Most studies have taken into account the reactions of Britons through the press. Albert Pionke sketches the different tendencies of the British press in their depictions of Indians, British troops and the Mutiny in general. Although showing the strategies used by newspapers to promote the heroism of Britons in comparison with mutinous natives – both in terms of military achievements and personal virtues – Pionke's analysis is mainly descriptive and he offers a rather general overview without going into much detail. Don Randall too touches on the reactions in the press to the Indian Mutiny, but put them in parallel with the main object of his focus, religious sermons calling Britain for a day of fasting and self-examination. This nation-wide …show more content…
Randall draws bridges between the Mutiny and religion (and its effects through philanthropy). He examines where, according to those sermons, the blame lay for the uprising – either on Britain as a whole, on the East India Company or simply on ‘heathen’ sepoys, and hints at how accusing each of these alternative culprits involved social and/or racial ideas of superiority of one group over another. For example, Randall makes light on the strategies used by Christian missions to urge for more effective policies toward the Christianisation of India by blaming the East India Company's ban on military missionaries for the ruthlessness of the mutineers. In that sense, Randall joins Salahuddin Malik in showing that imperialism and religion were intertwined, as British – or indeed Western – standards tended to consider Christianity as a basic requirement for being considered civilised. Similarly, Malik demonstrates how the revolt was seized upon by preachers at home with that result. The essay also shows that in these sermons religion also served the purpose of justifying violence. It is true that
Throughout the “Narrative of Fredrick Douglass”, Douglass develops an image between true and false Christianity. Douglass elaborates his point in the opening appendix, calling the former “the Christianity of Christ” and the latter “the Christianity of this land.” Douglass describes the ordeal that slaveholders’ Christianity is not a given evidence of natural goodness, but an artificial state of self-righteous brutality. To tackle this distinction, Douglass states a basic contradiction between the charitable, peaceful beliefs of Christianity and the violence from the immoral actions of slaveholders. The character that is described as a good example for this theme is Thomas Auld.
Samuel Sherwood and Jonathan Boucher were both ministers tasked with preaching in this climate of resistance. Sherwood delivered his sermon titled, Scriptural Instructions to Civil Rulers in 1774. Simultaneously Samuel Boucher imparted biblical analysis in, On the Character of Absalom. Both Sherwood and Boucher offer a glimpse into the political climate following the passage of the Intolerable Acts. Both men identified what they believed the present danger to colonists and their efforts of resistance.
His argument, clearly articulated in the afterword, is that Bacon’sRebellion served as the first act in a longer drama that did not reach its cli-max until the Glorious Revolution. Successive crises between 1675 and 1689were fueled by the same underlying factors, which Rice refers to as unresolved“dilemmas” that produced “dramatic tension” (211). Restive colonists inVirginia and Maryland faced one dilemma, struggling to assert their rightsas Englishmen in an increasingly repressive regime controlled by wealthyoligarchs. Native Americans faced another dilemma, struggling to surviveEnglish territorial expansion and the escalating violence of the Indian slavetrade. Colonial leaders attempted to strike a balance between the demands of their English subjects and their Indian allies, but ultimately found this to beimpossible.
This excerpt illustrates the difference between Christianity and the Christianity of the slaveholders and draws a daunting hiatus between them that cannot be crossed. Douglas said knowing true, pure faith necessitated the rejection of the accepted, wide-spread slaveholder religion as the “enemy”. The establishment that slaveholders called Christianity was simply not Christianity as it validated the actions of whipping, killing, and subjugation of fellow human beings. It was “hypocritical” because it allowed people to commit atrocities in the name of faulty high moral standards and was “the climax of all misnomers”. It was a ruse to call their system Christianity since it was manipulated into whatever it was needed to for, making it “corrupt”
Explanations of the American Revolution are extracted from the real life accounts of individuals who were directly involved in the activities that took place during this period. One of the Key authors focused in the essay is Mary Jemison, a white woman married into the American Indian tribe of Seneca. She lived the better part of her life alongside the Seneca community and endured a multitude of experiences that enabled her to write about her compelling account of the American Revolution from the year 1775-1779. Indian tribes lived in harmony along the whites, who were the Colonialists and the Americans. During the time of writing of the accounts, most of the States were under colonial rule, but the grip that the colonialists had on the people was sleeping away as rebel groups formed to fight off the oppressive reign of the colonialists.
