ChatterBank21 mins ago
British Colonial Rule
76 Answers
This story in today’s Daily Mail on-line interested me (especially as some ABers think me a racist).
In the article the Oxford professor claims that there were many very good things about British colonial rule, as well as very bad.
As an example of the one of the very good things about British colonial rule – he points out that we were one of the first to abolish slavery and slave trading within its territories.
https:/
In the article the Oxford professor claims that there were many very good things about British colonial rule, as well as very bad.
As an example of the one of the very good things about British colonial rule – he points out that we were one of the first to abolish slavery and slave trading within its territories.
https:/
Answers
That’s a bit like a man saying he was the first to stop beating his wife.
08:14 Sun 02nd Jul 2023
The relevant quote on the "good things" ...
Gilley’s method of defending colonialism is through “cost-benefit analysis,” in which the harms of colonialism are weighed against the “improvements in living conditions” and better governance.
...
We should observe here that this is a terrible way of evaluating colonialism. It is favored by colonialism’s apologists because it means that truly unspeakable harms can simply be “outweighed” and thereby trivialized. We can see quickly how ludicrous this is: “Yes, we may have indiscriminately massacred 500 children, but we also opened a clinic that vaccinated enough children to save 501 lives, therefore ‘the case for colonialism is strong.’” We don’t allow murderers to produce defenses like this, for good reason: you can’t get away with saying “Yes, I killed my wife, but I’m also a fireman.” We must also be careful about using hypothetical counterfactuals: examining whether colonialism is “better than what would have happened in its absence.” I’m reading Great Expectations at the moment, and so I’ll call this the “Pip’s sister defense”: Pip’s sister justifies her cruelty and physical abuse by constantly reminding Pip that if it were not for her, he would be in an even worse situation. It’s an argument frequently deployed by abusive and exploitative individuals in order to justify their acts. And the point is that whether or not it’s true is immaterial to the evaluation of the person’s crimes. Gilley and other colonial apologists, like the husband telling his wife that while she may not like being hit, she should remember who provides for her, try to exonerate colonial powers by suggesting that enough economic growth could somehow make a “strong case for colonialism” even if there had been constant mass rape and torture.
Gilley’s method of defending colonialism is through “cost-benefit analysis,” in which the harms of colonialism are weighed against the “improvements in living conditions” and better governance.
...
We should observe here that this is a terrible way of evaluating colonialism. It is favored by colonialism’s apologists because it means that truly unspeakable harms can simply be “outweighed” and thereby trivialized. We can see quickly how ludicrous this is: “Yes, we may have indiscriminately massacred 500 children, but we also opened a clinic that vaccinated enough children to save 501 lives, therefore ‘the case for colonialism is strong.’” We don’t allow murderers to produce defenses like this, for good reason: you can’t get away with saying “Yes, I killed my wife, but I’m also a fireman.” We must also be careful about using hypothetical counterfactuals: examining whether colonialism is “better than what would have happened in its absence.” I’m reading Great Expectations at the moment, and so I’ll call this the “Pip’s sister defense”: Pip’s sister justifies her cruelty and physical abuse by constantly reminding Pip that if it were not for her, he would be in an even worse situation. It’s an argument frequently deployed by abusive and exploitative individuals in order to justify their acts. And the point is that whether or not it’s true is immaterial to the evaluation of the person’s crimes. Gilley and other colonial apologists, like the husband telling his wife that while she may not like being hit, she should remember who provides for her, try to exonerate colonial powers by suggesting that enough economic growth could somehow make a “strong case for colonialism” even if there had been constant mass rape and torture.
You might not like the facts, but facts remain. Listing the disadvantages of colonialism does not offset the benefits; it is a completely different argument. What cannot be argued is that Britain gave its colonies better developments and infrastructure to their countries, such as roads, dams and railways. Throughout the Empire, the English language spread, allowing people to communicate using one language, and thus brought a huge boost to trade and prosperity, bringing thousands out of poverty. In turn, the trade system allowed people to come to Britain, making Britain more diverse as is seen today reflected in our government. Britain brought the very concept of democracy to its colonies and helped them to build their own
Commonwealth - The Commonwealth provided the old colonies with help and support after the Empire era. The Empire brought their law system with them, improving the colonies' systems, most of which remain to today. The Empire brought their education system with them, improving the children's education and in turn giving the power of self-rule and greater freedom. The British civil service model is still evident all over the ex-colonies, and thousands still benefit. You might not like balance, and the leftwing journo quoted by Elipsis certainly doesn't but it was part of the question.
