4 ms·

> I voted you down because I was on a 2 hour long conference call and didn't have time to refute your argument. That's not very nice, nor constructive. It does

> I voted you down because I was on a 2 hour long conference call and didn't have time to refute your argument. That's not very nice, nor constructive. It doesn't improve the conversation at all. I really wish people wouldn't do that. > Sovereignty above prosperity my man. There are a few hundred thousand women in Africa that might take issue with your absolutist position. One of the points of the article here was that, absent any governance at all, the violence in some areas of Africa has gone from being about anything to merely being violence for violence's sake. How can that possibly be considered a better outcome? To badly quote Bertrand Russell, once you begin to think about human suffering, it's hard to think about anything else. It is hard for me to fathom how anyone could see the actual condition in these areas, and conclude that their ideology justifies those conditions! I have every right to speak for my "so-called subjects"; I have the right of a rational argument, which is this: colonial rule is a lesser atrocity than the rule of anarchic violence.

mahmud 17y ago
I took it as inflammatory and libelous. Should I rephrase it for you or can you grok what "they were better off under British rule" really means?
- tsally 17y ago
  You shouldn't be down-voted to -4. Personally I think you're justified in taking lionhearted's as inflammatory and libelous. The claim that Hong Kong and the US are evidence for Britain's superiority is tenuous at best. The success or failure of all nations listed in lionhearted's arguments have a lot more to do with natural resources and geographic location than British rule. I wonder if Britain had had the same natural resources and geographical vulnerability as your average African nation, would they have become a colonial power?
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > Personally I think you're justified in taking lionhearted's as inflammatory and libelous. Well, this is a bad thing for me to hear from you, because you're one of the commentors on here I admire and always look to read your point of view. You're usually saying some quite insightful stuff. So let me ask if I may, how could I put forth the idea that colonialism isn't such a bad thing without being inflammatory and libelous? I know a lot of people hate it, are raised and taught in school that their country's revolution was most justified and glorious, etc, etc. (I was taught the same way, and had the same feelings until doing a lot of research and reading) Now I don't think that's the case, I think the British did a generally good job, and if I was alive in the times of the British Empire, I'm pretty sure I'd want to be under British rule. Is there a way I can put that point of view out there straightforwardly without tweaking people?
    - tsally 17y ago
      You're intentions are good, no doubt there. I definitely didn't mean to imply it was intentional on your part. It's subtle, but it feels like the argument you put forth implies the colonized were lesser than the British in a fundamental sense. Hence why I said "inflammatory and libelous" feelings are justified. You also gloss over a lot of complex issues in regards to the Empire itself (which I wrote about here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223286 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223286). As a general rule, you're not wrong in the sense that a strong government can provide stability to a region. But it's important to remember the native population had no role in government. They never were taught how to govern by the British or allowed to develop their own methods of governing, because it was the British intention that their colonies always be dependent on Britain. The collapse after British withdrawal backs this up I think. Had the native population played a larger role in governing themselves or been given the freedom to develop their own system, they might have been able to create a stable government after Britain left. There's also the fact that the British enslaved millions while building their empire. The military that created the stability you admire was paid for by the lives of millions of Africans. Seems like there is something wrong about glorifying that stability, given how it came about. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the stability provided by the British Empire was a false and immoral stability. But factually your right that there was some temporary stability. That said, you can stabilize a region by enslaving everyone if you wanted to. Clearly there is a continuum for moral and immoral ways to stabilize a region. It's my belief British colonialism leans more towards the immoral side, but I understand where you are coming from. Sorry, that was stream of consciousness haha. I know it's not well formed. EDIT: Is there a way I can put that point of view out there straightforwardly without tweaking people? I'm not sure. I think there is something important to what you are saying, but it is difficult to frame it without implying that the colonized are inferior. There are positive things to say about the British system of government yes, but who's to say the native populations wouldn't have developed something just as good given the chance? Do I wish all the lives in Africa since the British withdrawal could be brought back? Yes. Do I think subjecting the entire African continent to British rule for two centuries is a fair price to pay for that? I'm not sure. Ultimately African nations need to learn (with international help) how to govern on their own.
  - mahmud 17y ago
    The down-voting doesn't bother me. I have come to expect a level cultural unsophistication from the faceless, voiceless, voting masses (at least I have the decency to comment and say "It was me" :-) Don't worry, I can make up for all my lost points here with a witless one-liner against PHP or relational databases.

