The U.S. Goverment

[Phaen]

Holy shit... Jorb wasn't kidding when he called this thread him-bait.

[jorb]

Well, native was an honest mistake, I'm not that familiar with the history of Africa. The point is, the people there had a functioning civilization, and the British smashed it to pieces so they can strip the land of it's raw resources. Frankly, I don't understand how you can seriously think that colonialism was a net benefit for the colonies, when this kind of behaviour was the norm.

Let us first establish that an iron node is entirely worthless unless you know that it exists and can extract the iron from it. Only the application of labor and capital to the natural world can create valued objects. The English tea, indigo and rubber plantations in India did not rob the Indians of anything. Without the English there would have been no plantations, and the land would instead have been put to far less efficient use in small-hold subsentence farming. On the contrary English capital, expended in the planning and creation of such factories, provided Indian laborers with more efficient means of utilizing their labor. Most of the early English factory stations were bought and paid for -- for example Madras -- or otherwise negotiated from the various Princes and Maharajas. Only later in the history of British India did outright annexations become the norm for British expansion. At the time Britain was not seen primarily as a foreign invader, but merely as one of the many various powers vying for dominance on the Indian subcontinent. In a country dominated for centuries by the Mughal Empire foreign invaders were of course not some new concept. A united India is furthermore in itself a British invention.

No country can, as you put it, be "stripped of its natural resources", without the application of capital (please note that I speak here of capital goods, goods useful in the acquisition of other goods, and not simply of money) -- and labor. Capital is needed to mine, ship, farm, conserve, transport and otherwise handle any natural resource that is to be "stripped", and consequently the British built port facilities, harbors, railroads, warehouses, forts, factories, farms and courts in India. Not as an act of charity, but because the economics simply dictated that they had to if they wanted to channel India's wealth. This capital that Britain brought to India obviously benefited Indians both before and after decolonization, just as the goods exported to Britain benefited Britain and her other trading partners in turn.

It is also worth noting that there was not in India a universal loathing for Great Britain.

World War I began with an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and goodwill towards the United Kingdom from within the mainstream political leadership, contrary to initial British fears of an Indian revolt. India contributed massively to the British war effort by providing men and resources. About 1.3 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while both the Indian government and the princes sent large supplies of food, money, and ammunition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_ind ... orld_War_I

The country's native political leadership wanted and sought independence, increasingly so after the first world war and throughout the interwar period -- who wouldn't-- but it was not the case that the British were universally detested. India lived in peace and under rule of law in the pax britannica, and the loyalty that the colony demonstrated to the Empire should suffice to prove that there was some level of appreciation for that. British dominance in India ended effectively for some time a long history of wars and political upheavals in India.

Indians throughout the country were divided over World War II, as Linlithgow, without consulting the Indian representatives had unilaterally declared India a belligerent on the side of the allies. In opposition to Linlithgow's action, the entire Congress leadership resigned from the local government councils. However, many wanted to support the British war effort, and indeed the British Indian Army was one of the largest volunteer forces, numbering 205,000 men during the war. Especially during the Battle of Britain, Gandhi resisted calls for massive civil disobedience movements that came from within as well as outside his party, stating he did not seek India's freedom out of the ashes of a destroyed Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_ind ... ar_revolts

Now it is of course not the case that the British Indian Empire was some act of charity on the part of Great Britain. Nor is it the case that the British became the masters of India without shedding blood, and with universal cooperation and love from the natives (Sepoy Rebellion, etc, etc.). What you need to keep aside however are two separate issues, namely 1) Division of labor and mutually beneficial trade between two previously unconnected parts of the world and 2) The political dominance of India by the British. The former is an unquestionable good, and it is only about the latter fact that we can entertain any moral qualms.

And I really don't see how it's in any country's interest to have foreign companies ship out it's mineral wealth and use it to produce finished goods in their own countries.

You seem to think of economics as a zero-sum game with finite resources expended for finite goals. Iron is mined in a British Venture in the Hindu-Kush, smelted in Lahore, shipped to Britain, turned into manufactured goods and sold on to Indian merchants. Who benefits? Everyone along the entire chain of course. Trade only happens voluntarily when there is mutual benefit involved. It is not the case that Indians were forced to buy British produce. British pots and pans were simply cheap and durable, and India benefited immensely from having them available to it, just as the English merchants benefited from the Indian produce they received in return. While the particulars may have changed today you will see the exact same amount of trade -- much more so than in previous centuries even -- existing after Indian independence as before it. The routes of the merchants were not particularly upset by Indian Independence. The Indian socialism that followed it is a different story alltogether.