Commonwealth - The Commonwealth provided the old colonies with help and support after the Empire era. The Empire brought their law system with them, improving the colonies' systems, most of which remain to today. The Empire brought their education system with them, improving the children's education and in turn giving the power of self-rule and greater freedom. The British civil service model is still evident all over the ex-colonies, and thousands still benefit. You might not like balance, and the leftwing journo quoted by Elipsis certainly doesn't but it was part of the question.
History is like life - there are wonderful and terrible things happening simultaneously, because that is the human condition, it's how we function.
If you want to look for good, or bad things that have happened in the past, they are all there for you to find, and you can bolster your personal viewpoint with the facts you need that coincide.
The important point about history is, in seeing where we have been, and what we have done, and what worked and what didn't, and what was good, and what wasn't, we can have a rough idea of where we want to go, and how we want to behave while we get there.
Wringing collective hands over the evils of history is utterly pointless, simply learn the lessons and move forward, the only direction in which we can actually go anyway.
The major problem with sections of society who feel the need to accept guilt for historical behaviour, is the nonsense of 'reparations' for historical wrongdoing.
Personally, I think it is a ludicrous notion, and I personally would not dream of getting involved.
I am not minded to apologise for something I did not do, to people to whom it was not done, and the idea that I should pay them money for it makes my blood boil.
I think slavery was a horrible concept, but it was of its time, it happened, and me being 'sorry' will not make it un-happen, and because by an accident of birth I am white, does not mean I owe anything at all to other people who by an accident of birth are not white.
That's not logical, and it leads to division and acrimony.
Away with it.
If you want to look for good, or bad things that have happened in the past, they are all there for you to find, and you can bolster your personal viewpoint with the facts you need that coincide.
The important point about history is, in seeing where we have been, and what we have done, and what worked and what didn't, and what was good, and what wasn't, we can have a rough idea of where we want to go, and how we want to behave while we get there.
Wringing collective hands over the evils of history is utterly pointless, simply learn the lessons and move forward, the only direction in which we can actually go anyway.
The major problem with sections of society who feel the need to accept guilt for historical behaviour, is the nonsense of 'reparations' for historical wrongdoing.
Personally, I think it is a ludicrous notion, and I personally would not dream of getting involved.
I am not minded to apologise for something I did not do, to people to whom it was not done, and the idea that I should pay them money for it makes my blood boil.
I think slavery was a horrible concept, but it was of its time, it happened, and me being 'sorry' will not make it un-happen, and because by an accident of birth I am white, does not mean I owe anything at all to other people who by an accident of birth are not white.
That's not logical, and it leads to division and acrimony.
Away with it.
The problem is that talking about the good things of colonial rule is, some extent, to legitimise colonisation.
You cannot talk about the good without the bad. And you can't excuse the bad by comparing it to the good.
Otherwise, we (or others in the world) might as well carry on colonising now. Which we don't do, for some reason ...
You cannot talk about the good without the bad. And you can't excuse the bad by comparing it to the good.
Otherwise, we (or others in the world) might as well carry on colonising now. Which we don't do, for some reason ...
Andy's point about balance is the key to avoiding polarisation. As for where should be colonised these days, Elipsis, seeing as you're asking me, nowhere! Colonisation per se didn't work out too well, did it, and many dreadful things happened while the Empire flourished. No-one is arguing otherwise. That said, the advantages and benefits can still be seen today, in many parts of the world, as detailed above. There are none so blind as those who cannot see. I feel slightly guilty that we have swung the pendulum back so far that there are people in this country who think nothing good came of the British Empire.
> there are people in this country who think nothing good came of the British Empire.
