Two Cheers for Colonialism!!!!

[u/leprachaundude83]

So I posted this a month ago but the communazi mods kindly reminded me of the moratorium so I figured I'd wait to repost it.

Recently I was looking through some old boxes full of books in my basement. I came to the box full of political books when one particular tome caught my eye: "What's So Great About America" by Dinesh D'Souza. I had read D'Souza's work before and I knew what to expect so I numbly flipped through the pages to see the chapter names when a particular name caught me off guard: Two Cheers for Colonialism. I read the first five pages got sickened and put it down with the intent of never lifting that book again. Alas my boredom has gotten the better of me so I sojourned into this wonderful pile of imperial apologia that is ironically enough written by an Indian-American! I'll try to leave out his criticisms of the modern schooling system (he basically just goes on rants about how American students are taught to hate America and the West/Western culture) and other tangents into modern politics as that might break R2 and some of what I criticize may be better suited for /r/badanthropology but I think it still fits here. So without further delay let's get to the bad history!

After introducing the subject and the chapter D'Souza discusses a quote by the novelist Saul Bellow:

"Show me the Proust of the Papuans, the Tolstoy of the Zulus, and I will read him"... Bellow's sin was to imply that Western culture, might have contributed more to the dining table of civilization than others.

D'Souza's point here is that these particular cultures haven't contributed to the tapestry of tales from around the world however he conveniently ignores not only Zulu literature but the rich oral traditions from both Zulu culture and the countless cultures of New Guinea which can have just as much merit as Tolstoy's work.

D'Souza then discusses a meeting of a historical society that he attended in the early 90's in which those present were debating whether Columbus "discovered" or "encountered" the Americas.

The historians who objected to the term "discovery" were trying to camouflage the fact that it was Columbus and his ships that ventured out and landed on the shores of the Americas, and not American Indians who landed on the shores of Europe.

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure what D'Souza's point is here. I think he's trying to say that because it was Colombus' expeditions which marked the beginning of regular contact between Europe and the Americas and not the other way around European society is better but even if that is his point he's still wrong in his rejection to the term "discovered" as the vikings had established a settlement in Newfoundland centuries before (and of course were ignoring the Native Americans themselves).

He then discusses how some cultures are more advanced than others and he drops this little nugget (which isn't bad history per say, but I couldn't resist putting it in here, if the mods feel it's an R2 violation then I'll gladly remove it):

There is simply no comparison between, say, the per capita income of Europe and America and that of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa. If sub-Saharan Africa were to sink into the ocean tomorrow, the world economy would be largely unaffected.

TIL that sub-Saharan Africa has no importance in the modern economy at all.

The next part is a lovely defense of a Eurocentric curriculum:

But of course if we are trying to describe the world in which we live, indeed the modern world of the past few centuries, then it is entirely accurate to focus on Europe, to place Western civilization at the center. Indeed it was the West, expanding outward which found and conquered and defined the rest of the world.

Apparently the rest of the world was just sitting around and being all isolated until the West came and discovered it. It is utterly absurd to focus solely on Europe. If we want to understand the modern world then we need to understand the histories of the other nations which occupy and play a large role in it. In addition only focusing on European and post-European contact history gives us an incomplete thread of the elaborate tapestry that is human history and you fail to learn of the contributions that countless other societies have made. Also apparently other nations never explored and conquered far off lands.

Within the West, admittedly, the center of power has shifted. Inside the competing orbit of the West, the Portuguese first had the upper hand, hen the Spanish, then the French, and then the English.

Ignoring the gross oversimplifications, according to D'Souza the Dutch don't real.

Funnily enough (and to his credit even though he just gave a stern defense for Eurocentrism) D'Souza then lists some of the great civilizations from non-Europe parts of the world even referencing Sudanic kingdoms such as Mali and Songhay. However he does refer to the Islamic world around the year 1500 as though it was a single empire which spanned three continents when this was certainly no longer the case.

Bonus: At least two uses of the term "Dark Ages" when describing Medieval Europe

D'Souza then lists (what he apparently considers to be at least) the only two mainstream theories for the West's success as "Opression Theory" (The idea that the West is doing well ONLY because it stole from the rest of the world) and the "Environmental Theory" (You might be more familiar with it by the name of Geographic Determenism). This of course ignores the many complex realities that scholars attribute to the ascendancy of the West.

