The Israel/Hamas situation has raised a lot of commotion of colonization. I came across a couple of books that take a look at the empirical data of the results of colonialism and draw some conclusions. This seems like one of those things that does leave lots of empirical data in it's wake, and lends itself to quantifiable outcomes.
For example, if 40% of the population of country X died from disease or starvation before being colonized and only 5% died after being colonized, it seems reasonable to conclude that colonization might have been beneficial in that metric.
Obviously not all colonization was equal, and not all post colonial governance was equal, but it does seem like there are measurable metrics that we can use to evaluate the benefits/harms of colonialism.
Not Stolen, Jeff Flynn-Paul
The Case for Colonialism, Bruce Gilly
8 comments:
[rolls eyes]
https://www.cato.org/commentary/case-against-case-colonialism
Well, as long as Dan can find one article that doesn't like something then it must be automatically bad. What's strange is that these books were recommended by a university professor with extensive experience in sociology, who happens to be black. Which obviously renders his recommendations as something to be ignored without actually doing the work myself. It's strange that anyone would discourage anyone else from looking at primary sources when evaluating something.
I suspect that Dan confuses my pointing out that these books have been recommended, with my actually endorsing these books. Or perhaps he objects to the notion that things leave measurable results that can be empirically studied.
I'll look at Dan's offering later, but I'll bet it does not deal with the details of the issue in the way yours does, and thus is not a competent and intelligent refutation. Because that's how Dan rolls. We'll see.
Without reviewing either at this point, my first response is simply that to condemn colonialism out of hand is insipid...which doesn't ignore how in some cases it wasn't a boon to those who were "colonialized". It's become a weaponized word for the modern progressives, which compels caution on the part of good people when hearing a lefty speak of it.
Art,
Let me be clear. The two books I posted were recommended by someone who I think is a well informed source on these are similar topics. Until I read one or both, I will withhold judgement.
Now from a basic logic standpoint, it seems reasonable that colonialism has effects, both positive and negative, and that those effects can me measured and studied. Unfortunately we probably don't have an entire country available as a control group for a direct comparison, but there should still be data available.
For example. If country X colonized country Y and as they did so provided them with enough power generation to last for decades, clean water accessible to all, a mechanism to deal with trash, enough industry to base an economy on, and a reasonably functional government and legal system, It seems like that would be a good thing for country Y.
But regardless it seems manageable to assign values to various facets of colonialism (+ and -) and to use that data to draw conclusions.
The fact that Dan's initial response to this reasonable premise was to find one negative review, makes me wonder why studying colonialism dispassionately triggers such a knee jerk response.
I think it's just another manifestation of "systemic racism", given that most who oppose colonialism think first of white colonizers and that's automatically bad in their fevered imaginings.
Which is interesting since Muslim Arabs colonized vast territories. But I think that you are right that it's more about bashing White Europeans.
It seems like it's worth a look at what the results of colonization really are. Obviously, there will be a spread, some better than others, but it seems worthwhile to do the research.
I agree. I also would suspect that even given one colonizing nation, no two colonies fare the same.
I think that is probably a given. Things like the temperament of the natives, natural resources, access to the sea, ease of getting around, would be just a few of the factors.
Although, even taking that into account, I still think it's possible to construct a metric that would allow you to evaluate the effects on colonization.
Certainly the North American colonies of the UK fared differently that other British colonies.
After a bit of thought, India strikes me as an interesting case study. I certainly can't imagine that we would have modern India without the British colonization. But, given India's success at developing a modern 21st century economy, it seems like it would be an good subject for study.
Post a Comment