4 ms·

I've never quite understood the idea that a paternalistic colonial power is better simply because it is more stable. I would much rather take part in an civil w

I've never quite understood the idea that a paternalistic colonial power is better simply because it is more stable. I would much rather take part in an civil war than live under the subjugation of some colonial oppressor.

chege 5y ago
I was about to strongly contend the opposite, but realized that I lack the insight into what either life is like for the typical native person. I lean towards a paternalistic colonial power because the odds of me and my loved ones living is much higher. Living in a civil war (and I admit that intensities of civil wars vary) seems like a more dangerous gamble.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > I lean towards a paternalistic colonial power Has this ever existed?
anthony_d 5y ago
There are people who aren’t really concerned with which oppressor is subjugating them. They just want to go about their lives as well as they can. Presumably you were raised to think you have an impact on the world; many people don’t feel that way at all.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Reminds me of that line in The Patriot along the lines of "How is 3000 tyrants one mile away better than one tyrant 3000 miles away?"
- durovo 5y ago
  The British empire was extractive and exploitative in nature. They didn't just rule over these people, they ruled with the aim of extracting as much wealth and resources as possible. Many people wouldn't mind living under an oppressor who only imposes their ideologies/religion/way of living on you. e.g. the Mughal empire in the subcontinent might have imposed their religion in many instances but they treated the country like their own home. It is the stunted growth and several famines under the British empire that made many regions more prone to extreme poverty and conflicts.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    Is the current ruling class in these countries better from the point of view of the citizens? (Honest question, I don't know) Often enough rulers are exploitative regardless whether they sit in London and fill their pockets or in the country's capital.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      One thing to keep in mind is the balance of power between ruler and ruled. The British, representing a global empire, had always an enormous amount of power over their subjects. They could ignore, murder, torture, or starve their subjects in any one region, then draw upon the resources of all the other regions to suppress revolts. A dictator, no matter how unpleasant, usually doesn't have these resources to call upon, so they have to be much more careful, otherwise they lose enough legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled that the country becomes ungovernable - i.e. there are insufficient state resources to control the unrest. This is why colonial states tended to be far more brutal than normal dictatorships: ultimately, they don't need to convince anybody that their rule was legitimate, because their core support is global, rather than domestic.
    - reillyse 5y ago
      I’d argue that a local exploitative ruler is far preferable to a remote exploitative ruler. With the local ruler the wealth stays in the region. The plight of the inhabitants is more apparent to the ruler. With remote exploitation the wealth leaves the country and the country is sucked dry. The exploiter can ignore the results of the exploitation and just live large on the proceeds.
      - lostlogin 5y ago
        The British in India were a good example of this. The scale of the exploitation was truely incredible.
ycombinete 5y ago
I’ve been living in the Middle East for a few years now. And many people that I’ve met from the region find my preoccupation with privacy and freedom quite amusing, and even quaint.
shard972 5y ago
so are you currently fighting a civil war or living peacefully in your current location?
asdff 5y ago
Everyone on earth is subjugated.
- tomcam 5y ago
  Wait you’re married too? I kid.
ajuc 5y ago
Most people don't care what variety their oppressors comes in, just how high taxes are and if the roads are safe. But it's a moot point anyway, empires fall cause they aren't sustainable not because they aren't fair. The choice wasn't "stable colonial empire vs unstable independence". The choice was "keeping the obviously dying empire alive for a few more years at increasingly high cost or independence". Neither choice offered stability.
pjc50 5y ago
The US had about five minutes of mild instability in 2020 and people were calling for demonstrators to be shot in the street. Genuine political instability is extremely inconvenient and makes the recent supply chain issues look simple; suddenly it matters which faction controls the port, the roads, the police, and so on.
- MisterTea 5y ago
  There was instability in 2020? I didn't notice.
bell-cot 5y ago
"War is hell." - U.S. General William T. Sherman Most people don't want to live in hell. Most people (especially women, children, elderly, etc.) don't feel empowered by the prospect of a civil war, as you seem to. And looking at post-colonial histories...all too often, the civil wars, military coups, large-scale ethnic violence, etc...they never really end. Or only "end" as long as some ruthless dictator lasts.
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Generally, ethnic minorities like imperial powers, and majorities dislike them. Eventually the majority rises up under a nationalist banner to kick out the outsiders and re-establish themselves at the top of the local food chain. This is bad for the people who end up back at the bottom.

