Oftentimes, we find ourselves defining events along binary lines, good or evil, right or wrong. Yet events are rarely so simple. What criteria do we use to decide? What makes Auschwitz wrong and the American Japanese Internment Camps better? What makes the British Empire so unacceptable, when while the US was keeping slaves, the British navy was dismantling the slave trade?
It is generally considered that Rhodesia was a wrongheaded country. They were racist, did not allow blacks the vote, all that jazz. Yet, during the Bush War, ZANU-PF operated a campaign of terror, rape, mutilation. Instead of backing Rhodesia up, the West turned its back. There was public outcry about Rhodesia's policies, but it seems that during the Bush War, ZANU-PF was tacitly supported, despite their tactics, as embargo and a declaration of rogue state status meant that no one (Save for South Africa, and then only secretly) would extend aid to the government. In 1979, the rebels took over the government. They proceeded to send death squads into Matabeleland (The stronghold of their former allies, the Ndebele), killing tens of thousands of civilians. The land redistribution policies implemented by Mugabe's government kept Zimbabwe in a state of perpetual food shortage, and were no less racist than the policies of Smith's government. Each time there is an election, Mugabe's forces massacre civilians until the opposition backs down. Yet, Mugabe's Zimbabwe is more deserving of recognition by the international community, it seems.
On the night of March 25, 1953, Mau Mau fighters descended on the village of Lari, in Kenya. They forced the citizens, fellow Kikuyu who made the mistake of being loyal to the British, into huts. They locked the huts, and lit them on fire. Anyone who tried to escape was hacked to death. It did not matter if the victims were man, woman, or child. It did not matter that these were fellow Kikuyu. They made the mistake of failing to support the Mau Mau, so they died in a most horrible fashion. This was the most famous atrocity, but there were many more. The Mau Mau were some of the most brutal "freedom fighters" in history. The British began a process of detention and rehabilitation. Suspected Mau Mau were rounded up and detained. Their prison system was far from pleasant. There was brutality. There were forced confessions. Prisoners were judged more or less cooperative based on how easily they confessed, and were treated accordingly. The prisoners set up their own system, punishing those who cooperated. Comparisons were made to the Nazi concentration camps. Yet, these prisoners weren't culled. They were provided with food and shelter, and by 1956, any suspected Mau Mau were granted amnesty and reintegrated, along with land reforms that increased their holdings.
The British erred. We must admit that. However, what they did was perfectly understandable. The Mau Mau's crimes were shockingly brutal, and directed not against the British, who they claimed to fight, but against the Black Kenyan populace. The British clearly felt that they had to act in order to restore order and bring justice to these villains. Yet, somehow history has twisted the British into the villains here.
In 1917, the Balfour Declaration was published, indicating the British support for Palestine to be established as a home for the the Jewish People. After World War II, efforts were made to develop this idea. The British policed Palestine, enforcing coexistence between the Jewish and Arab populations of the region. Yet, in 1946, Jewish terrorists bombed the King David Hotel, killing almost 100 people, most of whom were Brits, the people who provided them this home to begin with. In 1948, 260 Arabs were killed at Deir Yassin. These events have been repeated throughout the history of Israel. Yet, while we desperately fight to bring men like Ratko Mladic to justice for similar crimes, we turn a blind eye to Menachem Begin, the man who planned these attacks, who managed to thrive and even become prime minister. In 1967, the IDF attacked the USS Liberty, a United States flag vessel. She remained aloat, thanks to her heroic crew and the Sixth Fleet, and made it to Malta.
Time and again, Israel has thumbed her nose at the West, and even behaved in a hostile fashion, despite the fact that our support is what allows them to exist and continue existing. Hamas are no better, and should be criticized accordingly. Yet, to criticize Israel is to be an antisemite.
Events such as these have been repeated time and again. People have arbitrarily decided that the British Empire was evil because it denied self-determination to the people it governed. Yet, self-determination has not worked out so well for many of these countries. Take Hong Kong. She is more advanced, freer, and wealthier than any city in mainland China. People have criticized the US for getting involved in Iraq, despite the fact that as foolish and short-sighted as it was on a strategic scale (Saddam Hussein was largely responsible for keeping Iran in check), Saddam Hussein was a monster. Time and again, people criticize nations for acts that were carried out in response to far worse monstrosities.
So who decides who was right and wrong? How can one declare empire to have be wrong, when faced with the results? Why are we so quick and eager to criticize the West, when oftentimes, despite our missteps, we are attempting to improve the world?
What are your thoughts on this?
16 Mar 2013, 2:35 pm
