5 ms·

> Neither you nor anyone else has the right to dictate the fate of a people. Sovereignty above prosperity my man. I think you and I are closer together in pers

> Neither you nor anyone else has the right to dictate the fate of a people. Sovereignty above prosperity my man. I think you and I are closer together in perspective than you might think. I don't care about having a say in how the roads are laid out or the standardization of weights and measures, but I do expect freedom and will take it over promises of prosperity yes. As soon as the ruling authority, whether internal or external, starts mandating how I run my life we've got a problem. But I don't care if the guy choosing the layout of the roads looks like me and has the same bloodlines or not - I do spend the majority of my time abroad in countries where I have no vote, and the ruling authority looks differently than me, speaks a different language, and has no common ancestry. I'm comfortable under another person's rule if their rule is good. I don't need a say or someone with shared blood running things as long as whoever in charge is doing a good job. > 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 That's correct. Two-thirds of the masterminds behind the revolution in my country were complete thugs, brutal men who incited the crowds to mob violence, who burned down buildings, who tortured largely innocent representatives of the Crown, who even condoned the killing of those men's children! We were very fortunate to get some anti-revolutionary anti-"will of the people" types in my country to moderate and put safeguards against mob violence and oppression, and there were a couple exceptional leaders who didn't fully buy into the "spirit of revolution" nonsense. Of course, I live somewhere with public education that pumps you full of patriotism and winner's history, it's only been my detailed studies of primary sources and the opposing point of view that's gotten me to my opinion. Probably less than 1% of my countrymen feel the same way, as they've never seen or heard of the documents I've read and gone through. Again, give me individual liberty, I don't care if the governor looks like me or if I had any say in his taking his post. If he gives me a fair shake, leaves me to my business, and generally keeps the peace, this is fine with me. I'm not a nationalist, I don't think my people are superior to anyone else's, nor anointed to govern somehow. Good governance to me is what I want, which is why I'm just fine living abroad in a country where I can't vote and I'm under the local law of people who look differently than me, have different bloodlines, and speak a different language.

