karol- Ghosh- 04/20/11

When I read this section it felt like it was a turning point in the book. Burnham's plausibility is not in question, in my opinion, because Ghosh touches on an attitude that is very real. It runs away from the author. Burnham seems to have his own agency. Beyond the Judeo-Christian justification for cruelty that masks the need for cheap labor lies a psychodynamic subtext for diatribe on free will from hegemonic middle management to a product of imperialism. Burnham gives the classical 'white man's burden' rubric. This we've heard before. But given the context of Ben Burnham's history it reveals that his opinion has some element of sexual sadism. The quartermaster, on traditional vessels, was responsible for dispersing punishments. Essentially, Burnham feels like he needs to save others from themselves (or at least that's what he tells himself) because he has a history of not being able to control himself (tried to rape a boy, I think). Rape is rarely about sex. He believes that human nature is basically evil because he believes that he is (or at least that his desire is). I have to ask whether this discussion should still be going on. This is Rousseau and Voltaire, again, 'is human nature good?' or 'is human nature evil?' Is this still a valid question?