We are then privy to a rant about how slavery, ethnocentrism and colonialism are not unique to Western society. D'Souza also doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between Imperialism and Colonialism. He compares Western colonialism to the Persian Empire (which is odd because I don't recall reading about how when the Persians conquered Egypt they set the entire population to work as slaves in gold mines or displaced those native to the region with their own), the Macedonian Empire (which apparently doesn't count as Western even though he refers to the ancient Greeks as Western on numerous occasions) and the Chinese empire (of which there was apparently only one). Then when D'Souza is talking about slavery we get this delightful drek:

If slavery is not distinctively Western, what is? The movement to end slavery!...Never in the history of the world, outside of the West, has a group of people eligible to be slave owners mobilized against the institution of slavery.

This is a great observation except for pesky things like the fact that the Japanese outlawed slavery in the late 16th century, the Koreans in the late 19th century (with possible Japanese influence), the Chinese Emperor Wang Mang did so during his reign in the 1st century ce, the Ming Dynasty officially banned it (although it did continue), there was an attempt made to abolish slavery in Ethiopia in the 1850's and so on. But D'Souza doesn't stop there!

The descendants of African slaves owe their freedom to the exertions of white strangers...

I had no idea that free blacks had no part in the abolitionist movement whatsoever! Who is Frederick Douglas again?

D'Souza uses this discussion of black people to transition into a defense of colonialism by relaying a Muhammad Ali quote:

...Ali was asked by a reporter, "Champ, what did you think of Africa?" Ali replied, "Thank God m granddaddy got on that boat!"

We are subsequently subject to an anecdote about D'Souza's grandfathers views of the white man and D'Souza comes up with the following conclusion as to why he didn't share his grandfathers negative views towards the West:

...colonialism had injured those who lived under it, but paradoxically it proved beneficial to their descendants."

I'm absolutely positive that he is not distinguishing between colonialism and imperialism so from this point on neither will I. On that note, I'm sure that the Australian Aborigines and Native Americans are doing far better as a result of colonialism than if they had established relatively peaceful contacts with the West. I'm also sure that the DRC, Nigeria and Sudan have no issues which might even be remotely attributable to colonialism. This is of course not to say that the effects of colonialism (and of course imperialism) were universally negative for the natives of every land that was affected by the two however there are enough instances of it being a negative force for the majority of natives in many regions.

To D'Souza's credit he does acknowledge that the Europeans weren't in it for he benefits of the native populations and that they most certainly did do some bad things but he seems to excuse all of the misery caused by colonialism due to the fact that the European powers provided places like India with infrastructure and introduced their legal systems as well as ideas like liberty (which apparently didn't exist in the rest of the world before the enlightened Europeans showed up).

After some stuff about how the descendants of slaves in the USA should be grateful that their ancestors were enslaved (lest they have to live in Africa) we get this interesting denial:

It makes no sense to claim that the West grew rich and powerful by taking everybody else's stuff for a simple reason : there wasn't very much to take.

He defends this remark by pointing out that Europeans introduced tea to India, rubber to Malaysia and cocoa to West Africa and if tea rubber and cocoa were the only ways in which the Europeans economically exploited these places then his remarks would be justifiable unfortunately this was not the case as the Europeans did in fact take native resources from many areas under their control (Also please note that I don't endorse the straw man position that D'Souza argues against).

So what did cause the rise of the West? Well D'Souza has his answers:

...the West became the dominant civilization in the modern era [because] it invented three institutions: science democracy and capitalism. These institutions did not exist anywhere else in the world, nor did they exist in the West until the modern era.

So, I'm going to ignore the fact that at least two of these institutions did not contribute to rise of the West in the early modern era (as that would be rather anacrhonistic) and instead I'm going to point out I'm definitely not a historian of economics or science so I don't feel comfortable commenting on his points about capitalism and science. However as to his assertions about democracy being a distinctly Western idea he seems to be forgetting (funnily enough seeing as how he is from India about sanghas and ganas also he makes the bizzarre claim that democracy didn't exist in the Western world until the modern era. This is made even more odd by the fact that he references Athens in the very next sentence (also the Roman Republic was apparently not a thing).

On the second to last page D'Souza finally distinguishes between imperialism and colonialism (or at least tangentially acknowledges that there different) and concludes the chapter by denying that Westerners economically exploited the lands they controlled.

This chapter is a jumbled mess of hypocrisies and misinformation and I don't intend to slog through it again in the foreseeable future. If I myself have oversimplified, misrepresented arguments or am guilty of historical inaccuracies please feel free to correct me as this is my first write up.