mahmud 17y ago
Your local conditions do not necessarily justify the blanket statement that we all were better off under colonial rule. This is what you said: 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. You then linked to a map of the British colonies and few short comments about a few countries .. which I am happy to quote and refute: Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule For the ruling white minority. 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. Britishness as a metric of success .. wasn't half of Canada French? did they fare worse? Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance. The crooked King Farouk was a womenizing gambler and European puppet. It took Gammal Abdelnasser to take back the Suez Canal, bring education and health-care to the masses, and it took the socialists to reclaim Egypt for Egyptians. If you think English colonization is the true recipe for success, look at Turkey :-) Never been colonized, and fares better than all the colonies in its neighborhood. Ireland's a mixed bag, the British did some good and bad things there. Very safe to say that in the internet. After a thousand years, English occupation loses its novelty. I wonder how happy are the Irish with it? The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule. Is that why France has better presence there today? And then there's Hong Kong, which is where I am right now. Any doubts there? Being China's gateway to the world surely helped. It was a lab for China before China opened up and built its economic "Zones". As far back as 1970, Hong Kong was a port to ship smuggled Chinese goods. After '80 it was China's proxy PR agency / Accountant / Mailbox Etc.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > Your local conditions do not necessarily justify the blanket statement that we all were better off under colonial rule. But that's not what I said. You actually quoted me - > This is what you said: 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. Cutting off people's lips and ears, and arms, and mass rapes, and general brutal chaos - that didn't happen under British rule. By "say what you like about colonialism...", I mean that I don't think it's all roses and there were legitimate problems with it. However, I think peaceful, stable, prosperous colonial rule is one far superior option to bloodbath and no rule of law. Maybe it's not the best option, but it's certainly not all bad either. > You then linked to a map of the British colonies and few short comments about a few countries I tried to cover all of the Empire. Did I miss anywhere? They did some bad things - the largest was religious persecution in favor of the Church of England. Some of the monopoly Crown trading companies were bad. Tariffs and shipping laws were corrupt by modern standards; though, on the other hand, the British Navy did a very good job of protecting their territories' ships, transports, and people from pirates and raiders which was a very big problem back then. So it's a mixed thing. Again, not all roses. > Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule - For the ruling white minority. Okay, historically, the ruling minority has always done well everywhere. Pretty much everywhere in history was still reasonably comfortable for the ruling minority. That said, I actually just did a lot of reading about Burma recently because I was debating going there. The common people were much better off, wealthier, safer, and more free under British rule than they have been since. The biggest thing the British do well (that the Romans also did) is they let the local people keep their customs and cut off almost all local factional infighting. Burma has many different ethnicities of people in it, that have historically killed, raped, and pillaged each other with abandon. The period of the least amount of this was under British rule, when it was reasonably safe to be of any ethnicity, and you had almost complete religious freedom, and infinitely more free speech than you do today, along with much more free action, freedom of mobility, economic freedom, and economic prosperity. Burma was a hell of a lot better under British rule, almost infinitely so, for almost everyone in society. The British traders and governors there got wealthy, so did the local people, and they all lived exceptionally well. Again though, I might take issue with trade monopolies and tariffs as one of the worst things about the British Empire, so some of that ruling elite wealth was ill-gotten. True, but on balance, Burma was exceptionally better off under British rule, for everyone there. > Britishness as a metric of success .. wasn't half of Canada French? did they fare worse? But I didn't say Britishness was a metric of success - I said they used the British systems and turned out well. Common law, classic international trade law, reasonably open borders and consular protection, free markets, well-equipped and well-trained hierarchical professional military, limited powers with checked and balances - these are good systems. There's other good systems - I actually like the Napoleonic Codes from France, and prefer civil law to modern common law. So there's other alternatives, sure. But I point out, you could do a heck of a lot worse than installing the basic English governing system in a place. > The crooked King Farouk was a womenizing gambler and European puppet. This is a little "No True Scotsman", no? I'm saying British colonial rule was superior to what came after it, you're saying, "Well, it doesn't count because he was a womanizing gambler and puppet." Well, yes, I might agree. Colonial rule is better than womanizing gambling puppet rule. The assumption that !colonialism = goodgovernment just doesn't hold. Many places threw off colonialism and descended into something much worse. The places that didn't descend into worse largely kept the British system - common law, trade, military, habeas corpus, constitution, professional military, etc, etc. > If you think English colonization is the true recipe for success, look at Turkey :-) Never been colonized, and fares better than all the colonies in its neighborhood. Ah, so you point out that colonization is flawed by choosing one of the three most badass colonial empires of all time? Right, Turkey was a colonial power for over 600 years, only ending with WWI. Rome, Britain, China, and Ottoman were the four most successful empires in history. Also, it should be noted that Mustafa Ataturk did not serve the will of the people - I'm a huge admirer of his, and he went outright against the spirit of his times, ended the Caliphate, and basically forcefully modernized Turkey against the people's wishes, with free speech, free religion, a secular government, and other such modernities - these were actually not wanted and resisted by his people; his rule was tenuous in the beginning as a military dictatorship, opening up only later. But he was a great man, he's why Turkey became what it is instead of going the way of Germany after WWI. He's worth reading about if you haven't read about him, Ataturk was a great man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk > Very safe to say that in the internet. After a thousand years, English occupation loses its novelty. I wonder how happy are the Irish with it? I'm part Irish and I said Ireland was a mixed bag. I'm not sure that's exactly an unsafe thing to say in person, considering a good many of my relatives are Irish and I spent time in Dublin. But yeah, you've got some Oliver Cromwell type stuff, and some Church of England type stuff that was terrible. It's a black mark on the British record. To be clear, I'm not saying the British Empire is the greatest thing ever. There were problems. But many regions had their most prosperous times under British rule, for the people on the bottom, and the middle class, and the wealthy. But I'm not arguing for the British Empire, it's just an example I picked of good colonial governance. I'm a supporter of good governance, not colonialism itself. The Dutch, for instance, would brutally massacre the people they colonized, which is one reason they have very few friendly ties with anywhere they used to rule. The Spanish, likewise, were more interested in plundering and converting than establishing good government and live-and-let-living. But Rome, Britain, a couple of the Muslim Empires, a couple of the Chinese Empires, and so on - they brought good government to people. Maybe self government is better than foreign government, but if forced to choose, I'll take good foreign government over bad self government any day of the week.

mahmud 17y ago

Your local conditions do not necessarily justify the blanket statement that we all were better off under colonial rule. This is what you said: 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. You then linked to a map of the British colonies and few short comments about a few countries .. which I am happy to quote and refute: Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule For the ruling white minority. 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. Britishness as a metric of success .. wasn't half of Canada French? did they fare worse? Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance. The crooked King Farouk was a womenizing gambler and European puppet. It took Gammal Abdelnasser to take back the Suez Canal, bring education and health-care to the masses, and it took the socialists to reclaim Egypt for Egyptians. If you think English colonization is the true recipe for success, look at Turkey :-) Never been colonized, and fares better than all the colonies in its neighborhood. Ireland's a mixed bag, the British did some good and bad things there. Very safe to say that in the internet. After a thousand years, English occupation loses its novelty. I wonder how happy are the Irish with it? The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule. Is that why France has better presence there today? And then there's Hong Kong, which is where I am right now. Any doubts there? Being China's gateway to the world surely helped. It was a lab for China before China opened up and built its economic "Zones". As far back as 1970, Hong Kong was a port to ship smuggled Chinese goods. After '80 it was China's proxy PR agency / Accountant / Mailbox Etc.

