Do we get to blame the Funding Fathers for Trump because of the the way they set up the constitution? How much blame goes to the aging system and how much to the irresponsibility of later leaders?
Colonialism, Exploitation and Independence
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
We cannot blame them for Trump specifically, as they did not intentionally get him elected. We can blame the Funding Fathers for say the electoral college, the three-fifths compromise and the long term results of such a bad way of choosing a leader, because that was an intentional ploy to defeat their own ideals of everyone having the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The nobel wining thesis is that the colonial powers intentionally set up exploitative political and economic systems in places where that suited them because they wanted to exploit the native population, and fair systems where they did not. If that sort of intentional creation of systems that are actively harmful to individuals at the time (and so obviously wrong), and provably causative on today's problems does not generate some form of obligation to try and right the wrongs of the past I am not sure what could.
Last edited:
And in the 250 years since, there have been 20+ amendments to the constitution to change it; none addressed the electoral college issue. I would put the blame on congress and the presidents demonstrating poor leadership. IIRC, they passed prohibition and then repealed it. It is not like the electoral college problem could not have been remedied. The US constitution was a radical document in the context of 18th C Europe. It reflected a compromise across different extremes and was not seen as a harmful path. It was perceived as improvement over what currently existed.
Post colonial despots often had broad powers to fix colonial problems that lingered or were entrenched after independence. Change is hard, but it is not an excuse for inaction. The US civil war ended in 1865 and for the next 50 years the politicians did little to end its legacy when they could have eased into racial integration. Then it took another 40 years more public action to enact the Civil rights legislation of the 1960s. The legacy of slavery in the US lives on today because of irresponsible leadership.
"...And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?"
EDIT: At what point does one move from blaming a legacy system to blaming the people who control it and continue to use it badly?
To make the example ore relevant, support there were a whole load of countries similar to the US. Some of those implemented a three-fifths compromise and electoral college, the others implemented universal suffrage and STV for the president. Now, 250 years later, there was a statistical coorelation between implementing a good system and having a successful country.
Would that be enough for reponsability?
I am certainly not excusing the despots that utilised the exploitative power structures, but to blame those who live in these countries for not fixing the problems we left them with by having more revolutions seems quite wrong.
We are not talking 250 years here. It was within living memory that the UK armed forces were killing people to maintain these exploitative economic and political structures.
EnglishEdward
Deity
But the former colonial country can not fix such problem in its former colonies without
actively intervening which contradicts the point of those countries having independence.
actively intervening which contradicts the point of those countries having independence.
This was talking about having the responsibility to accept refugees from countries ravaged by these problems.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The problems in the two Sudans today have little to do with the British Empire's brief involvement.
"Lies, damned lies and statistics"
I think that the statistical correlation can equally reflect the lack of effort by leaders to change or improve bad systems. Did the models have a way of excluding the leadership or political environment from its influence on the results? If such a model was applied to racism in the US since the CW, could it account for KKK or any of the many immigration crises of the late 19th C that influenced US policy or laws regarding race?
I just think that there is some point at which one has to stop blaming the "evil past" and put responsibility on the people in charge. Of course, each situation will be different in regards to the tipping point.
The idea is that the exploitative structures are causative on having bad leaders. If all the countries that had political systems designed to stop despots taking power did not get despots, and all the countries with political systems designed to support despots got despots, is it the despots fault or the systems?"Lies, damned lies and statistics"
I think that the statistical correlation can equally reflect the lack of effort by leaders to change or improve bad systems. Did the models have a way of excluding the leadership or political environment from its influence on the results? If such a model was applied to racism in the US since the CW, could it account for KKK or any of the many immigration crises of the late 19th C that influenced US policy or laws regarding race?
I just think that there is some point at which one has to stop blaming the "evil past" and put responsibility on the people in charge. Of course, each situation will be different in regards to the tipping point.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Is there any evidence that the leaders they had after colonisation were worse than the leaders they had before colonisation ?
IIRC on withdrawing, particularly from Africa, the British Empire tried to create some form of democratic or representative successor.
If the countries chose to follow despots instead, that is hardly the fault of the British Empire.
And the consequences of that are not the responsibility of the British people today or tomorrow.
IIRC on withdrawing, particularly from Africa, the British Empire tried to create some form of democratic or representative successor.
If the countries chose to follow despots instead, that is hardly the fault of the British Empire.
And the consequences of that are not the responsibility of the British people today or tomorrow.
I am certainly not blaming "the people" only those to took charge and used the system they took over for personal power and riches. The post war independence era was a fast paced change of leadership and brought all kinds of change and turmoil. Colonial powers had little incentive to fix institutional problems in their colonies prior to letting them go. Prior to 1914 and again in 1939 there was little expectation of a major reset of the world order in the west. Then at the end of WW2, the European powers were in serious decline and without the means nor incentives to try and fix things overseas. The colonies wanted out now. OK, then they were cut loose to their own devices. The world is a very messy place and even today legacy systems get left in place because it is the easiest path. Change is hard.