mahmud 17y ago

I took it as inflammatory and libelous. Should I rephrase it for you or can you grok what "they were better off under British rule" really means?

tsally 17y ago
You shouldn't be down-voted to -4. Personally I think you're justified in taking lionhearted's as inflammatory and libelous. The claim that Hong Kong and the US are evidence for Britain's superiority is tenuous at best. The success or failure of all nations listed in lionhearted's arguments have a lot more to do with natural resources and geographic location than British rule. I wonder if Britain had had the same natural resources and geographical vulnerability as your average African nation, would they have become a colonial power?
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > Personally I think you're justified in taking lionhearted's as inflammatory and libelous. Well, this is a bad thing for me to hear from you, because you're one of the commentors on here I admire and always look to read your point of view. You're usually saying some quite insightful stuff. So let me ask if I may, how could I put forth the idea that colonialism isn't such a bad thing without being inflammatory and libelous? I know a lot of people hate it, are raised and taught in school that their country's revolution was most justified and glorious, etc, etc. (I was taught the same way, and had the same feelings until doing a lot of research and reading) Now I don't think that's the case, I think the British did a generally good job, and if I was alive in the times of the British Empire, I'm pretty sure I'd want to be under British rule. Is there a way I can put that point of view out there straightforwardly without tweaking people?
  - tsally 17y ago
    You're intentions are good, no doubt there. I definitely didn't mean to imply it was intentional on your part. It's subtle, but it feels like the argument you put forth implies the colonized were lesser than the British in a fundamental sense. Hence why I said "inflammatory and libelous" feelings are justified. You also gloss over a lot of complex issues in regards to the Empire itself (which I wrote about here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223286 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1223286). As a general rule, you're not wrong in the sense that a strong government can provide stability to a region. But it's important to remember the native population had no role in government. They never were taught how to govern by the British or allowed to develop their own methods of governing, because it was the British intention that their colonies always be dependent on Britain. The collapse after British withdrawal backs this up I think. Had the native population played a larger role in governing themselves or been given the freedom to develop their own system, they might have been able to create a stable government after Britain left. There's also the fact that the British enslaved millions while building their empire. The military that created the stability you admire was paid for by the lives of millions of Africans. Seems like there is something wrong about glorifying that stability, given how it came about. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the stability provided by the British Empire was a false and immoral stability. But factually your right that there was some temporary stability. That said, you can stabilize a region by enslaving everyone if you wanted to. Clearly there is a continuum for moral and immoral ways to stabilize a region. It's my belief British colonialism leans more towards the immoral side, but I understand where you are coming from. Sorry, that was stream of consciousness haha. I know it's not well formed. EDIT: Is there a way I can put that point of view out there straightforwardly without tweaking people? I'm not sure. I think there is something important to what you are saying, but it is difficult to frame it without implying that the colonized are inferior. There are positive things to say about the British system of government yes, but who's to say the native populations wouldn't have developed something just as good given the chance? Do I wish all the lives in Africa since the British withdrawal could be brought back? Yes. Do I think subjecting the entire African continent to British rule for two centuries is a fair price to pay for that? I'm not sure. Ultimately African nations need to learn (with international help) how to govern on their own.
- mahmud 17y ago
  The down-voting doesn't bother me. I have come to expect a level cultural unsophistication from the faceless, voiceless, voting masses (at least I have the decency to comment and say "It was me" :-) Don't worry, I can make up for all my lost points here with a witless one-liner against PHP or relational databases.