Tread With Dauntless Steps

            Winston Churchill speaks out in favor of keeping hold of India, with his speech, “Our Duty in India.” These are a few fallacies I happened to come across while reading his enlightening speech:

o   “One would have thought that if there was one cause in the world which the Conservative party would have hastened to defend, it would be the cause of the British Empire in India.” False Dilemma: In a way. He makes it out to be almost as if there’s almost rarely, if even, a cause which the Conservative party would hasten to defend, in the present, past, and in the future, which can’t at all be true.

o   “The princes, the Europeans, the Moslems, the Depressed classes, the Anglo-Indians - none of them know what to do nor where to turn in the face of their apparent desertion by Great Britain. Can you wonder that they try in desperation to make what terms are possible with the triumphant Brahmin oligarchy?” Fallacy of antecedent: Apparently, since it happened once, it must happen again. Just because most of their once-upon-a-time colonies treaded rough waters and were less than prepared when they reached independence doesn’t mean the same would necessarily happen  to India.

o   “But let me tell you this. If at the sacrifice of every British interest and of all the necessary safeguards and means of preserving peace and progress in India, you come to terms with Gandhi, Gandhi would at that self-same moment cease to count any more in the Indian situation.” What’s the argument behind this? It is just a presumption without proof. It’s Misinterpreting the evidence, because, with the very little evidence he has, if any, there is no correlation with his statement and it’s pure speculation and conjecture.

o   “In running after Gandhi and trying to build on Gandhi, in imagining that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Gandhi and Lord Irwin are going to bestow peace and progress upon India, we should be committing ourselves to a crazy dream, with a terrible awakening.” False Analogy: Agreeing with Gandhi is in no way an action that can be credibly and logically compared to the state of unconscious fantasies in your brain.

o   “Do not be deceived by these untruths.” Tautology: there’s no new information, just a conclusion. Deceived implies that something is misleading and not at all what it seems, and the word “untruths” basically repeats that same idea.

o   “Here you have nearly three hundred and fifty millions of people, lifted to a civilisation and to a level of peace, order, sanitation and progress far above anything they could possibly have achieved themselves or could maintain.” Aside from the obvious egotism and superciliousness that wraps his superior statement, he is also falling into the Chanticleer fallacy. After this, therefore because of this. Just because the India became more civilized after the Birtish made their presence known and paved in their affairs, does not mean that said deed is because of the British. The British probably urged the process and helped develop it, but they are not the reason for the progress in India. Churchill then goes more in depth by saying, “This wonderful fact is due to the guidance and authority of a few thousands of British officials responsible to Parliament who have for generations presided over the development of India.”  Here is where he straight-out falls into the post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy.

o   “India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages.” This is a gross exaggeration. And so it is a perfect example of Reductio ad Absurdum. The premise is absurd.

o   “Were we to wash our hands of all responsibility and divest ourselves of all our powers, as our sentimentalists desire, ferocious civil wars would speedily break out between the Moslems and the Hindus. No one who knows India will dispute this.” Hasty generalization. Just like they preach to you in SAT tutoring: Always avoid extreme language. “All” would be extreme language, extreme meaning, it’s probably not the answer; it’s probably not correct (Ha. Tautology. AH! I just commited a logical fallacy! Get it? “Not the answer, it’s probably not correct?” Ok…) because it’s exaggerating. You go, Churchill.

o   “Their plight is worse than that of slaves, because they have been taught to consent not only to a physical but to a psychic servitude and prostration.”  I have no name for this. False analogy? The speaker is extremely not within his rights to make such a comparison seeing as he has never been, and will probably never be, a slave, let alone know enough of the experience to lessen it in comparison to other political events.

o   “There are also nearly five million Indian Christians in India, a large proportion of whom can read and write, and some of whom have shown themselves exceptionally gifted. It will be a sorry day when the arm of Britain can no longer offer them the protection of an equal law.” This isn’t so much a fallacy as it is a clear use of ethos in terms of appealing to Britain’s character. Churchill makes Britain appear as strong protective entity that truly cares for these people’s wellbeing.

            It is with these logical fallacies that Churchill planned to “ tread with dauntless steps the path of justice and of honour.” He said, not me.

            (JK, I’m actually a huge Winston Churchill fan, if only for the fact that he’s the wittiest politician I’ve ever come to know.)