Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
I take no issue with that statement. Nowhere does it suggest that such views were "acceptable." I'm down with "mainstream." What I'm saying is that no person of conscience used such hierarchical views to hate, subjugate or disenfranchise.
|
On the contrary, such views formed the entire moral justification for European and American 19th century colonialism (ie subjugation of inferior races), which were supported by an awful lot of people of conscience.
Take a look, for example, at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (an extremely reputable scholarly source) article on colonialism:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/
From that article, the attitude of John Stuart Mill, one of the leading lights of the Enlightenment, and most assuredly a man of conscience:
Quote:
|
... according to John Stuart Mill (hereafter Mill), savages do not have the capacity for self-government because of their excessive love of freedom. Serfs, slaves, and peasants in barbarous societies, on the other hand, may be so schooled in obedience that their capacity for rationality is stifled. Only commercial society produces the material and cultural conditions that enable individuals to realize their potential for freedom and self-government. According to this logic, civilized societies like Great Britain are acting in the interest of less-developed peoples by governing them. Imperialism, from this perspective, is not primarily a form of political domination and economic exploitation but rather a paternalistic practice of government that exports “civilization” (e.g. modernization) in order to foster the improvement of native peoples. Despotic government (and Mill doesn’t hesitate to use this term) is a means to the end of improvement and ultimately self-government.
|
Ie “the ends justify the means”.