Do you think it matters to the person buying the pot at the end of that line whether the mine, the smelter or the pot manufactory is owned by Indians or by Englishmen? Obviously native capitalists aren't any better or worse than foreign. Do you think it matters to the owner of the smelter whether the mine is in British or Indian hands? Do you think that it matters to the operator of the port facility or of the ship whether he is carrying goods owned by a German, and Indian or a Russian? Nationality plays no such part in business. Countries that enjoy the privileges of private property do not pool the resources of their citizens into some communal pool which unilaterally benefits "their side". I do not get some sort of Swede discount when I shop at IKEA. I pay the same low, affordable price for my Swedish quality produce as everyone else.

If a, say, Argentinian mining company were to invest in a mine in Karesouando, I would not accuse its Argentinian share-holders of trying to "strip Sweden of her precious natural resources". Nor would I in any particular way applaud it. I would simply coolly observe that "we" both benefit from the exchange. I myself am of course not part of some Swedish supra-entity, so my own personal benefit is "only" that I may in the future come to enjoy cheaper products made from cheaper iron and cheaper steel as a result of this hypothetical venture.

Do you think that the 100, 000 English soldiers spread out across India maintained their hegemony over some 300 million indians by force alone? Of course not. Britain enjoyed a reasonable amount of support and cooperation from the locals. I don't think that Premindra Singh Bhagat loathed the British monarchy or Empire. He might have preferred his country's independence -- I know I would have -- but I do not think him capable of some one-dimensional hatred of foreigners for being foreigners.

What I can be critical of is:

1) The low regard the British sometimes held for established Indian property rights, particularly with regards to land. Land was sometimes confiscated and expropriated from its rightful Indian owners -- princes, maharajas, but also simple farmers -- and wherever this happened it was unquestionably wrong.

2) Slave labor. While I do not believe that it was the only form of labor employed by British ventures in India, I can safely assume that it did occur since the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 explicitly exempted the territories of the East India Company. Later on, with the annexation of the Company's territories in India by the Empire, slavery was of course abolished, but where it did occur it was an unquestionable moral wrong.

3) The Quest for empire. I do not believe that Imperial Ambitions in the long run serve the interests of the people of any nation. Political units should be small. I do however not care half as much for national independence as I do for personal independence. It just so happens that the former is often the best way of ensuring the latter.

Do you think that Sweden benefited from the German mining operations on it's soil in WW2?

There were none. "We" mined the iron "ourselves" and happily sold it on. The Wehrmacht was a big customer at the time for some strange reason. Feel free to notice the difference between expropriation and trade, however. If the Germans had occupied Swedish mines and used them without paying a pfennig to the owner of the mine then that would have been simple theft. Which is of course wrong whether it is done by Englishmen, Indians, Swedes or Germans.

To stray a bit off Africa, since I'm not that familiar with it, do you think that Spanish colonialism was a net benefit to Incas and Aztecs?

It was the end of their civilizations, so for the Incas and Aztecs qua Incas and Aztecs it was of course not that awesome. For the Indian tribes who allied with Cortez to get back at the Aztecs for years of injustices and raids in search of people to sacrifice on Quetzalcoatl's altars it was probably aye-okaye to see Moctetzuma get pwnt. For the people who contracted various old world diseases it again probably sucked, but the Spaniards didn't know that they carried them, nor that they spread them, nor did they have any conception whatsoever of modern virus theories, inoculations, etc, etc, etc.

The only rational answer I can give is that I think that life and property should be respected by everyone and at all times. I do however not judge the people of older ages by the standards of my own day -- it would be the same as criticizing the poor table manners of cavemen. I also do not believe that colonists trek half-way across the world obsessed by some burning hatred for the natives of wherever they are going. They go in search of new lands for the same reasons that men have always gone in search of new land, they seek a better life for themselves and their kin.

TLDR: There are two separate issues here. European colonialism brought about both division of labor and mutually beneficial trade, as well as political dominance. While we can be skeptical about the latter fact we should not deny the obvious benefits of the former. In the historical record of colonialism the two issues are inextricably entangled, and any honest account of European colonialism needs to display some level of awareness of both.

