7 ms·

Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, then t

Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, then they'd start building roads, hospitals, and schools and generally managing their territories fairly well. Last time I mentioned this, someone brought up to me that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. It's an okay document, it's got some of the best parts of the Magna Carta and U.S. Bill of Rights in it, but one part I particularly disagree with: > The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. I think "the basis of the authority of government" should be sane, good governance - protecting individual rights, keeping peace and stability, and keeping citizens free from violence and crime. I could care less if I have a say in the government if they're generally keeping me safe and leaving me alone. I think sane, wise, and effective governance should be the basis of authority for government, regardless of whether it's "the will of the people" or not. I imagine many in Africa feel the same way, and would be much better off under rule from proven decent governors instead of what they've got now.

barrkel 17y ago
Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  Edit: I spent a fair bit of time going country by country through a historical map for the sake of discussion, to elaborate on an uncommon point of view that might benefit thinking about. If I'm mistaken on the facts, or you disagree with the sentiment, would you care to discuss instead of just downvoting? I've spent a fair bit of time studying history, warfare, trade, and the rise and fall of civilizations, including British history, and I'd be happy to hear opposing points of view. > Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom. There's a map of the British Empire here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_British_Empire.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_Briti... Almost every one of those regions has been more peaceful, stable, and prosperous than neighboring non-British managed regions. Almost all of them saw a decrease in prosperity once they left the British Crown, with only a couple exceptions. Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule - nowdays, not so much. India? Much further along than Pakistan and its non-British governed neighbors. Serious decline in prosperity, freedom, and safety; massive increase in religious violence and resurgence of the caste system after the British pulled out. The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand obviously turned out quite well largely modeling British systems of common law, trade, treaty, military organization, and government. Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance. Ireland's a mixed bag, the British did some good and bad things there. I'm a quarter Irish and a quarter English by the way, and the British legitimately did some good things. The religious infighting was nasty, but Ireland is quite prosperous today, all of the UK is along with Wales and Scotland. The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule. And then there's Hong Kong, which is where I am right now. Any doubts there? Oh, I forgot Singapore, and having done jobs in both Malaysia and Singapore, who are neighbors of the same ethnicity, climate, geography, and natural resources, there's no doubt that Singapore is much better off. So was it serfdom under the British Empire? Was it bad? You tell me - would you rather be under British governed Burma, or Burmese governed Burma? British Egypt or Egyptian Egypt? British Hong Kong or PRC Hong Kong? British India or Indian India? I missed the island countries - Maldives, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Bermuda, and the rest of the British Caribbean and Polynesia. If you had your choice in 1700, would you want to be in one of the British governed islands or the local governed islands? Yeah, self governance? Not high on my list of priorities. Sane, good governance, minimal violence and corruption, safety? High on my list of priorities. Again, keep me safe and leave me alone, and I don't care so much that I have a say in the government.
  - lsb 17y ago
    As a grad student in Classics, I encountered a Ghanaian (who came to Boston to study Latin) who said that Ghana was very fertile and resource-rich, so the Brits (who were the strongest at the time) chose it for themselves, leaving the French all the scraps in between. ("People come to Ghana from all over to buy supplies. Togo?!", he laughed, "in Togo there is nothing!", which I didn't quite know how to respond to.) If you assume that it's just British rule, that assumes that it's random.
    - rdtsc 17y ago
      > If you assume that it's just British rule, that assumes that it's random. That is a very insightful point. That single sentence severely weakens grandparent's argument -- the un-stated assumption that the British rolled a die, and randomly picked among a set of uniformly desolate and completely undeveloped countries in order to colonize them.
