Niall Ferguson

[vogtmurr]

...I can look at what actually happened in history and say that, overall, it's Bad. And arguably the concept of colonialism, as a method of government that deprives people of self-determination and sanctions social and economic inequality on the basis of the unequal relationship between the Mother Country and the colony, is itself a Bad Thing. I don't need to compare it to an alternate history hypothetical, which is a dubious exercise in any case since anything could've happened in those three centuries.

Value judgements are personal things anyway. I may be looking at it from a modern perspective but that's well within my rights to.

On a fundamental level no one can argue for the legitimacy of conquest, oppression or exploitation. By its nature colonialism is likely going to be an unequal relationship at the outset, representing the interests of a foreign minority. However, there were also peaceful aspects of colonialism that involved the transfer of knowledge, people, ideas, and economic development. Even if the motivation wasn't entirely altruistic there were some to whom it was.

Really, though, I'm just annoyed at how people would point to an example of people doing Bad Things and claim that, because another group of people's actions weren't as Bad, that's somehow that's makes it better or that their actions are being unfairly heavily scrutinised or targeted or (ha!) persecuted. I understand you can feel angry if people keep droning on about how Your Kind used to oppress people or whatever, but it's history.

I find it disturbing that people with modern sensibilities are capable of relativising something objectively bad such that it is no longer bad if the alternatives are worse. .

When we claim an entire era of human history is a bad thing, isn't that what we are doing; comparing it to some perceived alternative ? If the alternative is no better and arguably worse, then by your judgement there would be no redemption for any culture. Some things are undeniably wrong, when they diverge from what we consider acceptable norms, but we also need a bit of historical context. For instance; Indians themselves had a big part to play in the suppression of the Indian Mutiny, but it was under British officers who bear the ultimate responsibility. I'm not trying to whitewash it all, but on the final balance sheet I don't think a summary of negative events is an adequate representation of 'My Kind', whoever they are.

And I'm sorry if my tone's a bit rough. I use this forum as a place to vent since people are way more scarier in real life.

Peace. One outcome of colonialism is it was a stepping stone in the evolution of learning how to live together.

 

[Tee Kay]

On a fundamental level no one can argue for the legitimacy of conquest, oppression or exploitation. By its nature colonialism is likely going to be an unequal relationship at the outset, representing the interests of a foreign minority. However, there were also peaceful aspects of colonialism that involved the transfer of knowledge, people, ideas, and economic development. Even if the motivation wasn't entirely altruistic there were some to whom it was.

The transfer of knowledge, people, ideas and economic development are all things which are possible absent colonialism.

When we claim an entire era of human history is a bad thing, isn't that what we are doing; comparing it to some perceived alternative ?

First of all colonialism is not really an era but a concept, and secondly not at all. Things can be objectively bad (personal values of course). That's what aelf is arguing I think.

If the alternative is no better and arguably worse, then by your judgement there would be no redemption for any culture.

Well if you have one guy who kills 10 people and one who kills a hundred... yeah, both of them are going to hell, I'm afraid.

Some things are undeniably wrong, when they diverge from what we consider acceptable norms, but we also need a bit of historical context.

I don't deny the historical context. If you've read what I said earlier I openly admited I'm passing judgement based on my own, modern, values.

Peace. One outcome of colonialism is it was a stepping stone in the evolution of learning how to live together.

Yes, a system that actively subjugated others as lesser peoples really contributed to increased cultural and ethnic tolerance.

 

[Zardnaar]

The problem ois htough virtually every society subjugated someone whether it was women, serfs, a member of a different race and in most cases intertribal warfare or interstate warfare wasn't unknown. Very few people died in the expansion of the BE compared to the collapse of the BE or empires in general.

Maori have it way better here than Aborgines in Australia and that was because they got a treaty with London. Wasn't perfect and the last massacre of the Aborigines was in the 1920's and the British has zilch to do with that.

 

[Tee Kay]

The problem ois htough virtually every society subjugated someone whether it was women, serfs, a member of a different race and in most cases intertribal warfare or interstate warfare wasn't unknown. Very few people died in the expansion of the BE compared to the collapse of the BE or empires in general.

[citation sorely needed], and isn't post-colonial conflict partly a result of colonial legacy anyway?