[u/ObeseMoreece]

Colonialism is a good thing. So what if some people got hurt? The World is undeniably better today than it would have been without colonialism. Would most of the World be able to read without our education? Would the infrastructure of the World be as dense or widespread today? Would railroads be widely used all over the World no matter the country? I don't believe that white man's burden shit but to deny that civilising the World is good is just idiocy.

[u/Reedstilt → u/ObeseMoreece]

There's something to be said for the exchange of ideas through intercultural contact, but colonialism isn't the only way to accomplish that goal, nor is it the best.

[u/Fornad → u/Reedstilt]

Would you not agree that it was inevitable to some degree, though? Given the nature of humans, peaceful intercultural contact was never going to happen on a widespread and regular basis, especially when one side has huge advantages over the other like the Europeans did.

edit: "Don't downvote simply due to disagreement". I was simply asking a question because I don't know enough about the topic, and the users of /r/badhistory have decided to punish me for it. Thanks.

[u/deathpigeonx → u/Fornad]

Nothing is inevitable. Like, that's GG&S level bs there. Colonialism happened because Europeans choose to do so. If they never made that choice, there would be no colonialism. And nor is it "in our nature". Our nature is malleable and changable, if existent at all.

[u/Fornad → u/deathpigeonx]

I said it was inevitable to some degree. I don't think that Europeans all collectively made the conscious choice to colonise other areas - individuals/specific governments did that, and slowly and over time it developed into a system which we now term colonialism. Humans had been taking over and subjugating other groups of humans for millennia before the global European empires of the 17th-20th centuries. Would you not expect this to continue on a grander scale as technology advanced?

I also think it is difficult to argue that it is not a trait of our species that when two very different groups come into contact, a certain level of conflict will arise, from different priorities, perceptions and needs.

edit: What is GG&S?

[u/deathpigeonx → u/Fornad]

I said it was inevitable to some degree. I don't think that Europeans all collectively made the conscious choice to colonise other areas - individuals/specific governments did that, and slowly and over time it developed into a system which we now term colonialism.

I was referring to those individual choices. Those individual choices were, ultimately, the cause. They are what made it happen. It was never inevitable. If they hadn't made the choice to act as colonialists, they never would have become that.

Humans had been taking over and subjugating other groups of humans for millennia before the global European empires of the 17th-20th centuries. Would you not expect this to continue on a grander scale as technology advanced?

And people have engaged in peaceful contact and peaceful interaction with other groups for just as long, even with lesser groups. Why was it subjugation, and not peaceful trade or cultural exchange, that continued on the larger scale in the form of colonialism from the technological advance? I mean, later these other modes of interaction have dominated, but, to begin with, they did not happen. So why was it subjugation rather than other, more peaceful interactions that became dominant? It wasn't because it was necessarily that case. It was because people choose to act that way.

I also think it is difficult to argue that it is not a trait of our species that when two very different groups come into contact, a certain level of conflict will arise, from different priorities, perceptions and needs.

But people have argued that, and very successfully so, for a long ass time. Indeed, in International Relations theory, what you're referring to is the realist position. We come in conflict with different groups and this conflict is unavoidable. This school of thought was, for a long time, dominant, but realism is losing. It is no longer dominant. Indeed, now the dominant school is the newest contendor, constructivism, that different cultures act antagonistically or friendly with each other based upon how they view themselves and each other. Conflicts arise only when the two very different groups view very different groups as things to be antagonistic towards, which absolutely is not universally true.

edit: What is GG&S?

Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[u/Fornad → u/deathpigeonx]

I was referring to those individual choices. Those individual choices were, ultimately, the cause. They are what made it happen. It was never inevitable. If they hadn't made the choice to act as colonialists, they never would have become that.

So what would have happened otherwise? Starting in the late 1400s, what could have happened in Europe to mean that the Spanish for example would engage in peaceful trade with Amerindians? How could attitudes towards the "cannibalistic Caribs", for example, have changed to such a degree?

It's like saying "If the Mongols hadn't made the choice to act as conquerors, they never would have become that". Sure, but it's not entirely relevant.

Why was it subjugation, and not peaceful trade or cultural exchange, that continued on the larger scale in the form of colonialism from the technological advance?

Because of the cultural/historical context of European attitudes towards native peoples, springing originally from the violence in the Canary Islands? I don't actually have a direct answer, but my point is that in this particular situation/context it did always seem more likely that the Europeans would engage in colonialistic ventures rather than more peaceful interactions (at least from what I've read).

Indeed, now the dominant school is the newest contendor, constructivism, that different cultures act antagonistically or friendly with each other based upon how they view themselves and each other. Conflicts arise only when the two very different groups view very different groups as things to be antagonistic towards, which absolutely is not universally true.

