Final answer:
The Khmer Rouge may have claimed to hold values like justice and autonomy that many agree with, but their inhumane actions and extremist ideology starkly contrast with the acceptable expression of these values. Deciding on resistance involves a critical evaluation of the potential costs, moral convictions, and the chance of successful change.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question regarding whether resistance would be considered an option if one lived under colonial rule involves a complex evaluation of various personal, cultural, political, and social factors. Resistance to an oppressive regime, such as colonial rule, often comes from a deep desire for self-determination and freedom. Those individuals might share certain ideals of justice and autonomy, which could align with some of the rhetoric used by the Khmer Rouge to garner support.
However, once in power, the Khmer Rouge committed atrocities and violated human rights on a massive scale. While many people can agree with the idea of fighting against oppression, they would not support the brutal methods and extremist ideology that the Khmer Rouge employed. This contrast is an essential distinction to consider when reflecting on any shared values.
Deciding whether to resist often depends on one's threshold for risk, level of oppression being faced, and the perceived legitimacy of the ruling authority. Factors that influence this decision can include the potential cost to personal safety, the wellbeing of family and community, moral convictions, and the likelihood of successful change. Therefore, the values espoused by any group must be critically examined against their actions and the ethical and humanitarian consequences of those actions.