The Case for Colonialism: Don’t retract, rebut…. and censure those who seek to silence.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/09/case-colonialism-dont-retract-rebut-censure-seek-silenc ^ | 09/24/2017 | James Taylor

[P.O.E.]

In a recent paper entitled “The case for colonialism” Bruce Gilley argued that “Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found”. Gilley then argued that colonialism should be “recovered” “by reclaiming colonial modes of governance, by recolonizing some areas, and by creating new Western colonies from scratch”. These are highly controversial claims. But it is unlikely that Gilley anticipated the antipathy with which they would be received. Two petitions were initiated—gathering over 15,000 signatures between them—demanding that the journal in which the paper was published (Third World Quarterly) retract it.These petitions were followed by the resignation of several of the members of the journal’s editorial board in protest at the article’s publication.

[P.O.E.]

Interesting debate in the comments section.

A Google search will reveal a plethora of background on the pros and cons of the article, so I'll leave that to the reader.

Disclaimer: I have no connection to the blog or any parties involved. Just thought it was interesting.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

Blacks would and did benefit greatly when colonialism was a standard third world model. There is not one successful black-majority country in the world. If you point to South Africa you must also allow for its death spiral.

[IronJack]

Ask the wretches in Zimbabwe or the Congo how horrible it was to be a European colony. And how much better it is now that those brutal imperialists have been run out of the country.

[MHT]

One of the good things about colonialism, particularly that of the British Empire, was that it connected people through common language, law, education, military training, medicine, railroads, and most of all, the advancement of Christianity. What would India look like today had the British not provided a unifying umbrella for that huge diverse population?

[Louis Foxwell]

The reaction is typical of liberal unease with ideas that run counter to Politically Correct thought. The liberal mindset is based almost entirely on emotional commitment to ideology.
The inability to reply to the article on colonialism in a rational manner speaks volumes about the tyranny of liberalism. Any idea counter to the true belief system of liberalism is not to be considered. This is the behavior of fanatics. It is utterly anti-scientific and irrational. Proof of this fanaticism is found most clearly in the notion of “settled science.” There is, of course, no such thing in the scientific method. “Settled” simply means “dogmatically adhered to regardless of evidence.”
Liberalism is anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. It treats science as a rigid body of beliefs that cannot be challenged. Tat is the nature of religion, not science. Logic and philosophy are considered by liberals to be assaults on truth.
Liberal thought is dogmatic, closed minded, utterly bigoted, and dehumanizing.

[buwaya]

True in every point. Well done.

[buwaya]

This is a very interesting question, that in my case goes back to the early 80s and the field of development economics under the patronage of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. Its basic purpose (of the whole field of study) was to figure out how to make poor countries rich, if necessary by forcing policies on them.

Colonialism under another name. There has been a very great deal of that, and its had a very mixed record.

[Fiji Hill]

What would India look like today had the British not provided a unifying umbrella for that huge diverse population?

For one thing, suttee, in which a widow was expected to jump onto her dead husband's funeral pyre, would still be practiced. And the Thugs, a cult that practiced banditry and assassination for 600 years until the British arrived, would still be in business.

[arthurus]

We could go a long way toward stifling the current phase of the Islamic War by colonizing all the oil in Moslem countries. We should have done that as a result of the 1990 Gulf War i.i. we should have established a major military base in Iraq and taken Basra to administer while taking over oil production in that country, giving only a tiny portion of the proceeds to the local government, if any at all. The same should have been done to Saudi Arabia and Iran in the same time frame. Jihad bursts forth inevitably when r a ruling unit in the Moslem World has attained sufficient resources to support the teensy ruling class in opulence and keep the general population at subsistence level and to support Jihad. everything above that survival level goes to Jihad. Wealth from banditry or conquest or foreign tribute and, in modern times, from western government aid (tribute) and oil wealth (theft because the Moslems discovered nothing; the oil was found and developed by Westerners).

[arthurus]

There are exceptions to that, Belgium in the Congo being a major one but mostly that is true.

[Lurker]

“Ask the wretches in Zimbabwe or the Congo how horrible it was to be a European colony.”

You probably don’t want to go there with the Congo. The Belgians were beyond brutal during their reign.

L

[arthurus]

The Belgian portion of the Congo really has seen no practical difference.

[aquila48]

“Interesting debate in the comments section.”

I agree, It’s even better than the article itself.

I looked at a couple other articles in the site and they’re all thought provoking. Good place for the philosophically inclined.

I found the following one particularly interesting because it discusses an issue that is at the heart of today’s politics. The idea of “luck egalitarianism” which is at the bottom of today’s “social justice” movements.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/09/libertarianism-luck-egalitarians/

[wita]

Post Christ doctrinal and political action to spread the good news of the Gospel through the goodness and frailties of mankind to bring peace and prosperity to the least of Gods children from those blessed with more. Be it the Crusades, Colonialism, or today’s Humanitarian efforts worldwide those pursuing such, outside the efforts for Globalism have their hearts in the right place.

Would a loving, kind, generous, and merciful God not put in the hearts of man such ideas to benefit both the giver and receiver of efforts to improve the conditions underwhich some were called upon to live?

As the first murderer once said perhaps unknowingly, and more likely not “am I my Brothers keeper?” The answer of course is yes.

[IronJack]

True, but how much better off are the Congolese now that the Belgians are gone? The mines are barely functional, the economy is in the tank (and has been for decades), and they change governments more often than Miley Cyrus changes her hair color.

I believe the western cultures would have eventually matured and become more humane -- most were already on the way -- and the relationship between ruler and "subject" would have become blurred and even symbiotic. Instead, the "liberated" countries have reverted to savagery and destroyed the vestiges of civilization the colonialists brought them.

[P.O.E.]

Thanks. Similar to Obama’s “you didn’t build that” mentality.

It ignores the economic efficiency of an entity that knows how to allocate capital well, as opposed to a vote-grab.

[Pontiac]

The people that Rawls wants the state to control (those with property, education, and so on) are the same people that Rawls thinks control the state itself. So how can the state control the rich if the rich control the state? Shouldn’t we instead expect state intervention into the economy to favor the rich? Indeed, this is exactly what we see in many cases: subsidies, licensing, trade restrictions, housing regulations, and so on tend to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

Liberalism is a Mobius Loop.

[Pontiac]

In a recent paper entitled “The case for colonialism” Bruce Gilley argued that “Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found”. Gilley then argued that colonialism should be “recovered” “by reclaiming colonial modes of governance, by recolonizing some areas, and by creating new Western colonies from scratch”. These are highly controversial claims. But it is unlikely that Gilley anticipated the antipathy with which they would be received.

If he didn’t he hasn’t been paying attention these last ten years.

Obama has fanned the flames of racial animus so that the least show of disagreement with the grievance industry sparks a backlash of hatred and requirement that the offender immediately repent, make amends and then be punished and banished anyway.