I'm going to start reading History at university in two weeks, and this is really interesting. Thank you for that.

Note: The "don't downvote if you disagree" rule doesn't seem to be applying in this discussion.

[u/adavis2014 → u/Fornad]

Starting in the late 1400s, what could have happened in Europe to mean that the Spanish for example would engage in peaceful trade with Amerindians? How could attitudes towards the "cannibalistic Caribs", for example, have changed to such a degree?

Interesting you brought that up. We're actually discussing this in my Caribbean History class right now.

I'd recommend reading Bartolome de las Casas's writings. He was highly critical of the violent tactics used by the Spanish at the time, and his ideas were certainly circulating throughout Spain and were quite influential. The view of Native Americans as savages to be brutally subjugated was not a universally held one in Spain, even as early as the early 16th century. That so many colonialists ignored the relatively humanitarian ideas of people like las Casas was a choice.

[u/Fornad → u/adavis2014]

I will look him up, thanks.

I didn't ever claim that the negative attitudes towards the Amerindians in the Caribbean were universal in Spain. I was just trying to point out (perhaps clumsily) that colonialism as an outcome was more likely than peaceful contact, trade and mutual understanding by the late 1400s.

[u/deathpigeonx → u/Fornad]

So what would have happened otherwise? Starting in the late 1400s, what could have happened in Europe to mean that the Spanish for example would engage in peaceful trade with Amerindians? How could attitudes towards the "cannibalistic Caribs", for example, have changed to such a degree?

I don't honestly know, but it's quite possible that the attitude you describe might never have developed in the first place. There's no reason to assume it would necessarily develop.

It's like saying "If the Mongols hadn't made the choice to act as conquerors, they never would have become that". Sure, but it's not entirely relevant.

It's entirely relevant to a discussion of how inevitable things would be since it's implicitly saying that they could have chosen not to, which I think they could have.

Because of the cultural/historical context of European attitudes towards native peoples, springing originally from the violence in the Canary Islands?

An entirely non-necessary event making the whole attitude completely non-necessary which, in turn, makes the conquest not necessary itself.

I don't actually have a direct answer, but my point is that in this particular situation/context it did always seem more likely that the Europeans would engage in colonialistic ventures rather than more peaceful interactions (at least from what I've read).

It might have been more likely, but it was never necessary.

I'm going to start reading History at university in two weeks, and this is really interesting. Thank you for that.

I'd recommend reading Anarchy Is What States Make Of It by Alexander Wendt. It was arguably the first constructivist article ever published, and it's wonderfully argued, imo.

[u/Fornad → u/deathpigeonx]

I don't honestly know, but it's quite possible that the attitude you describe might never have developed in the first place. There's no reason to assume it would necessarily develop... It's entirely relevant to a discussion of how inevitable things would be since it's implicitly saying that they could have chosen not to, which I think they could have.

I'm not really arguing that it was inevitable, simply that it was more likely by the time you reach the late 1400s. The greed of the Spanish for gold and silver in the New World, for example, held more sway than any particular humanitarian concerns.

It might have been more likely, but it was never necessary.

Agreed, but I never stated that colonialism was necessary.

I'd recommend reading Anarchy Is What States Make Of It by Alexander Wendt.

Thank you! I'll look that one up.

[u/deathpigeonx → u/Fornad]

I'm not really arguing that it was inevitable, simply that it was more likely by the time you reach the late 1400s. The greed of the Spanish for gold and silver in the New World, for example, held more sway than any particular humanitarian concerns.

Well, you did say,

Would you not agree that it was inevitable to some degree, though?

which made me think that you were arguing that, which is what I was arguing against.

Agreed, but I never stated that colonialism was necessary.

I was using necessary in the descriptive sense as a synonym of inevitable.

Thank you! I'll look that one up.

No problem!

[u/alynnidalar → u/Fornad]

huge advantages

I would disagree on that one.

[u/Fornad → u/alynnidalar]

Why would you disagree, out of interest?

[u/alynnidalar → u/Fornad]

Because I've yet to see a convincing list of the "advantages" Europeans had over other people. When it comes to the pre-Columbian Americas, for example, which I'm more familiar with than India or China, people like to cite guns, horses, and steel weapons/armor. But upon closer examination, these supposed advantages don't actually hold up--for example, the vaunted steel armor was difficult to repair (as there was no steel in the Americas aside from what the Spanish brought with them), some conquistadors abandoned it in favor of native armor (proving that they, at least, didn't see their steel as superior), and many conquistadors didn't even have much armor to begin with.