  - wisty 17y ago
    That's because easily looted wealth, not poverty causes wars. (see my link - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223098 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223098) The British empire took places with an abundance of easily looted riches, and now less benevolent rebel leaders are doing the same.
  - mahmud 17y ago
    I voted you down because I was on a 2 hour long conference call and didn't have time to refute your argument. You can reminisce about British/Euro colonialism all you want, but we as East Africans didn't want them. When given a choice between accepting the super power, or fighting them off, we chose the later and paid for it dearly. Independence didn't come to us cheap, we had to bloody the nose of the empire and send it packing :-) Neither you nor anyone else has the right to dictate the fate of a people. Sovereignty above prosperity my man. You say self governance is not high on your list. Nearly everyone on earth is either from a colonial power, or from a former colony. Unless you're from one of the few places on earth that escaped colonization; you're either implicitly rejecting your country's fight for independence, or you're a colonialist yourself, or a direct beneficiary, and have no right to speak for your so-called "subjects".
- jksmith 17y ago
  Yeah, damn that really screwed the place up when they did that. There's two solutions: either the continent is managed by first world countries, or it should be completely left alone. The second option is of course no longer possible. The hand-in-hand combination of help and exploitation that the rest of the world provides to Africa may stroke our conscience a bit, but it does nothing but exacerbate the situation.
chasingsparks 17y ago
UR said something, in a similar, albeit more verbose manner. His essay was at least entertaining (and certainly thought provoking.) http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cromer-to-romer-and-back-again.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr...
natch 17y ago
Your apathy about participating in decisions is not the best reason for having concern with that part of the document. A far better reason is the possibility of a tyranny of the majority.
ajuc 17y ago
You should compare independent countries before the colonization with the same countries under colonial powers rule, not after the colonization. Many things people of countries that were colonies expriences are because of colonialism. Its like when doctor goes to the patient with chronic pain, gives him a painkiller and breaks his leg. While doctor is there patient feels no pain, after the doctors went away painkiller stops working, and the situation is even worse.
philwelch 17y ago
Yes, and as soon as the colonialism became more expensive than it was worth we ended up with the Africa of the past 50 years. Even before colonialism, large amounts of Africa were ruined by warfare simply so the winners could sell the losers as slaves to the European powers--so if colonialism was an improvement for Africans when it happened, it's largely because it solved a problem the Europeans themselves created. You'd have to go over centuries of history to really see if European interference was a net improvement for Africa at all. I can't speak to that particular question, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that most of the Amerindians were better off before Columbus than afterwards. "I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian." http://spacecollective.org/nagash/5282/1491 http://spacecollective.org/nagash/5282/1491 discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934117 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934117
rue 17y ago
> Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, [...] In your mind, colonialism[1] has had little to do with the situation we face today? Or its "downsides" are outweighed by whatever good was done? [1] You know, arbitrary borders against traditional ethnic/cultural separations, slavery, stealing the natives' capital and resources, on one hand stunting the natural evolution of their societies and on the other accelerating it with technology, delaying developing their own good governance over time by installing colonial authorities, etc., etc.
- bokonist 17y ago
  on one hand stunting the natural evolution of their societies What does that mean? What was pre-colonial Africa evolving towards? And what is your evidence?
  - rue 17y ago
    > What was pre-colonial Africa evolving towards? And what is your evidence? It is unknowable. By way of proof of difference I offer the assertion that it is unlikely that a society would be unlikely to arrange itself as a colonial subordinate on its own.
njharman 17y ago
