# data[].attributes.body
The "final straw" that resulted in the 1857 Indian-British uprising was the British encroachment on Muslim and Hindi religious practices with greased cartridges.
Participation in the rebellion would be considered a religious duty.
Though this uprising would be considered a defeat, it would embed itslef in British national conciousness and provide more for public opinion on the imperial project.

# data[].attributes.body
Arielle R.
1.  What does munity mean?
2. Why were women and children attacked specfically as a result of the Indian rebellion?
3. Britan's overall military dominace helped abolish any uprisings and aided their imperialist agenda.
4. Rarely has uprsings against England overall questioned British rule, rather challenge specifiic policies or actions.

# data[].attributes.body
The main differences between the documentary and the introduction chapter can be summarized quite concisely: the documentary focuses on how people were colonized whereas the introduction chapter talks about the colonizing countries and only discusses the colonized in a passive way. I feel that the documentary broadly focused on the people in the colonized places and the colonizers' effect on the indigenous peoples and their lands. In contrast, the introduction chapter, I feel, focused on the effects that the insurgencies had on the country that colonized the places where the insurgencies happened (in this case Britain).

The introduction chapter also focused more on insurgencies and rebellions in general especially those against Britain, whereas the documentary focused on the: “rape of natural resources”(Scramble for Africa) from Africa done by the colonizing countries. In the introduction chapter, Gopal sums up British involvement with colonization quite eloquently: “... the history of the British Empire is also the history of resistance to it"(Gopal, 4).

The introduction chapter also discusses the effects that insurgencies had on Britain as well as how they affected the world, “While each crisis- the 1857 'Mutiny' in India, and the 1865 'Governor Eyre affair'- had specific resonances back in Britain, awareness of these early insurgencies, and interpretations of them, broadly prepared the ground for the dialogical expansion of the moral imagination of British dissent to incorporate the consciousness of the rebel as 'an entity whose will and reason constituted the practice called rebellion'"(Gopal 32-33). The chapter broadly discusses how these insurgencies against Britain set the stage for many of the following revolutions and rebellions throughout later history, such as the Revolutionary War as well as the Abolitionist movement in the U.S. later on.

# data[].attributes.body
"The treatment of resistance as episodic, even exceptional, has consequences for the wider public sphere"
I thought that this quote was very interesting.

# data[].attributes.body
"Westerners boast now of being free very much as not long ago they boasted of being white"(4)
I think that this quote is relevant to the United States, because there are a lot of people in the US who brag about being free.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is the "Caliban model" (5)? 2. Often times the narratives that have been seen in the west are of westerners or elite white men who are the main people who are a part of history in "creating" their own freedom (which oppressed many other cultures)    3. Many British were comfortable with the imperial project because they were indifferent to the realities of other cultures and people, created a comforting falsehood related to the "cycle of silences" (13) narratives listening to what they wanted to.
4. Emancipation def not the same as liberation-connected to the "universal" idea that apparently was only for Europeans and never for a colonized nation.                    5. What is imperial binarism?

# data[].attributes.body
1)The resistance to colonization seen in the British Empire's colonies, led to a suprising amount of anticolonial sentiments.
2)America and Oceana were colonized by Britain and there was  a lot of resistance to this.This was extremely vital in the shaping of Imperial histories.
3) Many people held the wide belief that the British empire was coming from a good place and they were attempting to free people. This is something very disconcerting about the Imperial Project.

# data[].attributes.body
The Urabi Rebellion

# data[].attributes.body
Labor uprisings in the Caribbean(1934). Allowed people like George Padmore and Amy Ashwood Garvey, among others. "Engagement with them and with pan-Africanism more broadly- particularly in the wake of Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, which galvinized black anticolonialism in Africa...would shape the views of many British liberals and radicals..."(Gopal 35).

# data[].attributes.body
Frederick Douglass speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July"

# data[].attributes.headline
Colonial subjects as agents of Reform-ezra

# data[].attributes.subject
Colonial subjects as agents of Reform-ezra

# data[].attributes.body
1.Is it possible to reform without violence?.
2"English capacities to reform without violence or rejecting valuable practice" is a myth that fits into National Self Congratulation as a means to have the oppressor forgive themselves for past atrocities. These myths fail to mention key info/points of the story of the colonized and the colonizer.
3.The colonial subjects and enslaved workers of Britain were actively creating their own liberation. This ideas of freed and liberation shaped those same ideals back in the UK.

# data[].attributes.body
Charlie
1) Did  the end of slavery in Brazil cause  large turmoil and as many fights as it did in the US?
2) Though they were not as effective as the revolts and mutinies there were attempts to stop colonization through negotiation and passive resistance
3) Britain's idea of freedom is very different from the US. Although they were one of the first countries to abolish slavery they have more restrictions on individuals that the US does.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  I found Britain's attitude towards colonization similar to the American Manifest Destiny. They both considered themselves heroes and acted 'benevolently' while remaining complete oblivious to the suffering of those they controlled.
2. How was the British definition of freedom created? There seemed to be various understandings and cultural lines dividing the ideas.
3. Why was Britain so successful in their conquering of faraway places?
4. How are previously colonized nations currently affected by the damage of the British occupation?  5. How is colonialism being resisted today?