chege 5y ago

I was about to strongly contend the opposite, but realized that I lack the insight into what either life is like for the typical native person. I lean towards a paternalistic colonial power because the odds of me and my loved ones living is much higher. Living in a civil war (and I admit that intensities of civil wars vary) seems like a more dangerous gamble.

lostlogin 5y ago
> I lean towards a paternalistic colonial power Has this ever existed?

anthony_d 5y ago

There are people who aren’t really concerned with which oppressor is subjugating them. They just want to go about their lives as well as they can. Presumably you were raised to think you have an impact on the world; many people don’t feel that way at all.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
Reminds me of that line in The Patriot along the lines of "How is 3000 tyrants one mile away better than one tyrant 3000 miles away?"
durovo 5y ago
The British empire was extractive and exploitative in nature. They didn't just rule over these people, they ruled with the aim of extracting as much wealth and resources as possible. Many people wouldn't mind living under an oppressor who only imposes their ideologies/religion/way of living on you. e.g. the Mughal empire in the subcontinent might have imposed their religion in many instances but they treated the country like their own home. It is the stunted growth and several famines under the British empire that made many regions more prone to extreme poverty and conflicts.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Is the current ruling class in these countries better from the point of view of the citizens? (Honest question, I don't know) Often enough rulers are exploitative regardless whether they sit in London and fill their pockets or in the country's capital.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    One thing to keep in mind is the balance of power between ruler and ruled. The British, representing a global empire, had always an enormous amount of power over their subjects. They could ignore, murder, torture, or starve their subjects in any one region, then draw upon the resources of all the other regions to suppress revolts. A dictator, no matter how unpleasant, usually doesn't have these resources to call upon, so they have to be much more careful, otherwise they lose enough legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled that the country becomes ungovernable - i.e. there are insufficient state resources to control the unrest. This is why colonial states tended to be far more brutal than normal dictatorships: ultimately, they don't need to convince anybody that their rule was legitimate, because their core support is global, rather than domestic.
  - reillyse 5y ago
    I’d argue that a local exploitative ruler is far preferable to a remote exploitative ruler. With the local ruler the wealth stays in the region. The plight of the inhabitants is more apparent to the ruler. With remote exploitation the wealth leaves the country and the country is sucked dry. The exploiter can ignore the results of the exploitation and just live large on the proceeds.
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      The British in India were a good example of this. The scale of the exploitation was truely incredible.

ycombinete 5y ago

I’ve been living in the Middle East for a few years now. And many people that I’ve met from the region find my preoccupation with privacy and freedom quite amusing, and even quaint.

shard972 5y ago

so are you currently fighting a civil war or living peacefully in your current location?

asdff 5y ago

Everyone on earth is subjugated.

tomcam 5y ago
Wait you’re married too? I kid.

ajuc 5y ago

Most people don't care what variety their oppressors comes in, just how high taxes are and if the roads are safe. But it's a moot point anyway, empires fall cause they aren't sustainable not because they aren't fair. The choice wasn't "stable colonial empire vs unstable independence". The choice was "keeping the obviously dying empire alive for a few more years at increasingly high cost or independence". Neither choice offered stability.

pjc50 5y ago

The US had about five minutes of mild instability in 2020 and people were calling for demonstrators to be shot in the street. Genuine political instability is extremely inconvenient and makes the recent supply chain issues look simple; suddenly it matters which faction controls the port, the roads, the police, and so on.

MisterTea 5y ago
There was instability in 2020? I didn't notice.

bell-cot 5y ago

"War is hell." - U.S. General William T. Sherman Most people don't want to live in hell. Most people (especially women, children, elderly, etc.) don't feel empowered by the prospect of a civil war, as you seem to. And looking at post-colonial histories...all too often, the civil wars, military coups, large-scale ethnic violence, etc...they never really end. Or only "end" as long as some ruthless dictator lasts.

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago

Generally, ethnic minorities like imperial powers, and majorities dislike them. Eventually the majority rises up under a nationalist banner to kick out the outsiders and re-establish themselves at the top of the local food chain. This is bad for the people who end up back at the bottom.