6 ms·

Identifying and acknowledging past mistakes should not lead to the false notion that Western thought is inferior or that colonization was not overall beneficial

Identifying and acknowledging past mistakes should not lead to the false notion that Western thought is inferior or that colonization was not overall beneficial. The following link provides data supporting this view: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/6-charts-show-world-improving/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/6-charts-show-world-improvi.... Western ideas, customs, and institutions that enabled significant technological advancements and population growth, which in turn precipitated colonization, should be celebrated, and yes, in some aspects, considered superior. The continuous efforts by academic disciplines to humble and demoralize the majority through socio-economic critiques of their culture and traditions need to stop.

hmcq6 3y ago
Crypto bro using a self-proclaimed capitalist website to argue why colonization is morally good, ackshually. What's the utilitarian argument in favor of genocide?
- ETH_start 3y ago
  The statistics demonstrate that capitalism is morally good, your tribalistic aversions to capitalism/human-freedom notwithstanding. It ended slavery and genocide worldwide. Unlike other traditions, it upholds principles of humanitarianism above utilitarianism. It was the opponents of classical liberalism that instituted lockdowns around the world during the COVID pandemic "for the greater good". It was the Aztecs, pre-colonization, that sacrificed 40,000 children in one day, "for the greater good".
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 3y ago
    Slavery and genocide are very much still with us.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      Fair point. I meant ended it as a globally accepted mass-practice, and consequently made it much less prevalent than it had been in the past.
  - hmcq6 3y ago
    Ohh you're not a serious person. Got it. If anyone... I guess any children are reading this my tip off was: "It ended slavery and genocide worldwide." This... is an absurd thing to claim. I'm not even gonna address OP anymore because this is flat-earth levels of bullshit. It's the definition of correlation does not equal causation. First of all, capitalism didn't end slavery. I can't speak for the whole globe but it sure as fuck didn't end slavery in America. The US stopped paying taxes to the monarchy in 1765. 10 years later we had the revolutionary war. In 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed, in 1787 the constitution was signed. We still had slaves in the US. In 1862 the slaves were "freed" but it took 3 more years for news to travel and for slavery to actually be abolished in the US. Even still black people were effectively denied many rights until the 1960's So, whichever date you want to pick out of that soup and decide "this is when capitalism solved slavery", you're wrong. And that doesn't even touch on American capitalists fencing slave labor in the modern day/recent past. Second, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides I'm not going to go point by point but I guarenteeeeeee you can find examples in that list to disprove the second half of the quote. Like there's literally a genocide going on right now and both the parties committing genocide are capitalists, but... yeah I don't even know how to engage with this level of head-empty-diamond-hands-stronk
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      Ohh you're not a serious person. Got it. If anyone... I guess any children are reading this my tip off was: " You gotta stop debating people like this on Hacker News. Even if you disagree with someone, you should refrain from mockery/sarcasm that evokes flame wars. First of all, capitalism didn't end slavery. Western states, which were among the most capitalist in the world, played a significant role in ending slavery as a global institution. The British Empire, the most prominent colonial power, embarked on a century-long global campaign that compelled numerous states to formally abolish slavery, a practice that had existed since the dawn of human history. And yes, slavery and genocide still exist and occur. My comment was simplistic, as I assumed the reader would grasp the point I was trying to convey. My point was that there is now a global consensus that slavery and genocide are unacceptable, and this consensus did not exist in the pre-capitalist era. This consensus has resulted in slavery/genocide becoming far less prevalent than they were in the past, as any quantitative analysis reveals. And the emergence of this consensus was due primarily to the influence of predominantly capitalist states like the United States, and before it, the British Empire.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    Do show us the statistics that demonstrate it
