4 ms·

Related: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cromer-to-romer-and-back-again.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from

Related: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cromer-to-romer-and-back-again.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr... I agree with the upshot of Moldbug's argument: "Thus the practical problem with 'charter cities' is that no one wants them: not the host regime, not the international regime. For both, they simply work too well. Colonialism had to die not because it didn't work, but because it worked too well."

jdp23 16y ago
Umm ... colonialism doesn't actually work well for the colonized.
- shaddi 16y ago
  Perhaps more accurately, it doesn't work well for those involved who don't have power. Puppet governments seem to do quite well for themselves, as do the colonizers.
- mquander 16y ago
  Well, I'm not sufficiently satisfied with my historical knowledge to hang around and argue this point with you, but I would point out that Moldbug defends it vigorously. If you can't be arsed to wade through his lengthy mumblings, you can CTRL-F "The fundamental observation of colonialism is that non-European societies thrive under normal European administration, at least in comparison to their condition under native rule" in the above essay and read for a bit from there. His conclusion is that "...to assert that their average quality of government service was anything but far better than either their predecessors, or their successors, is a political distortion of history which I have no trouble at all in comparing to Holocaust denial."
  - jdp23 16y ago
    Right. It's worked out soooo well for Native Americans here in the US. Except for the whole smallpox thing. And the reservations. And the massacres. And the Interior Department.
    - fistofjohnwayne 16y ago
      Yes but now they have a better "average quality of government service."
      - shaddi 16y ago
        Most folks I know living on reservations would debate that. Just saying, it's a strong claim to make.
        fistofjohnwayne 16y ago
        I was being facetious, I might have said, "sure the government service is great, if you survived."
        protomyth 16y ago
        don't get sick after june http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31210909/ns/health-health_care/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31210909/ns/health-health_care/
    - anamax 16y ago
      > Right. It's worked out soooo well for Native Americans here in the US. Except for the whole smallpox thing. And the reservations. And the massacres. And the Interior Department. The US didn't colonize NA land. We took it and "gave" them reservations, which we mostly ignore. They'd be better off as colonies or independent. As colonies, we'd care about getting a return on our investment. As independent, they'd benefit from whatever development that they did.
      - waterlesscloud 16y ago
        Only vaguely related, but I've heard it explained that the term "reservation" derives from the idea that it's land that the Indians "reserved" for themselves, rather than ceding in treaties. Now, that's of course a distortion of the forces at work that caused the so-called reservation of lands to be necessary, but there's also some contemporary value to Indian leaders in restoring that sense of meaning to the word today.
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  Colonialism doesn't work well for the colonized because historically, colonialism is imposed by force. Anything imposed by one entity upon another naturally favors the imposer. But what about consensual colonialism? Is it possible for the structure of colonialism to be used for mutual benefit? That's the question this article asks, and I think it's a pretty incisive and relevant question.
  - shaddi 16y ago
    It's arguable whether such a thing is possible. Cooperation, where all stakeholders have say in the endeavor, is probably close to ideal. But that's not colonialism. Once you start fixing all the problems that colonialism has (authoritarian outside rule, no power held by the governed, operating solely for the profit of the colonizer) you wind up with something that really doesn't look like colonialism at all. At best, you need another word, but as my earlier comment stated I think there are more fundamental flaws with the scheme. I think a more relevant (if less sensational) question is "What role should outsiders play in defining the goals and mechanisms of development?"
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  That's highly debatable. There is evidence that the longer a nation was colonized, the more developed it became. See this paper, for example: http://www.economics.neu.edu/activities/seminars/documents/islands.pdf http://www.economics.neu.edu/activities/seminars/documents/i...
  - jdp23 16y ago
    Colonizers and their descendants often write papers claim there are benefits for the colonized. This "study" doesn't have a control group ("each of the islands in our dataset spent some time under colonial rule") and uses two numbers as measures of "good modern outcomes" - one of which (GDP) is a synthetic measurement created by colonizers. Color me unimpressed.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      True - the study does not eliminate the possibility of a discontinuity at 0 colonization. (I.e., no colonization is better than some colonization, but once you have some, more is better.) Do you believe this to be present? If so, could you explain why? (I'll generally ignore the "I hate descendents of people distantly related to colonisers sooo much" part of your post, with one exception. The other measure of "good modern outcomes" is dead babies. Is "fewer dead babies" also a synthetic measurement created by colonizers?)
      - jdp23 16y ago
        For the discontinuity at 0, off the top of my head I would point to the relative success of uncolonized Western Europeans and their descendent colonizers in the US. Japan is another example. Do you believe Western Europe and the US to be more successful than colonized countries in Africa? Within the US, do you believe that descendants of Western Europeans are more economically successful than colonized Native Americans and blacks descending from slaves? > I'll generally ignore the "I hate descendents of people distantly related to colonisers sooo much" You're mischaracterizing what I said. Some of my best friends are descendents of colonizers and for that matter so am I. However, if we claimed that there were benefits for the colonized, we'd be just as self-serving as you and the person in this thread who suggested that it was really in Native Americans' interests to be colonized and the guys who wrote the paper.

