You can’t be seriously suggesting that multiculturalism is uniquely Western? In the pre-colonian era, there was flourishing multiculturalism in the Indian subcontinent, Europe and Middle-east (still is in some parts), and in the Islamic world. Most of the people grappling with multiculturalism and construction of humane societies in the modern world are doing so because theirs has becomes a decadent society due to a number of reasons. It is not an issue of white man’s burden as it is the collective problem of fostering global societies.
Though the British-India story someone quoted is interesting and definitely has meaning, I do like to say a few things:
(1) It continues to propagate the image that the British were a humane people in sharp contrast to the Indian barbarians. Indian society became fossilized, women became marginalized and norms and practices became decadent. History proves that there were better times (e.g. Ancient Tamils ran a egalitarian society relative to the standards at their time)
(2) There were many Indians who indulged in social reform. One common motif in Indian history is decline followed by reform followed by decline… etc. Though it is true that Western civlization in some sense formalized the concept of a humane society, the concept was not entirely alien to many other civilizations and cultures.
You also have to consider that many peoples still retain the colonial past in their memories. (I wish some history is forgotten) This makes the education task much harder as the motives of the “white man” are constantly questioned. But, inevitably, I think globalisation will succeed in creating more human societies.
The story is usually attributed to Sir Charles Napier when he was Governor of Sind (modern Pakistan).He certainly did ban Sutte. When protests were made he is alleged to have replied when these protests were made .
**“It is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and hang them. Build your funeral pyre and beside it my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your national custom - then we shall follow ours.” **
Whether he did say it? Some sources say yes , others no.Take your pick really.
I am aware of Sir Charles Napier in the context of the controversial annexation of Sind. There is yet another apocryphal story that involves him sending a telegram (“Peccavi”) that was interpreted as “I have sinned”, when he meant “I have Sind”! This story was used as fodder by those who viewed the annexation in an unfavorable light.