Is John Stewart Mill a racist Essay

Is John Stewart donkeywork a anti-Semite(a)? That is a very strong charge against some single that promotes the self-governingty of the soulfulness over that of the track down/community/state. M any tyros run the gamut on this issue. or so recollect that he is because the list of those entitled to soulal autonomy excludes those that die in backward societies. Other critics argue that he is non because he acknowledges the achievements of new(prenominal) civilizations and trace any social defects to improper governance or depressed circumstances rather than bodily characteristics, and he acknowledges the dark ages of Europe.Others realize his work and pronounce him a British Nationalist (Varouxakis, p. 5-6). If he were racist, it would rotate to be to a greater extent symbolic than overt. Symbolic racism earthly concernifests in verificatory delegacys in the United States, many whites be non instanter racist toward colors, however, they ar strongly opposed to a ffirmative action and b afford b escape children to better schools (McConahay & Hough). On a nonher level, whites are very reluctant to pass on away any of their power to other racial groups and offering more opportunities to minorities diminishes that power, and they know this on at least a subconscious level.every way, he is acknowledged by many to be unmatchable of the well-nigh important figures of modern bragging(a) thought. On Liberty was also ane of the almost famous books exploring the subjectmainly advocating the moral and economic emancipation of the individual from the state. The free and liberal state has only one sway that all(prenominal) individual ass do as he pleases as long as his actions do not reproach others. However, if someone makes a conscious decision to harm himself only, it is not the role of parliamentary law to discontinue him because it would interfere with his autonomy.For example, many people wanting the government to legalize drugs for get use this argument, Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign (Mill). However, many critics believe that these rights do not extend beyond the ground of Europe and the westerly, looking to interventionist actions taken by the US and the UK in the recent decade, The right to non-intervention, like the right to individual liberty, only belonged to those capable of using it, that is, to those mature enough to think and judge for themselves and to develop unaided(Parekh, p. 88).This topic seeks to assess how nineteenth-century liberalism furthered the imperial ambitions of European countries, its inherent disdain for other ways of life, and re entrance some of the erroneous assumptions that led to the exploitation of colonial subjects. We volition also examine some of its better premises and how they will apply in certain societies, and will punctuate to definitively answer the question of his racism. In Mills time, Great Britain possessed one of the largest empires in the area. The pileus had granted independence to small colonies like Ceylon during his lifetime.However, when the subject of independence for India was embossed in parliament, Mills argued strongly against it (Parekh, p. 90). Perhaps he felt that they were not ready for independence because in his opinion, they were backward. If rumors of his nationalism have chastity, then he might have feared that his country was losing power around the world. The idea of hand master might have been based on the assumption that other nations will grow to supplant Britain as the main superpower on earth.Also, if other nations with more backward beliefs were to possess resources that would make them wealthier and powerful than the genteel nations The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection(Mill). If this is taken in terms of global relations, allowing other s to wield power would be seen as a direct threat to Britains position, and abdicating their holdings would be tantamount to putting themselves in the indifferent position.In his own social context, Mill believed in the freedom to pursue activities, stock-still immoral ones, provided that its pursuit does not harm anyone. The most obvious example of this is taking drugs. In Mills paradigm, a person smoking marijuana should not be punished for this action. Instead, alliance should only punish him if his actions under the influence lead to the injury or death of another person. On the grey areas of morality, scholars often dispute what it agent to cause harm.For example, post-colonial theorist Bhiku Parekh argues that liberalism takes an intolerant, missionary, dogmatic slant to life. As a critic of J. S. Mill, Parekh picks apart liberalism in great detail, particularly the liberals paternalism or egressright scorn toward non-liberal communities that do not treasure materialism or ambition He argues that liberals believe that their path is the only legitimate one and that non-liberal societies do not have the right to decide the course of their existence, or even the right to decide to exist at all self-governing of the dictates of a superior civilization.In rewrite to justify the inherently nonequivalent and exploitative colonial rule, liberals indispensable to show that the British had something to give to their colonies that the latter(prenominal) badly needed, were unable to acquire unaided, and which was so precious as to be for whatever economic and political price they were required to pay(Parekh, p. 86). In the case of the British colonies, they brought civilization. India was considered school tho stagnant, and needed British rule to move forward (Parekh, p. 88).The political actions on part of the British signify that there is only a small list of ideological, philosophical, and religious beliefs that depose be considered civilized. In f act, according to Parekh, Mill resisted every parliamentary front to grant India some measure