‘Colonialism’ Review: Empire Without Apology
wsj.com
wsj.com
The review suggests the author believes spreading the "free market" gave "opportunities" to millions, thereby justifying British colonialism in India. For more on how that "opportunity" compared with what came before and after British rule, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_I...
What I wish historians would explore (were it not for the political controversy over the pursuit), is what came first? Was the drarwinian concept of race invented and popularized because it suited the wealthy capitalists of Europe or perhaps the horrors of european slavery and colonialism were unleashed and birthed by darwin and his followers? The former sounds more plausible to me.
We still live in a world where profit and exploitation of not just people but the whole planet is planned and then social norms and acceptable worldviews are formed around that concept. I will give you an easy example: the war on drugs. The profit margins of existing companies, budget allocation potental to fight drugs and its impact on communities who just got civil rights and universal suffrage was figured out first and for decades (even now in many places) the war on drugs was seen as good thing. Trillions spent, the whole thing including rehabs and local drug dealers is it's own powerful industry now.
Colonialism and slavery was made so cruel and brutal compared to historical counterparts because it was more profitable and the culture of capitalism was king.
Lastly, I find it even more amusing how colonialism and slavery allowed more people to study academics and coincided (I insist: facilitated) with the european rennaisance which gave eventual birth to the industrial revolution and much of europe's great accomplishments.
But this solves my curiosity then, darwinian views of race developed to accomodate for the moral cognitive dissonance people faced after centuries of slavery and colonialism. But colonialism in africa wad not popular until after darwin.
Keep in mind, while I don't accept his views of evolution, I am specifically talking about people taking that and considering africans and other non-whites as less evolved species that need to be unsavaged.
I did not absolve people of faith either, but missionairies for example Used the cause of conversion, but the faith does not allow for non-human conversion and it would be heresy to claim any human was not a descendant of both adam and noah.
It was partly or mainly for this reason why the underground railroad and other "racial" equality and anti-slavery movements up until the 1960s were all faith based movements. While the white supremacists considered anyone with 1/8th black in them inferior and less evolved (and they also do try to shim that darwinian view into protestanism)
Social Darwinism is a retroactive description of the colonial environment, not the religion that was used to tolerate it.
The religious model of racism is still very active today, I.e. see Louis Theroux visit with racists in South Africa.
There are race oriented people who want to divide things on race but are either inconsistent or their fears mean they understand that race does not limit capability and there are racist people who believe in inherent inferiority of races, the first tends toward social Darwinism the second to apply the justification "God gave us rule over the inherently more limited" to the "child" races. If you are standing in for a hellfire God where is the line on torture? If you are responsible for order delegated by God and can find normal human failings then you can run the plantation to your profit.
IIRC slavery was abolished by European colonialists after 1800. And my impression is that most, or maybe all, cultures had just as brutal and oppressive customs on people that were conquered. The mongol horde, say, did not need Darwin to justify its actions.
Context is critical. If you raid an enemy people and enslave them because they are your enemy for whatever reason, that is different than justifying slavery because the enslaved are essentially beasts of burden like donkeys and farm animals.
I don't think colonialism or slave trade was special beyond the racial aspect of it. If england was invading everyone, including the french, arabs,etc... to enslave and colonise them, that would make them comparable to the mongols. It's not like genghis skipped asia because he only thought non-asians as inferior enough.
My firm belief is that the colonised failed to protect their nations using a strong military (as they continue to do so even today!) but slavery cannot be justified outside of an immediate loss in war or repayment to debt in a historical context (things are different now). For a human to be considered a human by definition is a human right. And I can't imagine anything more fundamentally unjust than to be punished simply because you exist. These two things transcend cultures and societies and it is their violation that is the shame of europe. It was the same violation the nazis and fascists repeated and continue to repeat today. Britain didn't need to give up her empire after WW2, it was won as fair as conquests go. The empire was lost because after WW2, they didn't like what they saw in the mirror looking too similar to who they spent millions of lives defeating.
It is in fact the lie of inherent european superiority that stood in the way of ultimate european world domination, instead of being proud of their achievements, those of old decided it was because of their natural ability instead of ingenuity and hard work that they accomplished so much.