Imperial Delusions
nybooks.com
nybooks.com
Like most things, the justification changed over time. In the 16th century, it was all about the king trying to finance his massive spending habit.
Then it was about trade. Then it was about re-enforcing that trade. Then the east india company fucked up, and india because a colonial possession. Then the missions tried to convert the heathens.
after that I'm not sure. We don't teach empire at all. The problem is that nowadays its difficult to find readable history that isn't there to either totally damn or justify the empire. Even less so ones that draw on first party sources from the british and locals.
I enjoyed Paxman's book Empire for the very reason that he mocks the self-righteousness of the "heroes of Empire", their "divine mission", the way the country at home responded (or didn't care at all anymore) but doesn't shy away from giving the same critical eye to the colonised people.
That's a common approach in certain academic and popular works about colonialism and Empires.
And it's not much different to "giving the same critical eye" to the the rapist and the rape victim.
That, like in the analogy mentioned, it's not the place of an author to cricially see both the abused and the perpetrator, and that colonization was an abuse.
More "subtlely" excuses this abuse, and there's no excuse, even if the subjects of colonization where "bad people", "uncultivated", "underdeveloped" or whatever, there's no excuse to invade their sovereignity, and it's not up to the colonizer to judge them or fix them.
I don't disagree, but it's kinda hard to talk like that on historical contexts. Might-makes-right has always been the truth until pretty recently, though you could make a case that it's true even now. I don't think judging the people living that way when everyone else around them did that too (albeit less successfully) is useful.
Do remember that most of misery in the colonies came from collaborators. Yes, they were paid by the colonial oppressors, but they just wanted to profit too, damning their fellow people.
Sure, it is the truth even now and will be forever. It's just that it's popular for might, after Christianity and Englightenment changed the public perception, to want to dress its actions in a moral disguise (from the Crusades to "bringing democracy to Iraq").
But the case being "might makes right" doesn't preclude people telling it for what it is - and even less so it should preclude historians and pundits. People knew what it is in Thucilides time, and they know it now.
So I don't take particularly well to historians etc being "equally critical" of the opressed too.
What a silly and flippant comparison. Chill out.
And if you feel like "something like rape is so much hurtful/important to just use in a comparison" well, be assured that colonization, our subject here, among other abuses, also resulted in an untold number of rapes and sex abuses of its subjects. So it's not just some "lighter" subject unfit to compare with it, but a superset of abuse.
Solid author, genuine attempt objective history, the causes, the justifications, the sins, the benefits.
The big one for me was the assertion that Britain could have avoided WWI if they had not declared war on germany.
THis is a shame because he is an engaging author and presenter, its just I'm never sure if he's peddling dogshit, or something that is plausible.
> after that I’m not sure.
This review covers some contemporary themes by discussing a book, “Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination”, which may be useful.
Is the author as ignorant as the target of his article ? Gandhi was a lawyer.
Ferguson writes good stories but will often bend the truth. For example, in 2009 he wrote in Newsweek about the US administration's economic policies. His facts were mostly made-up. See his takedown by economists, for example:
Krugman, Paul (2 May 2009). "Liquidity preference, loanable funds, and Niall Ferguson (wonkish)". The New York Times.
David Brooks' column in the NYTimes this week is the same thing - using the excuse of LGBT rights to justify American colonial projects in Iraq, Afhanistan and Palestine, with an eye on Iran, China and Cuba. Use force to show the savages how it should be done. Empire has always been forged in the name of social justice. See the (racist) 1899 political cartoon, "The White Man's Burden."
As I read Adolph Reed say recently, ideology is the mechanism that harmonizes the principles that you want to believe you hold with what advances your material interests.
Same old story.
If you are some warlord, dictator or just dirty businessperson, Britain will gladly launder your money through one of its multiple territories such as Jersey, Guernsey or whatever - which is some island whose sole export is providing "tax advisory" (which means not paying any taxes at all).
There is also the City of London Corporation with its secret laws and treaties, which doesnt seem to be controlled by UK government, basically group of friends with everyone in each pocket - instead of sending gunboats to plunder countries, they now use the banking system: dirty money comes in, clean money comes out, with minimum taxation.
Yet they sit on moral high ground, about supposedly helping third world. Books like "Treasure Islands" tried to shine some light on this - author even claimed that if Britain and its various island stopped the money laundering, then Africa wouldnt need external help - the untaxed money would be taxed and used for own people.
Sadly the topic of rampant and blatant tax evasion is swept under the rug, since multiple countries provide it (UK, Cyprus, Ireland, even Delaware..). There are some movements to get some common CIT rate, but those tax havens will probably find ways.