lionhearted 17y ago
> Your local conditions do not necessarily justify the blanket statement that we all were better off under colonial rule. But that's not what I said. You actually quoted me - > This is what you said: 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. Cutting off people's lips and ears, and arms, and mass rapes, and general brutal chaos - that didn't happen under British rule. By "say what you like about colonialism...", I mean that I don't think it's all roses and there were legitimate problems with it. However, I think peaceful, stable, prosperous colonial rule is one far superior option to bloodbath and no rule of law. Maybe it's not the best option, but it's certainly not all bad either. > You then linked to a map of the British colonies and few short comments about a few countries I tried to cover all of the Empire. Did I miss anywhere? They did some bad things - the largest was religious persecution in favor of the Church of England. Some of the monopoly Crown trading companies were bad. Tariffs and shipping laws were corrupt by modern standards; though, on the other hand, the British Navy did a very good job of protecting their territories' ships, transports, and people from pirates and raiders which was a very big problem back then. So it's a mixed thing. Again, not all roses. > Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule - For the ruling white minority. Okay, historically, the ruling minority has always done well everywhere. Pretty much everywhere in history was still reasonably comfortable for the ruling minority. That said, I actually just did a lot of reading about Burma recently because I was debating going there. The common people were much better off, wealthier, safer, and more free under British rule than they have been since. The biggest thing the British do well (that the Romans also did) is they let the local people keep their customs and cut off almost all local factional infighting. Burma has many different ethnicities of people in it, that have historically killed, raped, and pillaged each other with abandon. The period of the least amount of this was under British rule, when it was reasonably safe to be of any ethnicity, and you had almost complete religious freedom, and infinitely more free speech than you do today, along with much more free action, freedom of mobility, economic freedom, and economic prosperity. Burma was a hell of a lot better under British rule, almost infinitely so, for almost everyone in society. The British traders and governors there got wealthy, so did the local people, and they all lived exceptionally well. Again though, I might take issue with trade monopolies and tariffs as one of the worst things about the British Empire, so some of that ruling elite wealth was ill-gotten. True, but on balance, Burma was exceptionally better off under British rule, for everyone there. > Britishness as a metric of success .. wasn't half of Canada French? did they fare worse? But I didn't say Britishness was a metric of success - I said they used the British systems and turned out well. Common law, classic international trade law, reasonably open borders and consular protection, free markets, well-equipped and well-trained hierarchical professional military, limited powers with checked and balances - these are good systems. There's other good systems - I actually like the Napoleonic Codes from France, and prefer civil law to modern common law. So there's other alternatives, sure. But I point out, you could do a heck of a lot worse than installing the basic English governing system in a place. > The crooked King Farouk was a womenizing gambler and European puppet. This is a little "No True Scotsman", no? I'm saying British colonial rule was superior to what came after it, you're saying, "Well, it doesn't count because he was a womanizing gambler and puppet." Well, yes, I might agree. Colonial rule is better than womanizing gambling puppet rule. The assumption that !colonialism = goodgovernment just doesn't hold. Many places threw off colonialism and descended into something much worse. The places that didn't descend into worse largely kept the British system - common law, trade, military, habeas corpus, constitution, professional military, etc, etc. > If you think English colonization is the true recipe for success, look at Turkey :-) Never been colonized, and fares better than all the colonies in its neighborhood. Ah, so you point out that colonization is flawed by choosing one of the three most badass colonial empires of all time? Right, Turkey was a colonial power for over 600 years, only ending with WWI. Rome, Britain, China, and Ottoman were the four most successful empires in history. Also, it should be noted that Mustafa Ataturk did not serve the will of the people - I'm a huge admirer of his, and he went outright against the spirit of his times, ended the Caliphate, and basically forcefully modernized Turkey against the people's wishes, with free speech, free religion, a secular government, and other such modernities - these were actually not wanted and resisted by his people; his rule was tenuous in the beginning as a military dictatorship, opening up only later. But he was a great man, he's why Turkey became what it is instead of going the way of Germany after WWI. He's worth reading about if you haven't read about him, Ataturk was a great man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk > Very safe to say that in the internet. After a thousand years, English occupation loses its novelty. I wonder how happy are the Irish with it? I'm part Irish and I said Ireland was a mixed bag. I'm not sure that's exactly an unsafe thing to say in person, considering a good many of my relatives are Irish and I spent time in Dublin. But yeah, you've got some Oliver Cromwell type stuff, and some Church of England type stuff that was terrible. It's a black mark on the British record. To be clear, I'm not saying the British Empire is the greatest thing ever. There were problems. But many regions had their most prosperous times under British rule, for the people on the bottom, and the middle class, and the wealthy. But I'm not arguing for the British Empire, it's just an example I picked of good colonial governance. I'm a supporter of good governance, not colonialism itself. The Dutch, for instance, would brutally massacre the people they colonized, which is one reason they have very few friendly ties with anywhere they used to rule. The Spanish, likewise, were more interested in plundering and converting than establishing good government and live-and-let-living. But Rome, Britain, a couple of the Muslim Empires, a couple of the Chinese Empires, and so on - they brought good government to people. Maybe self government is better than foreign government, but if forced to choose, I'll take good foreign government over bad self government any day of the week.