of independence because he did not believe the nation was ready to stand on its own. Perhaps, Mill believed that the Indians would unintentionally harm themselves or others without interference, because that was his only justification for intervention.That is the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will(Mill). Though India was recognized as civilized by the West, it was a civilization in its infancy, not yet ready for self-determination. Most of the eastmost did not embrace capitalism and laissez-faire governments. The primary emphasis of each citizen was the community and the family rather than the individual. However, the European vision was spread throughout the world via colonialism.Had the Chinese or Indians taken over every continent on earth, the prevailing global norms would be quite different, and a new e nsample of set would be spread. In fact, Parekh raises the point that if one was to critique the West using non-liberal philosophical systems, it might be found lacking. If we took the Indian, the Chinese or the Islamic views of man as our standard, it is the self-centric and even self-obsessed liberal societies that would appear inferior(Parekh, p. 99).In the United States and Western Europe, there is a sharp musical interval between church and state, and strong social pressure to have the biggest, newest, and trounce products on the market. Other cultures value achievement much as well, but consumerism very little. Economic freedom in the West is greater than in China or India. The tendency to homogenize the West and to view liberalism as its sole authentic voice is also evident in the way many contemporary liberals ground their moral judgments.Take the frequently invoked and philosophical dubious concept of moral intuition. Although liberal philosophers admit that moral intuit ions are fallible and often confused and contradictory, they assign them an ontologically privileged status and view them as more or less authentic indicators of our cultural individualized identity and expressive of our deepest moral being(Parekh, p. 100). Mill embraced the ideal that each person was autonomous and needed to inhabit according to his inclinations.Those living in societies that airt Mills fundamental law of human interaction needed to be guided toward the truth which lent his writing a popular opinion of religious certainty rather than racist sentiment. While Parekh saw liberalism as a system of thought that promoted racism and intolerance, Georgios Varouxakis argues differently. Although Mill was a man of his time, he was not a racist as he judged the merit of a culture by its technology and philosophical system rather than the physical appearance of the citizens. While accepting vaguely that racial origin is one of the factors influencing the formation of nat ional character, Mill went further to establish that racial sensibility in itself could prove nothing and was liable to be modified out of any recognition through the agency of circumstances such as institutions, historical accidents, and human Effort(p. 43).For example, those dwelling at the bottom rungs of society often have no interest in working and try to do as little as possible because there is no genuine incentive for them to invest themselves in any way. Any race would be indolent and idle, he stressed, if the arrangements under which they lived and worked resulted in their deriving no advantage from forethought or exertion(Varouxakis, p. 45). Examples of this include enslaved and oppressed African-Americans, the Irish under England, and the Dalits in India. Most members of an underclass lack ambition, not because they lack the intelligence, but because they believe that the hard work ahead of them will not amount to anything as they lack a stake in society.Parekh argues t hat liberalism is inherently European in character. He is correct in this assertion because in Western European culture, a significant portion of identity is derived from vocation rather than through family unlike much of the world. Western Europeans also value rugged individualism much more than other cultures. This affection for personal independence existed prior to formalizing it into a philosophy. Varouxakis also shows evidence that liberal philosophy blurs the borders between nations, as it had gained the admiration of many people on earth.Mills own countrymen described him as an extreme radical and un-English in the lead acknowledging his contribution to political theory (p. 1). Therefore, while liberalism is European (or English) in origin, it has fully grown far beyond its borders to inspire people in other countries to abdicate their homes and live a more liberal and individualistic lifestyle. In sum, even though the people of Europe and Asia belong to different racial groups, the liberal devaluation of their culture is by no means racially motivated.Liberal political orientation disdains all systems that subject the individual to the state, the group, or God. For example, while liberals were often prideful of the East and tribal cultures in general, they often did not think any better of the Fascists, Communists, and Socialists in their midst. Parekh is correct in arguing that contemporary liberalism does not allow for much variability in thought and belief, In acrimony of their emphasis on choice and diversity then, most contemporary liberals are hostile to non-individualist forms of life.They aspire to a culturally homogeneous world in which all alike are wedded to the narrowly defined values of autonomy and choice(Parekh, p. 101). The true liberal way of life would be broad enough to encapsulate everyone and prompt an exchange of ideas in order to continually reach for better solutions in this rapidly evolving world. Non-individualist cult ures will not impose their views on those that do not follow their path, and individualists will live and let live.