# data[].attributes.body
Mau Mau rebellion in 1552, was caused because of the indifferent belief between the Europeans and the Kikuyu. Kikuyu fought for the bettering of basic human treatment.
-Stephanie

# data[].attributes.body
With the new norm of 'liberty" being accepted within the Britannic Empire, the rest of the world followed this new norm. This "liberty" was a humanitarian grounded concept that worked towards bettering people.
-Stephanie

# data[].attributes.body
1880-1990 Europeans were starting to not look at non-Western land as only being vital for their resources, but more as rising countries.
-Stephanie

# data[].attributes.body
1. There are many different variations for how different states define the word freedom, but why are there so many different variations?
2. Freedom and decolonization were greatly influenced by enslaved individuals who were attempting to gain their right to freedom, however most believe that was due to Britain's white abolitionists.
3.Individuals under Britain rule were only allowed to earn their freedom through doing everything they were told to do and were basically being told they have no freedom because we are the people who allow you to earn that privilege.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The idea that decolonization and liberation/freedom was created solely  by the white masters and the white abolitionists when in reality it was greatly influenced by the actions of the enslaved and leaders within their communities who unified them.
2. What is the real meaning of freedom and why is there so much variation of it between states and countries?
3. Were the intentions of the British really to conquer to free ? Did this justify the imperial project and if so, in what ways?

# data[].attributes.body
Jacob:
1. Resistances to colonization, in colonies throughout the British Empire, actually lead to a rise in anticolonial sentiments in Brittan.
2.  I thought that the quote, "It is to interrogate the tenacious assumption that the most significant conceptions of 'freedom' are fundamentally 'Western' in provenance,"(7), was very insightful.  The ideas of freedom and liberty that Europe brought to many colonized nations didn't match many peoples' own conception of freedom.
3. To combat colonialism dialogism, which states "sharing is not only an ethical or economic mandate, but a condition built into the the structure of human perception,"(23), was practiced. The communication and discussion created by this sharing of experiences and knowledge lead to a metropolitan response of "sympathy" and then "solidarity", to the cries of resistance and insurgency.

# data[].attributes.body
1) The freeing of peoples under the oppression and rule of Britain was often justified by Britains white savior complex. They said that they were just there to give those places structure for government, "self-government had been the intention behind colonial rule from its very beginnings" (Gopal, 11). This is similar to what is discussed in the documentary we had to watch.
2) What exactly is imperial binarism? They first mention it on page 19.
3) I think another important idea is that the people under British rule had to "earn" their freedom by being complicit and doing everything they were told. This often lead to culturecide and the depletion of natural resources in the area, which mostly benefitted Britain. This concept is not only used by Britain but Britain is the main focus in this book.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  There was an ideology in Britain regarding emancipation, that subjects had to earn the right to be empicnatied. Although morally incorrect, this thought process  made Britain look more ethically kind and gave them the gratification of "self-congratulation". This possibly extended the use of chatal slavery making it seem justifiable.

2. Every state has a different meaning for “freedom”, and as mentioned, in some cases it might solely mean emancipation. For example the rebels of Morant Bay in 1865 argue although they were emancipated, a slightly tweeked form of slavery arose: wage labor. Which immediately reminded me of the jail system today and its relationship with bipoc in the United States in terms of mass incarceration...
3. what's the colonial project vs the imperial project? Are they synonyms for imperialism and colonization?

# data[].attributes.body
Is revolution and dissent always formatted as a chain reaction? One country, town, city, whatever tries it, and then someone else follows?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rejecting capitalist notions of freedom | Priyamvada Gopal

# data[].attributes.body
In the introduction to Insurgent Empire, Priyamvada Gopal made the following point: "To study the texts of British imperial dissidents and critics of empire in relation to the texts of anticolonial resistance is, in one sense, to study a minoritized literature -- that is, to reflect on them as texts that 'have been and continue to be subjected to institutional forgetting', to borrow Abdul JanMohammed and David Lloyd's words once again" (Gopal 28). This is basically arguing that to have a well rounded understanding of British rebellion as it relates to decolonization, you have to understand the narratives of those most oppressed by the system of an empire. This is important because as we have studied these concepts in the past, we have only seen European and white USA. Those narratives are quite toxic, because as we learn from them, we continue to erase the perspective of the minority population.

# data[].attributes.headline
Insurgent Empire Introduction -- Jordyn Montano

# data[].attributes.subject
Insurgent Empire Introduction -- Jordyn Montano

# data[].attributes.body
1) Western ideals of freedom led to the fight against colonialism, which intentionally looks over Indian and Arab culture that has worked to keep out imperialism and imperialistic ideals.
2) Many people believe that the British conquered to free. The thought process behind this comes from the belief that the imperial project, despite the mishaps it caused, was out of good intentions of freedom for the people.
3) Anticolonial rebels attempted to break down the strategy of dehumanization through the 'language of conscience'. By forcing a moral confrontation insurgents were creating a claim that challenged the ideals of being human in a global sense. It was often helpful for the subjects of resistance to draw from their cultural or social practices and resources that were not branched from or connected to the regime.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Decolonization and liberation was often claimed to be the result of white inhibitors and by the "grace" of the masters "granting" freedom. The pushback against this ideology of imperial initiative meant to show acheivments of the ruled people while the ruling nation forefeting "national self-contratulations". The idea of "freedom is not fundamentally Western and was determined through struggle.
2. British colonization of north America and Oceana was pushed back with both peaceful and violent resistance. Though, the efficacy of some of these resistances is debated, they, are a crucial part in shaping British Imperial histories. This ties back to challenging the idea of "becoming emanciapted" and shifting to a narrative of liberty surrounding struggle and rebellion.
3. What exactly is the imperial project?
4. Domestic criticism within the British Empire surrounding colonization was somewhat a result of awareness to rebellions and resitances in colonies.