By the way, you admit that "the Zulus were bastards, all successful civilizations are". What, then, is it that you really hold against the English? The fact that they were better at it?

Best wall of text ever <3

[EmperorNuke]

Holy epicness that was epic.

[al]

Do you think that the 100, 000 English soldiers spread out across India maintained their hegemony over some 300 million indians by force alone? Of course not. Britain enjoyed a reasonable amount of support and cooperation from the locals.

It is called "divide and conquer"...

[ArvinJA]

wall of text

I think you just won the thread.
There will be no further confused ranting from me, and I think that those that accused you of trolling for holding an unpopular opinion should probably apologize.

[wickerman_156]

TLDR:

Your posts are never too long to read.

[pyrale]

TLDR: There are two separate issues here. European colonialism brought about both division of labor and mutually beneficial trade, as well as political dominance. While we can be skeptical about the latter fact we should not deny the obvious benefits of the former. In the historical record of colonialism the two issues are inextricably entangled, and any honest account of European colonialism needs to display some level of awareness of both.

By the way, you admit that "the Zulus were bastards, all successful civilizations are". What, then, is it that you really hold against the English? The fact that they were better at it?

Best wall of text ever <3

I'm curious to know how colonies were mutually beneficial for empires and the natives. when I look at africa, south america, asia, I'm doubtful. Actually, how many examples do you have of former colonies that did briliantly after colonization era ? Not that many, and they're all very particular cases. If there maybe a few not-so-obvious benefits, they were completely negated by the beheading of upper and middle classes.
Btw we don't really hold grudge on people of the ancient times. We're just very surprised that you try to say that their deeds were good in our modern days standards, and that you use them as an example of how briliant your political ideas for today are.

[Tonkyhonk]

The only rational answer I can give is that I think that life and property should be respected by everyone and at all times. I do however not judge the people of older ages by the standards of my own day -- it would be the same as criticizing the poor table manners of cavemen. I also do not believe that colonists trek half-way across the world obsessed by some burning hatred for the natives of wherever they are going. They go in search of new lands for the same reasons that men have always gone in search of new land, they seek a better life for themselves and their kin.

evolution or development of the human mind work.
it is not to judge the people of older ages, but to look back at them and study by the standards of our own day.
we can not see events objectively without having enough time passed, sometimes.

colonial days or "the Age of Discovery" are not "of the past", yet. at least not yet for the U.S. government, nor other developed countries. it is now 3D, to the outer space, or to the bottom of the ocean, unlike it was mostly just 2D back in the days.

new explorers may not colonize new "land" by force like our predecessors did, as long as they face the equivalents of the human kind or whatever we expect them to be, like intellectual extraterrestrial being shown in books, movies, etc, by our current standards. thats the lesson we learned from the past.
but when they meet the strong and violent, they may regard those as "monsters" or "enermies/threats for human", when they meet the weaker and peaceful, they may most likely treat them as "items" to take back to study in lab.
just like those Spanish explorers back in those days looked at what (who) they discovered on their explorations.

a bit off topic, but other examples. (skip the below as you wish)
some eat whales and dolphins as their traditional food resource, others criticize that just because those animals are intelligent while they dont give a damn about slaughtering "unintelligent" animals or silent plants. some believe eating meat is against their moral while eating pieces of fried chickens. some believe killing others is a crime while they dont blame suicide is no way a crime (and nobody gets punished). some believe the human activities are killing the whole ecology system while some believe that is how the system has worked for ages. (as in, animals are known to be rather strange life forms in scientific view to consume poison -oxygen- to both live and kill themselves and produce ex-unpoisonous CO2 instead.)

i cannot judge many of the current "morals" going on around the world, and just sit back and watch and ponder.
however a popular moral seems decent or cruel, we all understand, or try to understand, that the beginning of the action was hardly from hatred, but just from human nature. the concept you are insisting here is not that new.


as for the "mutual benefits" part, i do see the importance of the awareness of the facts.
but we should not deny the obvious that the resulting benefit does not justify the actions solely for the results themselves.

[EmperorNuke]

I like how no one here can beat Jorb and his GREAT WALL OF TEXT!

[Tonkyhonk]

I like how no one here can beat Jorb and his GREAT WALL OF TEXT!

youre wrong, EmperorNuke.
no one here is trying to "beat" Jorb and his great wall of text.
most of us are enjoying the discussion.