John Stuart Mill The Negro Question Analysis

My topic originated from reading Thomas Carlyle and John Stuart Mill 's debate in December 1849-January 1850. Both writers published anonymously in Fraser ' Magazine, with Carlyle writing a violent critique, ‘Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question’, and Mill sending in an outraged response simply entitled ‘The Negro Question’ that appeared in the following issue. Counteracting Carlyle 's very racist vision of the repartition of work among Black and White Jamaicans with arguments undermining that conception, Mill retorted

But I again renounce all advantage from facts: were the whites born ever so superior in intelligence to the blacks, and competent by nature to instruct and advise them, it would not be the less monstrous to assert that

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. And it was this belief that bred fear and panic’ (Mukherjee 95). Religion played an important role in the increasing tensions between Britons and Indians prior to the revolt as Indians resented the persistent attempts at Christianisation promoted by their imperial rulers. This particular issue over ammunitions allegedly proved to be the last straw. Albert Pionke explains that

The stance held by the majority of Britons during the Indian Mutiny and, after the Morant Bay Rebellion, by Eyre sympathisers was that any revolt against imperial power should be repressed. Rioters should not be able to get away without punishment, or else others would follow and the Empire would be threatened on all sides. Punch thus called for revenge in a cartoon entitled ‘Justice’ which depicted Britannia slaughtering mutinous sepoys and their families in retaliation for the massacre of Britons in India (33:109). In short, the issue was about preserving Britain 's colonial power by measuring how much repression was needed to make colonial subjects both too afraid to try another revolt, and at the same time not bitter enough to attempt another riot as a revenge. On the other hand, perceiving that they were being treated unfairly could also prompt colonial subjects to rebel, as the Jamaican rebellion showed. An alternative option, supported by Mill and anti-Eyre movements for example, was therefore one questioning the generalised method of oppressing people and crushing riots when any occurred. Rather, it preventively advocated for an equal treatment of all regardless of race in order to avoid embittering impressions of