> but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire Is obviously factually incorrect to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge. I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you're ignorant and not a bald face lier.
krav 17y ago
Um, no. They were harsh rulers. No one likes to be oppressed by a foreign power. How would you feel if the Chinese came in, killed off Democrats and Republicans, and the rest of us were relegated to serving them afternoon tea and being third-class citizens in our own country?
defen 17y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A
greenlblue 17y ago
I don't think your argument makes any sense. It's not that these lands and nations are lawless and "governed" by bandits but the fact that many civilized nations profit from the chaos in terms of cheaper raw materials and drugs that are traded for guns to keep the struggle going. As soon as more developed nations stop selling them weapons and stop trading for the "cheaper" resources the whole problem goes away.
lmz 17y ago
If you haven't read it yet, Piers Brendon's "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire" might be interesting for you.
csomar 17y ago
> Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, then they'd start building roads, hospitals, and schools and generally managing their territories fairly well. If they are coming for good, why do they kill the resistance and the local armies? If you are going to offer free services that benefit us, why do you need armed soldiers? You Don't! If you want to make use of our resources for our benefit, so that won't really be a matter for 99% of the population, they'll be happy. Point two: Resistance didn't exist before colonialism, it appeared after and it was a result of colonialism. Question: British contributed in the Iraq War. What was the result? Roads, schools, hospitals? No, but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army, more violence than ever and a corrupt political system.
- miked 17y ago
  Question: British contributed in the Iraq War. What was the result? Roads, schools, hospitals? No, but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army, more violence than ever and a corrupt political system. The result has been the only free country in the Arab world, the recent election of a secular leader, and a dramatically higher standard of living. but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths from ALL sources, including things like grudges, etc. This is vastly lower than what Saddam did, and unlike him, the Brits and Americans were trying to kill innocent people. Odd how all the people who claim to be so concerned about the deaths of innocents never set up body count websites before the war, when there were far more bodies.
  - csomar 17y ago
    _The result has been the only free country in the Arab world, the recent election of a secular leader, and a dramatically higher standard of living._ What's your definition of freedom? Please cite source of "dramatically higher standard of living". According to wolframalpha, the GDP per capita is $780 in iraq (rank: 198 in the world). _http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths from ALL sources_ From the IBC website: "it should be noted that many deaths will probably go unreported or unrecorded by officials and media." The Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll estimates the deaths to more than a million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). The IBC has got the lower estimates. I'm more confident to the ORB and even estimate more deaths.
Tangurena 17y ago
I'm reminded of a remark in the book Persian Puzzle: > We English have had hundreds of years of experience on how to treat the Natives. Socialism is all right back home, but out here, you have to be the master. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812973364/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812973364/
rajat 17y ago
Hasn't that always been the clarion call for the dictators and authoritarians? They're even celebrating Stalin now over in Russia because there was order under him. Was Tito's dictatorship justified given the later turmoil in Bosnia? And what atrocities went unreported under the British Empire? It wasn't until Gandhi came along and somehow got the British press to pay attention that the British public was aghast and shamed by what they saw. What was there to be so ashamed about if things were so hunky dory? Colonialism died when the rulers couldn't stand the actions taken in their name to maintain their rule. What's happening in Africa has happened all over the world, at times even in the U.S. It happens whenever access to certain resources brings in so much money that the government is overwhelmed. It's happening in parts of Mexico right on the U.S. border today, and it's spilling over into the U.S, with the resource being drugs.