I did not say that. Note how often I said "good". For example:
> The problem is that talking about the GOOD things of colonial rule is, some extent, to legitimise colonisation.
> You cannot talk about the GOOD without the bad. And you can't excuse the bad by comparing it to the GOOD.
I did not say that. Note how often I said "good". For example:
> The problem is that talking about the GOOD things of colonial rule is, some extent, to legitimise colonisation.
> You cannot talk about the GOOD without the bad. And you can't excuse the bad by comparing it to the GOOD.
Ellipsis - By applying the rules you suggest, you run the risk of reducing hundreds of years of complex history to a simple test of right and wrong.
There are far too many factors in play to simply apply a 'right or wrong' analysis to such complicated scenarios.
You could spend the rest of your life filling each column - 'right' and 'wrong' and still not arrive at a definitive analysis of history, because it doesn't exist.
There are far too many factors in play to simply apply a 'right or wrong' analysis to such complicated scenarios.
You could spend the rest of your life filling each column - 'right' and 'wrong' and still not arrive at a definitive analysis of history, because it doesn't exist.
“ black and white were better off under UK rule, undeniable fact, end of. Stop trying to label what is not there.”
rhodesia was a white supremacist state toratoratora… as in practise were many other british colonies… the entire purpose of that country was to extract wealth for the benefit of britain and to keep the indigenous population from interfering… sometimes this meant carrots and sometimes it meant sticks. but all of it was built on a racist white supremacist order.
you are picking up the carrots and saying “look, it was good”…. it’s like saying jimmy savile did more good than harm because of his charity work… the charity work was the means for doing harm!
rhodesia was a white supremacist state toratoratora… as in practise were many other british colonies… the entire purpose of that country was to extract wealth for the benefit of britain and to keep the indigenous population from interfering… sometimes this meant carrots and sometimes it meant sticks. but all of it was built on a racist white supremacist order.
you are picking up the carrots and saying “look, it was good”…. it’s like saying jimmy savile did more good than harm because of his charity work… the charity work was the means for doing harm!
andy hughes has created a straw man… i don’t recall anyone saying that british people should feel bad or guilty about what happened
it is not true to say that the evils of the empire were “of their time” as many british people opposed colonialism precisely because they considered it evil… plus oppression is a constant in history and happens to this day… we should not use that as a reason to make ourselves comfortable with it!!
it is not true to say that the evils of the empire were “of their time” as many british people opposed colonialism precisely because they considered it evil… plus oppression is a constant in history and happens to this day… we should not use that as a reason to make ourselves comfortable with it!!
// I think slavery was a horrible concept, but it was of its time, it happened, and me being 'sorry' will not make it un-happen... //
There are a few points here.
Firstly, it's not really about the individual being "sorry", so much as the State, which tends to claim continuity with its history, but therefore ought to accept the consequence of that, including responsibility for all of the State's previous actions, not just the positive ones that can be celebrated. You may well argue that the "State" shouldn't have to apologise either, perhaps on the grounds that the continuity is more of a technicality, but I mention it mainly to stress that individuals apologising is not really and never has been the point.
Secondly, the "of its time" is overly simplistic: it ignores the opposition even then. For example, Elizabeth I is said to have written that, "if any Africans should be carried away without their free consent, it would be detestable, and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers." It would be odd indeed to claim that she was the only person in the Realm at the time who condemned it, and while in the end her position either changed later, or was tempered by economic aspects, the fact remains that she said this and understood almost before it began that the Slave Trade was wrong. Many others, in a less powerful position, might well have chosen to keep their heads down, or turn a blind eye, since slavery being vital to the economy for a long time meant opposition to it potentially ruinous personally.
Thirdly, whatever the British thought of it, pretty sure that the Slaves saw that what was happening to them was wrong. Why is their morality less relevant? Some people might at this point mention that the Slave Trade was greatly benefited by local African tribe leaders, selling off rival tribe members, and they are (sadly) correct, but these too are people in power rather than the victims, whose perspective remains ignored even with this extra information.
