Michelle Smith HSC 1102 (Midterm paper Gandhi vs. King) March 18, 2013 Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. used a policy of nonviolent resistance to campaign for change. Instead of countering violence with violence against their aggressors, they chose to resist unfair laws and call for collective social reform by nonviolent methods such as boycotting. After the British forced the Indians to become dependent on British cloth imports, Gandhi led a complete Indian boycott of British clothes. Similarly, King later organized a complete boycott of buses to promote his cause until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional. A major difference was that Gandhi campaigned against unjust laws of the British government, while Martin Luther King Jr. campaigned for rights that "colored" people were already lawfully supposed to have.
The last argument supported in this issue is the use of the restraining boxes; a restraining box is used to restrain animals and to “stun” them quickly and accurately before slaughter- and in which a ‘stun gun’ is to render the animal unconscious. But in Indonesia, stunning only occurs in a small amount of abattoirs as some say that the technique breaks the Islamic law. There are over 100 restraining boxes in use across Indonesia’s 120 abattoirs. This seemed to aggravate the mistreatment, with assurance from LiveCorp’s website that states “the ‘box’ facilitates improved animal treatment prior to and during slaughter”. I agree that live cattle export should be stopped as I think it is very unfair to the cattle as they should not be treated like this.
The Suez crisis caused great controversy within Britain and also did a lot to threaten Britain’s world relations, especially with the USA. The Crisis began as a result of Egypt’s Colonel Nasser failing to get funding from the USA for his high dam project which he believed would help Egypt to become a more powerful wealthy nation and bring its industry in line with that of other global powers. Nasser then turned to the Suez Canal for a source of national income. The canal was vital to Britain and France to allow for trade with many eastern countries. Britain had recently removed its troop from the area around the canal, so Nasser decided to nationalise the canal and impose a toll which he could use to fund the dam.
I am going to argue that sources 10 & 11 agree that the Amritsar Massacre created widespread and long-lasting hostility among Indians towards British rule. In contrast, I will argue that source 12 disagrees and that the Indian people appreciated British rule. Source 11 strongly highlights widespread hostility towards the British. The source uses words such as ‘dishonest’ and ‘evilly manned’[1]. This shows the lack of respect the Indian people were beginning to progress against the British Government.
The King Philip War significantly shifted the puritans’ attitude toward the Indians. The war not only inflicted pain and death upon the puritans, but also threatened the colony’s stability. The puritans thus became hostile toward the Indians and came to view them as enemies that needed to be eliminated in order to protect themselves as well as this “city on the hill”. In addition, John mentioned in his account that only a very small number of Indians were being converted to Christianity. The failure to convert the Native Americans to Christianity perhaps is another reason that changed the puritans’ attitude toward the Indians.
Despite the documentary many Europeans were killed during these massacres as well as Indians. The director not showing the Europeans being killed is a form of selection of detail. This takes away our traditional views of Indians from the old Cowboy and Indian movies where Indians kidnapped women and children and the white people were there savior. When the Europeans settled in America they tried to recreate Britain in this land but the climate, plants and animals were totally different so they were upsetting the natural ecosystem of the land. Whereas this is what the Indians had successfully not done by harvesting only what they need.
The effect of British rule on India was fall in economic conditions of Indian people, generating commercial problems, economic problems, lack in the growth of India and its development. Their rule resulted into poor conditions of the agriculture and farmers, exploiting Indian market for their own benefit and killing the domestic home made industries. 5. Indians differed from British Settlers in the fact that they were nomads while the British people believed in setting up cities. 6.
The Sultan, the pashas, Hoja, and the janissaries all wanted a Muslim world with good relations with other religions minus the Christians. It was the misunderstanding of Muslims by Christians and Christians by Muslims that fueled the fire in this conflict. With the Muslims caught up with religion and not making technological advances a priority they fell to the overpowering European empires which they try to destroy. It was these misunderstandings and oppressions that brought the Ottomans to a halt but the relation that only the Hoja and the young scholar made and finally understood at the end is what draws us in to know that at least these two could co-exist without religion getting in the
They were not happy with the change in government; therefore, they fought back. The westernization of India was immediately followed with battles. The Battle of Plassey lead by Nabob rulers against the British was India’s attempt to fight back the Europeans from colonizing their land. Unfortunately, the Indian’s futile attempts to keep out the British failed. They lost the battle, and Britain’s rule over India strengthened.
There have been many remarkable characters in history that have chosen to place more importance in individual conscious and moral duty than the duty owed to governmental law. One very important person in history that chose to honor his conscious instead of government law was Gandhi. Gandhi opposed British rule in India after the Amritsar Massacre, where British soldiers gunned down non-violent Indian protestors. After this incident, he realized that India was in need for self-rule. Gandhi then organized large-scale non-violent campaigns for easing poverty, broadening women’s rights, religious harmony, and most importantly, self-rule.