barrkel 17y ago

Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom.

lionhearted 17y ago
Edit: I spent a fair bit of time going country by country through a historical map for the sake of discussion, to elaborate on an uncommon point of view that might benefit thinking about. If I'm mistaken on the facts, or you disagree with the sentiment, would you care to discuss instead of just downvoting? I've spent a fair bit of time studying history, warfare, trade, and the rise and fall of civilizations, including British history, and I'd be happy to hear opposing points of view. > Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom. There's a map of the British Empire here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_British_Empire.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_Briti... Almost every one of those regions has been more peaceful, stable, and prosperous than neighboring non-British managed regions. Almost all of them saw a decrease in prosperity once they left the British Crown, with only a couple exceptions. Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule - nowdays, not so much. India? Much further along than Pakistan and its non-British governed neighbors. Serious decline in prosperity, freedom, and safety; massive increase in religious violence and resurgence of the caste system after the British pulled out. The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand obviously turned out quite well largely modeling British systems of common law, trade, treaty, military organization, and government. Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance. Ireland's a mixed bag, the British did some good and bad things there. I'm a quarter Irish and a quarter English by the way, and the British legitimately did some good things. The religious infighting was nasty, but Ireland is quite prosperous today, all of the UK is along with Wales and Scotland. The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule. And then there's Hong Kong, which is where I am right now. Any doubts there? Oh, I forgot Singapore, and having done jobs in both Malaysia and Singapore, who are neighbors of the same ethnicity, climate, geography, and natural resources, there's no doubt that Singapore is much better off. So was it serfdom under the British Empire? Was it bad? You tell me - would you rather be under British governed Burma, or Burmese governed Burma? British Egypt or Egyptian Egypt? British Hong Kong or PRC Hong Kong? British India or Indian India? I missed the island countries - Maldives, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Bermuda, and the rest of the British Caribbean and Polynesia. If you had your choice in 1700, would you want to be in one of the British governed islands or the local governed islands? Yeah, self governance? Not high on my list of priorities. Sane, good governance, minimal violence and corruption, safety? High on my list of priorities. Again, keep me safe and leave me alone, and I don't care so much that I have a say in the government.
- lsb 17y ago
  As a grad student in Classics, I encountered a Ghanaian (who came to Boston to study Latin) who said that Ghana was very fertile and resource-rich, so the Brits (who were the strongest at the time) chose it for themselves, leaving the French all the scraps in between. ("People come to Ghana from all over to buy supplies. Togo?!", he laughed, "in Togo there is nothing!", which I didn't quite know how to respond to.) If you assume that it's just British rule, that assumes that it's random.
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    > If you assume that it's just British rule, that assumes that it's random. That is a very insightful point. That single sentence severely weakens grandparent's argument -- the un-stated assumption that the British rolled a die, and randomly picked among a set of uniformly desolate and completely undeveloped countries in order to colonize them.
- wisty 17y ago
  That's because easily looted wealth, not poverty causes wars. (see my link - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223098 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223098) The British empire took places with an abundance of easily looted riches, and now less benevolent rebel leaders are doing the same.
- mahmud 17y ago
  I voted you down because I was on a 2 hour long conference call and didn't have time to refute your argument. You can reminisce about British/Euro colonialism all you want, but we as East Africans didn't want them. When given a choice between accepting the super power, or fighting them off, we chose the later and paid for it dearly. Independence didn't come to us cheap, we had to bloody the nose of the empire and send it packing :-) Neither you nor anyone else has the right to dictate the fate of a people. Sovereignty above prosperity my man. You say self governance is not high on your list. Nearly everyone on earth is either from a colonial power, or from a former colony. Unless you're from one of the few places on earth that escaped colonization; you're either implicitly rejecting your country's fight for independence, or you're a colonialist yourself, or a direct beneficiary, and have no right to speak for your so-called "subjects".
jksmith 17y ago
Yeah, damn that really screwed the place up when they did that. There's two solutions: either the continent is managed by first world countries, or it should be completely left alone. The second option is of course no longer possible. The hand-in-hand combination of help and exploitation that the rest of the world provides to Africa may stroke our conscience a bit, but it does nothing but exacerbate the situation.

chasingsparks 17y ago

UR said something, in a similar, albeit more verbose manner. His essay was at least entertaining (and certainly thought provoking.) http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cromer-to-romer-and-back-again.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr...

natch 17y ago

Your apathy about participating in decisions is not the best reason for having concern with that part of the document. A far better reason is the possibility of a tyranny of the majority.

ajuc 17y ago

You should compare independent countries before the colonization with the same countries under colonial powers rule, not after the colonization. Many things people of countries that were colonies expriences are because of colonialism. Its like when doctor goes to the patient with chronic pain, gives him a painkiller and breaks his leg. While doctor is there patient feels no pain, after the doctors went away painkiller stops working, and the situation is even worse.

philwelch 17y ago

Yes, and as soon as the colonialism became more expensive than it was worth we ended up with the Africa of the past 50 years. Even before colonialism, large amounts of Africa were ruined by warfare simply so the winners could sell the losers as slaves to the European powers--so if colonialism was an improvement for Africans when it happened, it's largely because it solved a problem the Europeans themselves created. You'd have to go over centuries of history to really see if European interference was a net improvement for Africa at all. I can't speak to that particular question, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that most of the Amerindians were better off before Columbus than afterwards. "I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian." http://spacecollective.org/nagash/5282/1491 http://spacecollective.org/nagash/5282/1491 discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934117 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934117

rue 17y ago

> Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, [...] In your mind, colonialism[1] has had little to do with the situation we face today? Or its "downsides" are outweighed by whatever good was done? [1] You know, arbitrary borders against traditional ethnic/cultural separations, slavery, stealing the natives' capital and resources, on one hand stunting the natural evolution of their societies and on the other accelerating it with technology, delaying developing their own good governance over time by installing colonial authorities, etc., etc.