 

[Zardnaar]

OK New Zealand was the 1st coutry in the world in 1893 to give women the vote. Before 1840 warfare amoung the Maori was common and for some tribes it was join the British or get killed and enslaved by stronger tribes.

Africa was a mess long before the British got there with a few exceptions like Zimbabwe and Mali. The slave trade long predated them there as well. Blame the Arabs if you like or maybe the ancient Egyptians and Romans. If the British Empire was so bad most of the "great" empires of world history would stand condemned as well- Egypt, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Byzantine, Chinese. Tamerlane and Ghengis Khan, exploitation of the Seerfs in Russia, or Spain in the Americas.

If you want to pass moral judgement on virtually every civilization that ever existed go right ahead. Humans don't need much encouragement to kill each other. The British were worse than some and probably better than most Empires.

 

[Quackers]

You're talking to a UKIP voter here, he believes that white British are naturally better at everything than everybody else put together, despite ample evidence otherwise.

What is wrong with supporting an anti-EU party? You should be on my side, the Euro has probably hurt Ireland more then if it controlled it's own currency.

Yeah, no, I don't. Considering my surname has more in common with the 26 counties of Ireland then the 48 countries of England

You shouldn't talk for me, you have no idea.

 

[aelf]

When we claim an entire era of human history is a bad thing, isn't that what we are doing; comparing it to some perceived alternative ?

Maybe, but I don't see why you can't make a judgement on good and bad with hindsight.

If the alternative is no better and arguably worse, then by your judgement there would be no redemption for any culture. Some things are undeniably wrong, when they diverge from what we consider acceptable norms, but we also need a bit of historical context. For instance; Indians themselves had a big part to play in the suppression of the Indian Mutiny, but it was under British officers who bear the ultimate responsibility. I'm not trying to whitewash it all, but on the final balance sheet I don't think a summary of negative events is an adequate representation of 'My Kind', whoever they are.

it's something called reality; I suppose someone 1k years from now will consider our society semi barbarian, but that doesn't mean I don't evaluate and try to reach that part of the society which is best in the current period. It'd be absurd to kill myself only because I won't be able to enjoy the advantages of a supposedly future better society.

leaving aside current society isn't good; it's relatively good.

And in absolute terms, on average, the English ex colonies are currently in a better state then, for instance, the French ones...

and moaning about past bad societies is absurd; our current one didn't spring out of thin air, but it's a result of a progress(faster or slower) precisely from those.

None of these constitute an adequate rebuttal of the claim that the British Empire was a bad thing. Something being "relatively good" does not preclude that thing being bad, nor does being the best of the worst mean not being bad. The fact that some people are our predecessors also do not mean that they can't be bad. You want to be apologetic about some historical empire that you have a fetish for, fine, but at least don't abuse the meaning of words and engage in horrible reasoning while doing so (though I grant that that may prove to be difficult).

 

[Masada]

Eh, Quakers isn't half as bad as this.

And how did the treatment of the Maori differ from the treatment of Indians under the USA or the balcks in Africa under the Belgians or the sers in Russia, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or the Islamic massacres?

So, we have a choice between serfdom, slavery and murder. Those make for attractive choices...

Imperialism/being human seems to be the primary cause.

Normative statement is normative.

Of course the British Empire abused various people but you don't exactly see people getting upset about the Romans or whatever because it is politically advantageous to bleat on about the evil Brits.

Jews still mourn over the Second Destruction of the Temple (Tisha B'Av). Some Christians still have hangs up over Diocletianus, Pontius Pilatus and the freaking Jews. We might not be able to sue the state of Israel for the unlawful killing of Jesus of Nazareth but Palestinians can sure as hell try to sue them for wrongful death. The logic here is obvious, I have to accept that I can't sue an empire that fell in 1453 but I can sue the British Empire (well its legal successor New Zealand). If I can demonstrate those, then like the Palestinian, I should be entitled to compensation.

Of course the Maori got a rough deal under the Brits but it wasn't a peaceful paradise either.

So we accept that Maori got a raw deal. Good.

Can't remember the name of the Maori chief who ravagaed the South Island in the 19th century and the Maoripracticed slavery as well. Good if you were in the stronger tribes I suppose.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right; I can't justify murdering someone because someone murdered my son. And the whole Musket War dynamic was unprecedented. It's hardly representative of how Maori traditionally rolled.

