5 ms·

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

by 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.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
FWIW, I haven't been reading lionhearted's statements that way at all, and it's part of the reason that I've been jumping in here. I think that he's largely correct, within the scope and context of the original article. i.e., I'm not getting any sense of "fundamental inferiority" from his statements. Rather, he's been saying that the resident populations have generally been more peaceful, and more prosperous, during British colonial rule. The bits of world history that I've been reading lately would support his case. (I keep flipping through my books in the background here trying to locate the specific examples that I know I've read.) You're also right that the British colonization tended to be exploitative, but that's a different argument altogether. For me, I'm resolving the two arguments by comparing the violent anarchy of the Congo to the oppressive British rule in, say, Burma. If I had to choose to live as a native of one of those countries in the relevant time period, I would definitely choose British colonial Burma over modern Congo, and if I had to go in as a female, I would beg for Burma. That's not to say that Burma would be ideal, but just that I would be less likely to experience as much misery.
- tsally 17y ago
  Well take China as a counter example. Britain is in part responsible for the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. At the time Lin Zexu was vilified by his own people because of the military attention he attracted from Britain (First Opium War). Britain didn't like the fact that Zexu was trying to prevent his people from becoming addicted to Opium. Today Zexu viewed as a national hero for trying to resist the British. So if Britain was really concerned with stability, why didn't they just leave China alone? Britain did create stability yes, but only after they invaded a nation and remade it in their own image. Who knows how many African "Zexus" were suppressed by the British? Could African nations have created stable governments for themselves if left alone? The only reason why know about Lin Zexu is because China was powerful enough to resist complete control by the British. I guess I'm not really challenging the fact that some countries were more stable under British colonial rule. I definitely understand the idea that British Burma is preferable to anarchist Congo. But these aren't the only two possibilities. China proves it was possible to govern without British rule. The Qing Dynasty (and subsequently) the Republic of China are evidence of this. It's not clear what kind of governments could have developed in Africa had the British not enslaved millions of the resident population right off the bat. If we extend our thinking to before the British actually colonized Africa, we no longer have to choose between British Burma and anarchist Congo EDIT: So this gets at where the sense of inferiority comes from. In lionhearted's argument either we assume British colonization as acceptable and a given OR we assume that the African nations could not have developed a stable government on their own. If neither of those two assumptions are made then we don't have to choose between only British stability and general anarchy.

by tsally 17y ago

thaumaturgy 17y ago

FWIW, I haven't been reading lionhearted's statements that way at all, and it's part of the reason that I've been jumping in here. I think that he's largely correct, within the scope and context of the original article. i.e., I'm not getting any sense of "fundamental inferiority" from his statements. Rather, he's been saying that the resident populations have generally been more peaceful, and more prosperous, during British colonial rule. The bits of world history that I've been reading lately would support his case. (I keep flipping through my books in the background here trying to locate the specific examples that I know I've read.) You're also right that the British colonization tended to be exploitative, but that's a different argument altogether. For me, I'm resolving the two arguments by comparing the violent anarchy of the Congo to the oppressive British rule in, say, Burma. If I had to choose to live as a native of one of those countries in the relevant time period, I would definitely choose British colonial Burma over modern Congo, and if I had to go in as a female, I would beg for Burma. That's not to say that Burma would be ideal, but just that I would be less likely to experience as much misery.

tsally 17y ago
Well take China as a counter example. Britain is in part responsible for the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. At the time Lin Zexu was vilified by his own people because of the military attention he attracted from Britain (First Opium War). Britain didn't like the fact that Zexu was trying to prevent his people from becoming addicted to Opium. Today Zexu viewed as a national hero for trying to resist the British. So if Britain was really concerned with stability, why didn't they just leave China alone? Britain did create stability yes, but only after they invaded a nation and remade it in their own image. Who knows how many African "Zexus" were suppressed by the British? Could African nations have created stable governments for themselves if left alone? The only reason why know about Lin Zexu is because China was powerful enough to resist complete control by the British. I guess I'm not really challenging the fact that some countries were more stable under British colonial rule. I definitely understand the idea that British Burma is preferable to anarchist Congo. But these aren't the only two possibilities. China proves it was possible to govern without British rule. The Qing Dynasty (and subsequently) the Republic of China are evidence of this. It's not clear what kind of governments could have developed in Africa had the British not enslaved millions of the resident population right off the bat. If we extend our thinking to before the British actually colonized Africa, we no longer have to choose between British Burma and anarchist Congo EDIT: So this gets at where the sense of inferiority comes from. In lionhearted's argument either we assume British colonization as acceptable and a given OR we assume that the African nations could not have developed a stable government on their own. If neither of those two assumptions are made then we don't have to choose between only British stability and general anarchy.