If I buy a used Pinto or Corvair car and if later, during my ownership or subsequent owners, kills some one, is it my fault or GMs/Fords?
The harm was done in setting up and maintaining the systems. They set up one type of system in places where the working populace was white, and another where the working populace was of colour.
Ford bear a lot of responsibility for building really dangerous cars! This does not excuse you if you did something wrong, but the principle of contributory negligence does effectively represent this responsability in law.
Is that the case? India was despotic long before colonialism. What political system were the precolonial African kingdoms tied to? How far back does one go to assign blame? When does the tradition of despotic rule begin in India?
That is the nobel prise winning thesis.
I will point out that I use the word responsibility, but either way I do not know. I think probably as long as one has the ability to help one has the responsibility when the harm is so well demonstrated.
Are we talking despotism or race as the culprit? European colonial systems were racist (likely religiously biased too). Legacy racial systems survived independence especially in Africa and were perpetuated by whites. Once the whites were gone race diminished and the power struggle moved to economics.
How much actual liability can you put on Ford today if you own a used Pinto and it kills your kid?
Klaus Hergersheimer
Emperor
not if you give them enough handouts to make them go away
Copying from the nobel committees report:
In two seminal papers, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001, 2002) greatly enhanced the study of the impact of economic institutions on economic prosperity. In particular, they employed a design-based – or quasi-experimental – approach using the experience of European colonialism as a “natural experiment”.
In so doing, Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson empirically traced the importance and persistence of colonial strategies for subsequent economic development. Their research design centered around the hypothesis that the institutions set up or selectively maintained by colonial powers have had persistent effects on political and economic institutions until today. That is, the type of institutions – inclusive or extractive – observed in many low-income countries today can be partly explained by the fact that colonizers, in some places beginning hundreds of years ago, shaped domestic institutions in a way that was beneficial to themselves. Moreover, what was beneficial to the colonizers, in turn, depended on initial conditions in the colonized areas. Importantly, the initial conditions governing the type of institutions were predetermined and provided quasi-experimental variation to study the impact of institutions on economic prosperity, even for countries under the same colonizer.
Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2001, 2002) showed that the colonial experience had a major impact on long-run prosperity. Their evidence also suggests that the type of institutions implemented by the colonizers is they key mechanism, although the exact impact of institutional quality on income is difficult to quantify.
Through a series of papers (Acemoglu, 2003, 2006; Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, 2005a; Acemoglu and Robinson, 2000, 2001, 2006b, 2008), the Laureates have helped us understand theoretically why growth-promoting institutions are (or are not) adopted. A key implication of their general model is that inefficient institutions, from a social welfare point of view, are sometimes chosen by political rulers as a way to extract resources from the populace. And once implemented, these inefficient institutions often persist because of an underlying commitment problem. That is, a promise by the “elite” (or an autocrat) to implement a welfare-improving reform of economic institutions is often not credible because the elite have an incentive to ex-post renege on their promise. Similarly, promises by those who argue for institutional reform are also not credible: even if they are willing to compensate the current elite for peacefully agreeing to reform, there are no incentives to compensate the former elite once they have relinquished power. Politically powerful groups may also refrain from institutional change, even if it may be welfare improving, because of concerns about subsequent institutional dynamics, i.e., the risk of losing power.
EnglishEdward
Deity
@ Samson
But what ability does the UK have to actually help ?
The UK is about 1% of world land area, about 1% of world
population, and about 2% (declining) of world GDP.
(a) intervening is regarded as morally suspect, often counter productive e.g. Afghanistan and is beyond its powers.
(b) foreign aid often ends up supporting the powers that be that are complicit in bad governance, rather than helping
the downtrodden; the UK doesn't actually have the money, it merely runs up its deficit to be paid by our children.
(c) and if you look at the numbers, accepting immigration does not deal with the problems of over population.
@ Klaus
If you give them handouts, they merely think you are stupid and demand more money.
I find that the concept that the citizens of the UK today and in the future should own the historical guilt and seek
to expunge themselves of that by paying reparations or accepting de facto reverse colonisation quite absurd.
But what ability does the UK have to actually help ?
The UK is about 1% of world land area, about 1% of world
population, and about 2% (declining) of world GDP.
(a) intervening is regarded as morally suspect, often counter productive e.g. Afghanistan and is beyond its powers.
(b) foreign aid often ends up supporting the powers that be that are complicit in bad governance, rather than helping
the downtrodden; the UK doesn't actually have the money, it merely runs up its deficit to be paid by our children.
(c) and if you look at the numbers, accepting immigration does not deal with the problems of over population.
@ Klaus
If you give them handouts, they merely think you are stupid and demand more money.
I find that the concept that the citizens of the UK today and in the future should own the historical guilt and seek
to expunge themselves of that by paying reparations or accepting de facto reverse colonisation quite absurd.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
You're doing it again, downplaying/excusing colonialism
EnglishEdward
Deity
Whereas you are trying to blame historic colonialism for problems today that are nothing to do with historic colonialism.
Similar threads
