(The latest version of this page is at Pattern Descriptions. An archived copy of this page is held at https://www.patternsofpower.org/edition02/4354.htm)
The intelligent application of the Golden Rule might have shed a different light on missionary activity and colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries. President William McKinley used the following justification for the US annexation of the Philippines in 1899:
“… we could not leave them to themselves—they were unfit for self-government …. there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died.” [1]
The concept of Christianisation had also been used to 'justify' European colonial adventures and the words "do the very best we could by them" sound as though the annexation was for moral reasons. But he would have taken a different approach if he had he asked himself the Golden Rule question: “if I had been in their position, what sort of 'help' would I have wanted?” The Filipinos put up fierce resistance for the next four years, so they clearly did not wish to be annexed. It is not surprising that most countries do not wish to be overrun or to have different moral values or political systems imposed upon them and it is, to say the least, arrogant to say: “they were unfit for self-government”. They didn't agree. If the Golden Rule is used as a yardstick, forcible colonisation cannot be justified.
© PatternsofPower.org, 2014
[1] General James Rusling, in Interview with President William McKinley, as quoted at http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5575/, was available in May 2014.