Might is right?

I was incredibly disappointed by an article I read in the BBC's South Asia regional section this week.\nThe article tells of rare documents from the British colonial era in South Asia. They date from the 1897 siege of Malakand, which is now in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province. They belong to a man named Ben Tottenham. He is related by marriage to Col. William Hope Meiklejohn, who commanded the troops at the British Malakand garrison while they were besieged by Pashtun tribesmen for 10 days. \nWhat angers me is the audacious self-righteousness that Mr. Tottenham conveys about the whole incident. He's quoted as saying the papers show that "the forefathers of the Taliban were every bit as ruthless as they are today."\nHow dare this ignorant old man call people ruthless for standing up for their rights in what was inarguably their land while it was being pillaged by foreign invaders who had no right to be there.\nHis incompetence is further reflected by his statement that those Pashtun tribesmen were the "forefathers of the Taliban." By his twisted logic, "Taliban" and "Pashtun" are interchangeable terms. Not all Pashtuns are Taliban, and not all Taliban are Pashtuns -- just like not all Germans were Nazis and not all Nazis were Germans. \nFurthermore, the tone of the article attempts to hold those stationed at the British garrison as angels and the attacking tribesmen as villains, stating that Col. Meiklejohn's daughter and her nanny would have surely been killed by these "ruthless" tribesmen. How about when the wonderful, civilized British opened fire on a group of unarmed men, women and children in the city of Amritsar, India, in 1919, killing anywhere between 400 to 1,000 people? I suppose the Brits would call that acceptable. \nThis sort of "might is right" mentality of the Western powers is prominent everywhere you look. Take the cowboy-and-indian movies so popular in American culture. American Indians are vilified repeatedly, although common knowledge is that outsiders from Europe began a campaign of extermination through the spread of disease, killing, forced migration, slavery and starvation because it benefited their need to usurp every inch of land. Yet somehow, American society justifies the portrayal of American Indians as "the bad guys."\nAnother example is the West's indignation at the seizure of land from white farmers (the descendents of colonizers) in Zimbabwe. Where is the logic in decrying this act when white farmers in Zimbabwe make up 2 percent of the population, own 60 percent of the land and are being compensated for vacating their farms? That land was taken without compensation from the native populations, who were butchered and enslaved.\nI suppose it's futile to expect any sort of compensation for the subjugated people all over the world, when their oppressors are still wailing about the great injustice and inhumanity done to them because those they continue to subject to tyranny choose to fight back.