I'm not a raving apologist for the BE

Right...

The British were brutal in the case of the Indian Mutiny but they were in India for 300 odd years and that is one incident.

... there's a whole bunch of them dood. Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre? We're up to two now.

those nations are paragons of human rights in the modern era

Neither is Britiain dood. The response to the Ballia Ballia Revolt of 1943 is kind of telling. A hundred thousand arrested. Hundreds killed. Public floggings. Mass fines. Batang Kali in 1948 is even more interesting. That involved the extra-judicial murder of 24 villagers. It was also the subject of a rather elaborate cover up with the full connivance of the government.

The Empire also facilitated the movement of people around the world in the second half of the 19th century. The first Indian restaurant opened in England before the first fish and chip shop as well.

Hitler liked dogs?

Portugese, Arab and African slavers also ravaged Africa and the British shut the slave trade down which had been going on since Roman and Egyptian times if not earlier.

It was also the biggest player.

Britain itself was involved in the slave trade as well but everyone was to some extent or indirectly benefited from it.

So that somehow makes a morally reprehensible act better?

Thousands of Chinese and Indians came to my own country in Imperial times and they did have to pay a tax to enter the country but they were exploited so much they were allowed to buy land, and now are in the top half of the country in terms of welath- pure exploitation I know.

Woooooo multi-cultural racists. That makes it so much better!

Claiming the BE is bad though would essentially claim all imperialism is bad which is like saying all of humanities history has been bad for the last 3000 odd years with the exception of isolated tribal groups who engaged in warfare. Self determination was actually a minority concept even as late as the 20th century. Every monarchy and empire won't hold up to well to scrutiny if you judge it with modern day morality.

There's nothing wrong with realising that I wouldn't want to live in any other period save this one. I like running toilets, universal suffrage, human rights, a general abhorrence of slavery and racial equality enshrined in statute. Then again, I've just found out I could have voted in Australia from 1902 onwards. I still don't think I could have married a white chick... and I'd still be a black in Aparthied Suud Afrika .

Maori have it way better here than Aborgines in Australia and that was because they got a treaty with London.

No, it wasn't. There's all kinds of explanations for the relative differential in treatment between Aboriginals and Maori. Military strength and organization are the usual cocktail of factors quoted. Whatever the case, giving time to a piece of paper that was routinely ignored and only notionally applied to all Maori is utterly stupid.

Before 1840 warfare amoung the Maori was common and for some tribes it was join the British or get killed and enslaved by stronger tribes.

You haven't proved any of these points. What do you mean by common? And just who was going to get enslaved and killed? And why 1840? There was still the Wairau Affray, Flagstaff War, Hutt Valley Campaign, Wanganui Campaign, First Taranaki War, Invasion of the Waikato, Tauranga Campaign, Second Taranaki War, East Cape War(s), Te Kooti's War and Titokowaru's War left to be fought. If anything, the incidence of warfare between Maori markedly increased after 1840 lasting till 1872 or thereabouts.

If you want to pass moral judgement on virtually every civilization that ever existed go right ahead. Humans don't need much encouragement to kill each other. The British were worse than some and probably better than most Empires.

Moral relativism is terrible. But I don't see why I should discriminate between one rapist because he bothered to hide his gauntlet beneath velvet and another who doesn't even go through the motions...

But if you're going to say the whole package was a 'Bad Thing', then you have to prove that the last three centuries would somehow have been a nicer time if no British governance had been established in these territories.

How would one prove this if Nazi Germany won? Seriously.

However, there were also peaceful aspects of colonialism that involved the transfer of knowledge, people, ideas, and economic development.

You know that boot? Yeah well you get new terms to call it

Even if the motivation wasn't entirely altruistic there were some to whom it was.

Killing the Jews to save humanity might have been a goal of the SS. That doesn't make it a good goal. It does make it alturistic though.

 

[vogtmurr]

I don't know why I bothered - its not like I have a personal stake in the game or even a relative who did. I come from a former colony, that along with many others took to the defense of the free world, including yours, alongside our commonwealth partners. Thats my only fetish - other than you used to be able to travel to all kinds of really cool places in the world, and be greeted with relative law and order.