jdp23 16y ago

Umm ... colonialism doesn't actually work well for the colonized.

shaddi 16y ago
Perhaps more accurately, it doesn't work well for those involved who don't have power. Puppet governments seem to do quite well for themselves, as do the colonizers.
mquander 16y ago
Well, I'm not sufficiently satisfied with my historical knowledge to hang around and argue this point with you, but I would point out that Moldbug defends it vigorously. If you can't be arsed to wade through his lengthy mumblings, you can CTRL-F "The fundamental observation of colonialism is that non-European societies thrive under normal European administration, at least in comparison to their condition under native rule" in the above essay and read for a bit from there. His conclusion is that "...to assert that their average quality of government service was anything but far better than either their predecessors, or their successors, is a political distortion of history which I have no trouble at all in comparing to Holocaust denial."
- jdp23 16y ago
  Right. It's worked out soooo well for Native Americans here in the US. Except for the whole smallpox thing. And the reservations. And the massacres. And the Interior Department.
  - fistofjohnwayne 16y ago
    Yes but now they have a better "average quality of government service."
    - shaddi 16y ago
      Most folks I know living on reservations would debate that. Just saying, it's a strong claim to make.
      - fistofjohnwayne 16y ago
        I was being facetious, I might have said, "sure the government service is great, if you survived."
        protomyth 16y ago
        don't get sick after june http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31210909/ns/health-health_care/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31210909/ns/health-health_care/
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Right. It's worked out soooo well for Native Americans here in the US. Except for the whole smallpox thing. And the reservations. And the massacres. And the Interior Department. The US didn't colonize NA land. We took it and "gave" them reservations, which we mostly ignore. They'd be better off as colonies or independent. As colonies, we'd care about getting a return on our investment. As independent, they'd benefit from whatever development that they did.
    - waterlesscloud 16y ago
      Only vaguely related, but I've heard it explained that the term "reservation" derives from the idea that it's land that the Indians "reserved" for themselves, rather than ceding in treaties. Now, that's of course a distortion of the forces at work that caused the so-called reservation of lands to be necessary, but there's also some contemporary value to Indian leaders in restoring that sense of meaning to the word today.
mortenjorck 16y ago
Colonialism doesn't work well for the colonized because historically, colonialism is imposed by force. Anything imposed by one entity upon another naturally favors the imposer. But what about consensual colonialism? Is it possible for the structure of colonialism to be used for mutual benefit? That's the question this article asks, and I think it's a pretty incisive and relevant question.
- shaddi 16y ago
  It's arguable whether such a thing is possible. Cooperation, where all stakeholders have say in the endeavor, is probably close to ideal. But that's not colonialism. Once you start fixing all the problems that colonialism has (authoritarian outside rule, no power held by the governed, operating solely for the profit of the colonizer) you wind up with something that really doesn't look like colonialism at all. At best, you need another word, but as my earlier comment stated I think there are more fundamental flaws with the scheme. I think a more relevant (if less sensational) question is "What role should outsiders play in defining the goals and mechanisms of development?"
yummyfajitas 16y ago
That's highly debatable. There is evidence that the longer a nation was colonized, the more developed it became. See this paper, for example: http://www.economics.neu.edu/activities/seminars/documents/islands.pdf http://www.economics.neu.edu/activities/seminars/documents/i...
- jdp23 16y ago
  Colonizers and their descendants often write papers claim there are benefits for the colonized. This "study" doesn't have a control group ("each of the islands in our dataset spent some time under colonial rule") and uses two numbers as measures of "good modern outcomes" - one of which (GDP) is a synthetic measurement created by colonizers. Color me unimpressed.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    True - the study does not eliminate the possibility of a discontinuity at 0 colonization. (I.e., no colonization is better than some colonization, but once you have some, more is better.) Do you believe this to be present? If so, could you explain why? (I'll generally ignore the "I hate descendents of people distantly related to colonisers sooo much" part of your post, with one exception. The other measure of "good modern outcomes" is dead babies. Is "fewer dead babies" also a synthetic measurement created by colonizers?)
    - jdp23 16y ago
      For the discontinuity at 0, off the top of my head I would point to the relative success of uncolonized Western Europeans and their descendent colonizers in the US. Japan is another example. Do you believe Western Europe and the US to be more successful than colonized countries in Africa? Within the US, do you believe that descendants of Western Europeans are more economically successful than colonized Native Americans and blacks descending from slaves? > I'll generally ignore the "I hate descendents of people distantly related to colonisers sooo much" You're mischaracterizing what I said. Some of my best friends are descendents of colonizers and for that matter so am I. However, if we claimed that there were benefits for the colonized, we'd be just as self-serving as you and the person in this thread who suggested that it was really in Native Americans' interests to be colonized and the guys who wrote the paper.