I need to analyse this source and one thing I really need help with is who is this more in favour of, the british or the indians? Or is it balanced?
"'There was a sinister side to the British memory of the Mutiny, and one which would have repercussions in India and in other parts of the empire. Racial arrogance had been on the increase in India for at least a decade before the Mutiny, its spread being reflected in the everyday use of the word "nig***" for Indian, a term which, during the Mutiny, regularly appeared in print. From what they had read in the newspapers, supplemented by the more-or-less instantaneous memoirs and histories of the Mutiny, the British were presented with a story in which a people, hitherto believed capable of improvement, turned against their helpers in the most vicious manner imaginable. It was not just the Raj that had been attacked; the Revolt was an onslaught against everything the mid-Victorians cherished. Firing cannon balls at railway engines symbolised a wilful and irrational rejection of technical progress. The killing of women and children was a calculated assault on national moral values. Both suggests, at least to the cynical, that efforts at uplifting Indians had been misguided and were doomed, if not to failure, then to very limited success."
From Lawrence James, Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India,
published in 1997
I need to analyse this source and I really need help with it. The basic questions I have to answer are regarding who, why, what, when, and where. And I would also like to is this on the side of the British or Indians or is it balanced.
If someone could help me understand this passage, it would be very much appreciated.