35% down the page under Point 2: Gray writes:
Unlike the best of the colonial administrators, some of whom were deeply versed in the languages and histories of the peoples they ruled, [Richard] Dawkins displays no interest in the cultures of the African countries where he lived as a boy. It is the obedient devotion of those who served his family that has remained in his memory.
. . . The tone of indulgent superiority is telling. Dawkins is ready to smile on those he regards as beneath him as long as it is clear who is on top.
How do you determine/deduce the right definition of indulgent? Please explain the steps, thought processes; I’d like to try to resolve this myself in the future?
Does 1(.0) imply that Dawkins is too ready to be generous to or lenient with being superiority?
Or is it 1.1, which implies that Dawkins acts superiorly because he is self-indulgent?