bokonist 17y ago
on one hand stunting the natural evolution of their societies What does that mean? What was pre-colonial Africa evolving towards? And what is your evidence?
- rue 17y ago
  > What was pre-colonial Africa evolving towards? And what is your evidence? It is unknowable. By way of proof of difference I offer the assertion that it is unlikely that a society would be unlikely to arrange itself as a colonial subordinate on its own.

njharman 17y ago

> but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire Is obviously factually incorrect to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge. I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you're ignorant and not a bald face lier.

krav 17y ago

Um, no. They were harsh rulers. No one likes to be oppressed by a foreign power. How would you feel if the Chinese came in, killed off Democrats and Republicans, and the rest of us were relegated to serving them afternoon tea and being third-class citizens in our own country?

defen 17y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSELOCMmw4A

greenlblue 17y ago

I don't think your argument makes any sense. It's not that these lands and nations are lawless and "governed" by bandits but the fact that many civilized nations profit from the chaos in terms of cheaper raw materials and drugs that are traded for guns to keep the struggle going. As soon as more developed nations stop selling them weapons and stop trading for the "cheaper" resources the whole problem goes away.

lmz 17y ago

If you haven't read it yet, Piers Brendon's "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire" might be interesting for you.

csomar 17y ago

> Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, then they'd start building roads, hospitals, and schools and generally managing their territories fairly well. If they are coming for good, why do they kill the resistance and the local armies? If you are going to offer free services that benefit us, why do you need armed soldiers? You Don't! If you want to make use of our resources for our benefit, so that won't really be a matter for 99% of the population, they'll be happy. Point two: Resistance didn't exist before colonialism, it appeared after and it was a result of colonialism. Question: British contributed in the Iraq War. What was the result? Roads, schools, hospitals? No, but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army, more violence than ever and a corrupt political system.

miked 17y ago
Question: British contributed in the Iraq War. What was the result? Roads, schools, hospitals? No, but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army, more violence than ever and a corrupt political system. The result has been the only free country in the Arab world, the recent election of a secular leader, and a dramatically higher standard of living. but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths from ALL sources, including things like grudges, etc. This is vastly lower than what Saddam did, and unlike him, the Brits and Americans were trying to kill innocent people. Odd how all the people who claim to be so concerned about the deaths of innocents never set up body count websites before the war, when there were far more bodies.
- csomar 17y ago
  _The result has been the only free country in the Arab world, the recent election of a secular leader, and a dramatically higher standard of living._ What's your definition of freedom? Please cite source of "dramatically higher standard of living". According to wolframalpha, the GDP per capita is $780 in iraq (rank: 198 in the world). _http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths from ALL sources_ From the IBC website: "it should be noted that many deaths will probably go unreported or unrecorded by officials and media." The Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll estimates the deaths to more than a million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). The IBC has got the lower estimates. I'm more confident to the ORB and even estimate more deaths.

Tangurena 17y ago

I'm reminded of a remark in the book Persian Puzzle: > We English have had hundreds of years of experience on how to treat the Natives. Socialism is all right back home, but out here, you have to be the master. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812973364/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812973364/

rajat 17y ago

Hasn't that always been the clarion call for the dictators and authoritarians? They're even celebrating Stalin now over in Russia because there was order under him. Was Tito's dictatorship justified given the later turmoil in Bosnia? And what atrocities went unreported under the British Empire? It wasn't until Gandhi came along and somehow got the British press to pay attention that the British public was aghast and shamed by what they saw. What was there to be so ashamed about if things were so hunky dory? Colonialism died when the rulers couldn't stand the actions taken in their name to maintain their rule. What's happening in Africa has happened all over the world, at times even in the U.S. It happens whenever access to certain resources brings in so much money that the government is overwhelmed. It's happening in parts of Mexico right on the U.S. border today, and it's spilling over into the U.S, with the resource being drugs.