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      "According to a popular view that I call “two cheers for capitalism,” capitalism’s effect on development is ambiguous and mixed. This paper empirically investigates that view. I find that it’s wrong. Citizens in countries that became more capitalist over the last quarter century became wealthier, healthier, more educated, and politically freer. Citizens in countries that became significantly less capitalist over this period endured stagnating income, shortening life spans, smaller gains in education, and increasingly oppressive political regimes. The data unequivocally evidence capitalism’s superiority for development. Full-force cheerleading for capitalism is well deserved and three cheers are in order instead of two." source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9305-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9305-7 Market-based reforms across the world, including in China, India, Chile, and South Korea, are credited with lifting millions out of poverty, and bringing about a profound increase in average incomes. Economist Lee Ohanian compares the labor market policies of Europe and the United States in his essay The Effect of Economic Freedom on Labor Market Efficiency and Performance. Compared to the United States, European nations have higher minimum wages, stricter rules that prevent the firing of workers, and high rates of unionization. These rules are intended to protect workers, but Ohanian finds that they discourage employment and result in lower compensation rates. His analysis indicates: >These findings have important implications for economic policy making. They indicate that policies that enhance the free and efficient operation of the labor market significantly expand opportunities and increase prosperity. Moreover, they suggest that economic policy reforms can substantially improve economic performance in countries with heavily regulated labor markets and high tax rates. source: https://www.hoover.org/research/capitalism-vs-socialism-2 https://www.hoover.org/research/capitalism-vs-socialism-2 A strong correlation is found between lower rates of government spending as a share of GDP, and the rate of economic growth: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl...
defrost 3y ago
Was colonization a neccessary prerequisite to improve health and literacy though? Did peoples heads need to be cut off and sent to the phrenologists at the British and US institutes in order that child mortality be reduced? You make a very weak argument.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Colonization facilitated the expansion of Western civilization globally and, as such, there's a strong argument that it was a positive force. This is notwithstanding the fact that it was imperfect and involved certain mistakes like the one you allude to.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Correlation, famously, is not causation. The heart of Western 'civilisation' was once Dickensian era England which suffered poor literacy, poor child mortality rates, etc. Despite not being colonised, these things changed. Again, the statistics you've linked do not demonstrate colonisation == good. Indeed the bulk of the benefits kick in post war - the period associated with the death of colonial empires. Perhaps you've provided grist to the argument that colonial governments should be removed.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      Colonization spread the ruleset of Dickensian era England all over the world, especially in the Americas where it led to the emergence of the largest and more technologically advanced society in history: the USA. >Indeed the bulk of the benefits kick in post war - the period associated with the death of colonial empires. The post-war period replaced colonial empires underpinned by direct foreign rule with a different kind of foreign influence that is arguably better: Pax Americana which exerted US influence through US-led institutions that provide coordination amongst states, foreign aid and military protection. But you make a valid point that this period saw colonial rule dissipitate, and that correlated with significant improvement. There are so many data points to consider that any theory is mere speculation, including mine. Hard to know what an alternate history where the European powers refrained from engaging in colonialism would have led to, aside from cases like colonial America, where English settlement clearly produced massive gains for the world. I will say however that Western values have convincingly shown themselves to be beneficial to the world, and that the anti-colonialist mission to expel them from modern society and academic disciplines is therefore reckless and misguided.