But the main points are that (1) Slavery still exists, so maybe "was" is premature; and (2) if Slavery (in this sense) were acceptable once then it can be seen as acceptable again in future. We must never allow that: therefore, we must continually condemn it.
There are a few points here.
Firstly, it's not really about the individual being "sorry", so much as the State, which tends to claim continuity with its history, but therefore ought to accept the consequence of that, including responsibility for all of the State's previous actions, not just the positive ones that can be celebrated. You may well argue that the "State" shouldn't have to apologise either, perhaps on the grounds that the continuity is more of a technicality, but I mention it mainly to stress that individuals apologising is not really and never has been the point.
Secondly, the "of its time" is overly simplistic: it ignores the opposition even then. For example, Elizabeth I is said to have written that, "if any Africans should be carried away without their free consent, it would be detestable, and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers." It would be odd indeed to claim that she was the only person in the Realm at the time who condemned it, and while in the end her position either changed later, or was tempered by economic aspects, the fact remains that she said this and understood almost before it began that the Slave Trade was wrong. Many others, in a less powerful position, might well have chosen to keep their heads down, or turn a blind eye, since slavery being vital to the economy for a long time meant opposition to it potentially ruinous personally.
Thirdly, whatever the British thought of it, pretty sure that the Slaves saw that what was happening to them was wrong. Why is their morality less relevant? Some people might at this point mention that the Slave Trade was greatly benefited by local African tribe leaders, selling off rival tribe members, and they are (sadly) correct, but these too are people in power rather than the victims, whose perspective remains ignored even with this extra information.
But the main points are that (1) Slavery still exists, so maybe "was" is premature; and (2) if Slavery (in this sense) were acceptable once then it can be seen as acceptable again in future. We must never allow that: therefore, we must continually condemn it.
I suppose that's similar to (but longer than) what untitled said.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the argument that we should judge people by the standards of the time, rather than the standards of today. There are clearly times when to do so would be unfair, or at any rate misleading. Perhaps, for example, our modern perspective is shaped by knowledge that was literally unavailable previously. Perhaps, too, the relative ease of global travel and communication means that we are more easily exposed to alternative perspectives, in a way that was also simply impossible before.
But the real flaw is that it treats the "standards" of any period in history as a monolith. Has there ever been anything on which everybody has agreed? Even if you narrow it down to a single society, there's never any true consensus. So you have to pick and choose which "standards of the time" you judge actions by, but it would be clearly flawed to define the "standards of the time" as being precisely the standards of the people we're seeking to judge. A slave owner is the worst person to decide whether slavery is acceptable.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the argument that we should judge people by the standards of the time, rather than the standards of today. There are clearly times when to do so would be unfair, or at any rate misleading. Perhaps, for example, our modern perspective is shaped by knowledge that was literally unavailable previously. Perhaps, too, the relative ease of global travel and communication means that we are more easily exposed to alternative perspectives, in a way that was also simply impossible before.
But the real flaw is that it treats the "standards" of any period in history as a monolith. Has there ever been anything on which everybody has agreed? Even if you narrow it down to a single society, there's never any true consensus. So you have to pick and choose which "standards of the time" you judge actions by, but it would be clearly flawed to define the "standards of the time" as being precisely the standards of the people we're seeking to judge. A slave owner is the worst person to decide whether slavery is acceptable.
One thing I have always wondered about, prior to the imposition of the western models in other countries seen at the time as less civilised, they were mostly developed only to a point which was sustainable within a predominantly agricultural economy. Once Western structures, and things like medical care, and mass transport became the norm the growth of larger population centres created a situation where there were larger numbers of people that the country could not sustain due to a climate which in many cases not suitable for high yield agriculture. The rapid population growth meant that these countries not having established adequate trade networks,borders they at that point capitalising on natural resources they were reliant on the so called civilised nations.
The problems seem to me to arise from the accelerated development of nations which had they occurred over a more natural period would have been sustainable. It is likely they would have followed a western model eventually anyway, but one that was better adapted to their national identities.
The problems seem to me to arise from the accelerated development of nations which had they occurred over a more natural period would have been sustainable. It is likely they would have followed a western model eventually anyway, but one that was better adapted to their national identities.