To those living in British America in the 1700’s, religion was a central fixture of everyday life. One’s denomination was intrinsically tied up in one’s ethnic and social identity, and local churches in the mid-Atlantic depended upon the participation and donations of their parishioners to survive. However, as the 18th century progressed, poorer farmers and ministers across the diverse sects of colonial America came to resent the domination of church life by the upper class. In a parallel development, a split had grown between the rationalists, who were typically wealthy, educated and influential men who represented the status quo, and the evangelicals, who disdained the impersonal pretention of the rationalists and promoted a spiritual and
There were many key events and people that led up to the American Revolution. Two of them being the The Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre. These events are very important to history because these were the first of many events that helped with the establishment of independence from Britain. The colonist left their country and sailed across the oceans in hopes of starting a new life in a new world. However, the British government didn't give them that opportunity by controlling them.
In consequences, all the Protestants, Jews and Muslims from Spain where considered as heretics and were persecuted. In this work, we will firstly explore the roots of the Spanish Inquisition. In a second part, we will analyse how the Spanish Inquisition occurred. Finally we will consider the different
The Marāthās, in particular, became so enraged that they eventually gained their independence from the Mughals and established their own empire,” (Gale). The departure of the Marāthās proves the lack of religious tolerance the Mughals had at times. The Marāthās were so enraged at the lack of acceptance that they left the empire rendering it smaller and weaker. This is just one example of the Mughals not only only neglecting to practice religious tolerance, but how refusing to accept all people for their beliefs backfired in the empire’s overall growth and unity.
The captivity of Mary Rowlandson proved to be a test of her strong will and determination to survive, that pushed her religious faith to its limits. With the onset of King Phillip’s war, the life of the Puritans was evermore changing. Was this solely due to the savage nature of the Indian or was there an underlying frustration that was developing? Had the Indian’s tolerance of being banished from their land and their way of life being desecrated lasted long enough? Throughout the years many changes had taken place within the New World and its inhabitants.
Although Doyle's The Sign of Four admires the peculiar aspects of Indian cultures, it upholds England's authority without questioning its legitimacy as reflected in Small's description of the Mutiny which unjustifiably associates India with barbarism. Stevenson's The Beach of Falesa, on the other hand, adamantly emphasizes the moral depravity of the white perpetrators. Both of these tales have undoubtedly broadened the imaginative horizons of British readers and their analyses have broadened mine so I am extremely thankful for the knowledge I acquired through this
The Englishmen held themselves high above any important figures in India, and wanted to show that they were in charge any way they could. Fleete feeling superior to a god shows the arrogance that came with the Englishmen, and how insensitive it could cause them to
The proclamation which features in the cartoon was issued by Canning to prescribe how the British troops should deal with the mutineers, and what rewards awaited those Indians who submitted to Britain instead of following the rebels. Chakravarti comments that ‘despite an appearance of clemency, the guidelines constituted a more
The idea was that ‘God’s will was dominant; obedience to it meant glory, success, and comfort; disobedience involved punishment and even annihilation’ (Malik 109). It was therefore one 's duty, both for a Briton and for a citizen of the Empire, to contribute to the colonising process for the glory of God and the Empire, but also as a security against divine punishment and earthly threats. Because people who felt excluded could and would rebel, it was important to entertain a sense of belonging to the Empire to cultivate this patriotic feeling of imperial pride. Among more complex reasons, the Indian Mutiny was famously triggered by rumours over the nature of the grease used for the cartridges of military rifles. Whether it was actually true that beef grease (insulting to the Hindoo religion) or pork grease (insulting to Islam) had been used in the fabrication of those cartridges, ‘what was important in all this was not the objective truth, but what the people believed to be true.
We are going to see to what extent we can say that Macaulay’s “Minute on Indian Education” reflects British society and the western point of view at the time. In a first part, we will focus on the opposition between Orientalists and Anglicists and in a second part, we will see about the western society seen as culturally superior compared to other nations and societies. On one hand, there was an opposition