs, or are the nuclear programs of the Western nations ever questioned? Are any Western nations named among the axis of evil, or considered a terrorist threat?
So I ask again, has the West really figured it out that blanket statements are biased?
posted by lone-ranger at 7:18 PM
0 Comments:
<< Home