hmcq6 3y ago

Crypto bro using a self-proclaimed capitalist website to argue why colonization is morally good, ackshually. What's the utilitarian argument in favor of genocide?

ETH_start 3y ago
The statistics demonstrate that capitalism is morally good, your tribalistic aversions to capitalism/human-freedom notwithstanding. It ended slavery and genocide worldwide. Unlike other traditions, it upholds principles of humanitarianism above utilitarianism. It was the opponents of classical liberalism that instituted lockdowns around the world during the COVID pandemic "for the greater good". It was the Aztecs, pre-colonization, that sacrificed 40,000 children in one day, "for the greater good".
- bitxbitxbitcoin 3y ago
  Slavery and genocide are very much still with us.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Fair point. I meant ended it as a globally accepted mass-practice, and consequently made it much less prevalent than it had been in the past.
- hmcq6 3y ago
  Ohh you're not a serious person. Got it. If anyone... I guess any children are reading this my tip off was: "It ended slavery and genocide worldwide." This... is an absurd thing to claim. I'm not even gonna address OP anymore because this is flat-earth levels of bullshit. It's the definition of correlation does not equal causation. First of all, capitalism didn't end slavery. I can't speak for the whole globe but it sure as fuck didn't end slavery in America. The US stopped paying taxes to the monarchy in 1765. 10 years later we had the revolutionary war. In 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed, in 1787 the constitution was signed. We still had slaves in the US. In 1862 the slaves were "freed" but it took 3 more years for news to travel and for slavery to actually be abolished in the US. Even still black people were effectively denied many rights until the 1960's So, whichever date you want to pick out of that soup and decide "this is when capitalism solved slavery", you're wrong. And that doesn't even touch on American capitalists fencing slave labor in the modern day/recent past. Second, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides I'm not going to go point by point but I guarenteeeeeee you can find examples in that list to disprove the second half of the quote. Like there's literally a genocide going on right now and both the parties committing genocide are capitalists, but... yeah I don't even know how to engage with this level of head-empty-diamond-hands-stronk
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Ohh you're not a serious person. Got it. If anyone... I guess any children are reading this my tip off was: " You gotta stop debating people like this on Hacker News. Even if you disagree with someone, you should refrain from mockery/sarcasm that evokes flame wars. First of all, capitalism didn't end slavery. Western states, which were among the most capitalist in the world, played a significant role in ending slavery as a global institution. The British Empire, the most prominent colonial power, embarked on a century-long global campaign that compelled numerous states to formally abolish slavery, a practice that had existed since the dawn of human history. And yes, slavery and genocide still exist and occur. My comment was simplistic, as I assumed the reader would grasp the point I was trying to convey. My point was that there is now a global consensus that slavery and genocide are unacceptable, and this consensus did not exist in the pre-capitalist era. This consensus has resulted in slavery/genocide becoming far less prevalent than they were in the past, as any quantitative analysis reveals. And the emergence of this consensus was due primarily to the influence of predominantly capitalist states like the United States, and before it, the British Empire.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  Do show us the statistics that demonstrate it
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    "According to a popular view that I call “two cheers for capitalism,” capitalism’s effect on development is ambiguous and mixed. This paper empirically investigates that view. I find that it’s wrong. Citizens in countries that became more capitalist over the last quarter century became wealthier, healthier, more educated, and politically freer. Citizens in countries that became significantly less capitalist over this period endured stagnating income, shortening life spans, smaller gains in education, and increasingly oppressive political regimes. The data unequivocally evidence capitalism’s superiority for development. Full-force cheerleading for capitalism is well deserved and three cheers are in order instead of two." source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9305-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9305-7 Market-based reforms across the world, including in China, India, Chile, and South Korea, are credited with lifting millions out of poverty, and bringing about a profound increase in average incomes. Economist Lee Ohanian compares the labor market policies of Europe and the United States in his essay The Effect of Economic Freedom on Labor Market Efficiency and Performance. Compared to the United States, European nations have higher minimum wages, stricter rules that prevent the firing of workers, and high rates of unionization. These rules are intended to protect workers, but Ohanian finds that they discourage employment and result in lower compensation rates. His analysis indicates: >These findings have important implications for economic policy making. They indicate that policies that enhance the free and efficient operation of the labor market significantly expand opportunities and increase prosperity. Moreover, they suggest that economic policy reforms can substantially improve economic performance in countries with heavily regulated labor markets and high tax rates. source: https://www.hoover.org/research/capitalism-vs-socialism-2 https://www.hoover.org/research/capitalism-vs-socialism-2 A strong correlation is found between lower rates of government spending as a share of GDP, and the rate of economic growth: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl...

defrost 3y ago

Was colonization a neccessary prerequisite to improve health and literacy though? Did peoples heads need to be cut off and sent to the phrenologists at the British and US institutes in order that child mortality be reduced? You make a very weak argument.

ETH_start 3y ago
Colonization facilitated the expansion of Western civilization globally and, as such, there's a strong argument that it was a positive force. This is notwithstanding the fact that it was imperfect and involved certain mistakes like the one you allude to.
- defrost 3y ago
  Correlation, famously, is not causation. The heart of Western 'civilisation' was once Dickensian era England which suffered poor literacy, poor child mortality rates, etc. Despite not being colonised, these things changed. Again, the statistics you've linked do not demonstrate colonisation == good. Indeed the bulk of the benefits kick in post war - the period associated with the death of colonial empires. Perhaps you've provided grist to the argument that colonial governments should be removed.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Colonization spread the ruleset of Dickensian era England all over the world, especially in the Americas where it led to the emergence of the largest and more technologically advanced society in history: the USA. >Indeed the bulk of the benefits kick in post war - the period associated with the death of colonial empires. The post-war period replaced colonial empires underpinned by direct foreign rule with a different kind of foreign influence that is arguably better: Pax Americana which exerted US influence through US-led institutions that provide coordination amongst states, foreign aid and military protection. But you make a valid point that this period saw colonial rule dissipitate, and that correlated with significant improvement. There are so many data points to consider that any theory is mere speculation, including mine. Hard to know what an alternate history where the European powers refrained from engaging in colonialism would have led to, aside from cases like colonial America, where English settlement clearly produced massive gains for the world. I will say however that Western values have convincingly shown themselves to be beneficial to the world, and that the anti-colonialist mission to expel them from modern society and academic disciplines is therefore reckless and misguided.