4 ms·

One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule.

• cakesy 17y ago
  Yes, but they were probably even better off before they were invaded.
• shrikant 17y ago
  Assuming colonial 'occupiers' had the best interests of the colony in mind is patently ridiculous. I don't see why cakesy's response to parent is 'dead' - it makes a good point.
  • anamax 17y ago
    > Assuming colonial 'occupiers' had the best interests of the colony in mind is patently ridiculous. Irrelevant because that wasn't the assumption. There's a reason why "he meant well" is an insult....
• anamax 17y ago
  Did you ever wonder if taxation without representation was cheaper? A rational exploiter might try to revenue maximize. Someone trying to do good/to be fair/to "encourage good behavior" is likely to do economically stupid things.
• andyjdavis 17y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with that statement but there may well be a relationship with colonial rule ie countries like Cameroon being ruled by foreigners who then leave. The first govt of independent Cameroon presumably inherited reasonable infrastructure, law and order, functioning courts etc. (maybe. I dont know much about Cameroon) That first government, having inherited all of this stuff they didn't organize and having zero previous experience with running a country, may well rest on its laurels and assume that this stuff just happens and requires little or no effort to maintain/enhance. If they're really (un)lucky they may well inherent a well functioning society that also produces abundant tax revenue which is surely more than is really required so no one will miss a bit... It would only be years later that it would become apparent that effective courts, safe streets etc do in fact require organized effort applied in specific ways. And that all of that tax revenue was needed.
• fbailey 17y ago
  I can't stand that argument. It ignores history and millions that died under colonial rule, or episodes like in China when the economy was ruined because the western powers wanted to pay for goods with drugs. Or india where british rule deindustrialized india and forced it to buy salt from a monopoly. Or southeast asia where rich kingdoms where plundered and basically forced to become agrarian exporters. It also ignores the real growth that happended in the last 10 years in parts of africa. The argument is basically racist, they don't know what's good for them, let's show them. It ignores that the western world has a 300 years development advantage concerning democratic institutions and the economy.
  • cousin_it 17y ago
    Most African countries actually were better off under colonialism.
    • andrewcooke 17y ago
      try reading achebe - one of his books (it's in the african trilogy collection) describes quite well, if i remember correctly, how the colonial system created this problem in the first place. or just read this article again and consider how close it is to living under foreign rule - colonialism replaced whatever working, local solutions existed with a system that meant that the logical thing to do was screw over others. colonialism and dictators are very similar. you can argue that things only collapsed terribly when the colonists left, but that ignores the fact that it would have been so much better if they had never been there...
      • pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        >how the colonial system created this problem in the first place This reminds me of how in the UK parliament the political parties bicker about who's fault something is. Most of the ex-colonies have been autonomous more than long enough to establish their own stable governance if the combined will of the people were for it.
        • deleted 17y ago
• plinkplonk 17y ago
  "One conclusion to be drawn is that many countries were better off under colonial rule" Umm no. That depends on defining "better off" as "ruled by invaders from another country but with some economic or social benefits(probably)". Just try offering colonial rule to former colonies, who have experience of being "better off". People might joke about that, but an independent country's citizens would fight to the death against any attempt at colonization. Which means they do think they are better off without colonial rule. Unless you think millions of people don't know what is "better off" for them, your notion is hard to sustain logically. Unless you want to volunteer to be colonized by China (say)? They seem to be good at economic development, which seems to be your metric for "better off".
  • eru 17y ago
    Indeed. Though I sometimes think that it might be good to borrow politicians and civil servants from e.g. Sweden, Switzerland or the Netherlands.
  • aero142 17y ago
    I agree. I would not choose to trade freedom and self governance for economic benefit. I was however pointing out that when you look at things from a purely utilitarian perspective, you often end up with strange conclusions. The other thing I find interesting is that we seem to be left with no options for solving the problems of these struggling post-colonial nations. Some certainly prospered economically after the ruling colonial powers left. Some suffered immensely. If one accepts that institutional order is a prerequisite for economic prosperity, then one might conclude that an outside power should take over and institute order, but the obvious moral problems prevents this. Not to mention the historically supported unlikelihood that the country would actually benefit. The only solution appears to be institutional order that grows organically from within the country. Outside aid doesn't seem to help much. This leaves very few options for the Haiti's and the Camaroon's of the world.