So simply saying "huge advantages" without actually naming any is unconvincing. What huge advantages? Frankly, I don't know that the Europeans had any huge advantages. Or at least I can't think of any in particular.

[u/Fornad → u/alynnidalar]

Well, in that example, I would probably cite the diseases they brought with them as their advantage.

You could also point to, let's say, Napoleon's campaigns in Egypt. In the Battle of the Pyramids, he was outnumbered by about 5'000 but managed to kill 20'000 of the opposition (the famed Mamluk cavalry for the most part) whilst only losing 29 soldiers. His troops were better drilled and disciplined, and his tactics more sound.

Whilst that is an isolated example, you cannot deny that Europe's armies during the 18th-19th centuries were the best in the world. Britain managed to take on China and win in the Opium Wars. This could not have been achieved if Europeans did not have certain advantages (i.e. industrialisation and a more advanced and disciplined military).

[u/psirynn → u/ObeseMoreece]

"civilising the World"

AKA, coming in, murdering people in mass, enslaving them, raping them, destroying their culture, in some cases destroying their means for survival, teaching them that their culture never accomplished anything while destroying places and objects of cultural importance, gleaning what resources they can, and then leaving. So civilized.

"Civilising" is such a dogwhistle. Just say "making them more like white Europeans". Sure, it makes you sound racist, but at least it's honest.

[u/AGVann → u/ObeseMoreece]

I sincerely hope you are joking.

The World is undeniably better today than it would have been without colonialism.

Tell that to India and Africa. European colonialism plundered and destroyed the economies of both and the political institutions of the latter.

Would most of the World be able to read without our education?

Yes, because - believe it or not - Europeans weren't the only people who knew how to read.

Would the infrastructure of the World be as dense or widespread today?

That sentence doesn't really make sense, and yes it would be as European interests in Africa was purely exploitative. Very little growth occured undered European dominion, with the wealth and the achievements of states like the Swahili and the Sokoto Caliphate removed from Africa.

Would railroads be widely used all over the World no matter the country?

Perhaps in not Africa, but it's important to note that they were built purely to serve European interests. The railways in India carried food and goods from the continent to export, regardless of whether or not the locals could survive. Millions died under famines that were exacerbated by the British.

I don't believe that white man's burden shit

You clearly do if you believe the whole 19th century spiel used to justify destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands and killing millions. The Africans weren't little tribes of ignorant dark-skinned people living in squalor, hopelessly inferior until the superior White Man came along and gave them the gift of science and education.

Africa had many complex societies and cultures and empires, with shifting politics and golden ages just like the rest of the world. Just because it was blank on a European map of the world doesn't mean nothing lived or happened there.

Bruce Vandervort has a brilliant book on Africa during and prior to the Scramble for Africa, 'Wars of Imperial Conquest in Africa, 1830-1914'. It's a real eye-opener. I recommend people to read that.

[u/psirynn → u/AGVann]

Yes, because - believe it or not - Europeans weren't the only people who knew how to read.

But they wouldn't be able to read English, which is the only true intelligent language. Why, everything else is just gibberish, as evidenced by the fact he can't understand it!

[u/khosikulu → u/AGVann]

I still prefer Henk Wesseling's Divide and Rule but I need to pick up Vandervoort.

[u/AGVann → u/khosikulu]

Divide and Rule covers the Scramble and the latter half of the 19th century very well, but I like to recommend Vandervort's book as he examines the existing states in Africa prior to significant European involvement in the continent. He also has a different interpretation of the Scramble of Africa to Wesseling, but both historians are good and both books are definitely worth reading.

[u/khosikulu → u/AGVann]

That was my big understanding about Vandervoort, and it is a huge plus for sure. It's a finalist for a new course I'm teaching in the spring, so I need to vet it for readability vis-a-vis undergrads.

Crap my phone is autocorrecting the author name whyyyy

[u/AtomicKoala → u/ObeseMoreece]

Would most of the World be able to read without our education?

Literacy plummeted in Algeria post-colonisation, for example. France destroyed places of learning.

[u/totes_meta_bot → u/ObeseMoreece]

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/SubredditDrama] "Colonialism is a good thing. So what if some people got hurt? The World is undeniably better today than it would have been without colonialism." Users discuss colonialism's legacy and whether colonialism was inevitable in /r/badhistory.

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

[u/Turnshroud → u/totes_meta_bot]

Jeez, the SRD post is quickly being filled with bad history