'colonialism' as a concept was inevitable - get over it, and in the broadest definition it still goes on today. I agree, we'd be better off without it ever happening - this mindset of smug and selective judgement in the 21st century shows how much we've evolved.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Niall Ferguson is the court historian of today's ruling establishment: here to legitimize them and their systems of domination. Funny how it's the Scottish ones that are always the worst. They feel they have to go a bit further to fit in with the Anglo-American conservative mainstream.

Basically, he is to the Neocons, Rio Tinto, Lloyds and so on what Xenophon the Athenian was to Sparta.

 

[Zardnaar]

Masada it is difficlt to know much about the Maori pre colonisation as they had no written records. It is known that some trbes were warlike and they practiced slavery and would raid other tribes. As I said here the tribes have a political reason to blame everything on the British but the Maori got the vote before white women did and they had full citizenship very early on in the colonial period. The Maori themselves have alot of different opinions on the subject. Personally I have heard everything form the whites are a pack of scum through to Maori realising that it is easier working in a modern office to digging a hole in the ground with a wooden spade. Most Maori more or less want to work, have a few drinks, own a car, TV and playstation. Basically much the same as everybody else and 50% of modern Maori are in an interracial relationship. It took around 5 minutes in colonial times for the Maori and settlers to jump into bed with each other. Social commentators here have said that most racial probelms here will be solved between the bedsheets. We never had segregation here and no civil rights movement as there was no legal discrimination stopping a Maori voting. Most problems for the Maori these days are socio-economic ones and the successive governments have tried to fix that in various ways and the situation is improving with more Maori graduates from uni and polytech.

I'm not a massive fan of demanding reparations from the modern UK government if the crimes took place outside a living persons timeframe. If everyone is dead who are you going to hold responsable? How far do you want to wind back the clock? Lets hold the modern Arabian countries responsable for Islamic expansion shall we? Who would you hold accoutable for the slave trade for example? Africans themselves practiced slavery and most slaves were captured by fellow Africans not Europeans. The slave trade also predated European expansion into Africa. If one expected compensation from the modern US/UK government or whatever would it be fair for a descendent of a slave to be required to return to Africa with $$$ in their pocket? Should modern states be liable to the UK for money that investors paid in colonialist days for infrastructure built? If no European power colonised Africa the Zulu would have overrun most of South Africa and the massacres Shaka committed by most accounts are worse than the British colonial rule. Africa would not have been a peaceful place you would just be replacing one lot of elites with another. If the SPanish didn't destroy the Aztecs and let them be would human sacrifice be covered in a modern republic with a constitution allowing freedom of religion?

My example of the commonwealth earlier was not supposed to show how relevent the commonwealth was. However if the BE was as exploitive and evil as some people here are claiming why would countries voluntarily join the commonwealth?. We were told at uni you have to be careful when judging the actions of various people in history using a modern eye. Looting a city was reasonably standard a few centuries ago but Tamerlane, Ghengis, The Crusaders, and some of the Islamic rulers who sold the populations into slavery are remembered for their violence even by the low standards of the time. Masada IIRC you are of african descent. Without colonisation you probably wouldn't have your PC to post on CFC and you are a smart guy from numerous posts. Would you honestly prefer to live in modern Africa or a alt history Africa or the modern liberal democracy you live in now?

 

[innonimatu]

That's a ridiculous scenario, yes, but I find it disturbing that people with modern sensibilities are capable of relativising something objectively bad such that it is no longer bad if the alternatives are worse. Either they lack human empathy and perhaps some of those modern sensibilities they are supposed to have, or they have not used their brains enough.

He does have a point, you know? "Good" or "bad" things are relative, relative to other realistic options at the time. Looking at history and wanting to classify past stuff as (morally!) "good" or "bad" using a (relative!) scale arbitrarily chosen from our present time is less more intellectually honest that trying to figure out a scale from the time under analysis: you can't understand history without having some idea of the motivations and worldviews of its actors. Judgments of value should be used to present those points of view, not for modern moralist polemics.

You can always add your own views, but then your work would be just more modern moralism (mis)using historical example. There's way too much of that already.

'colonialism' as a concept was inevitable - get over it, and in the broadest definition it still goes on today. I agree, we'd be better off without it ever happening - this mindset of smug and selective judgement in the 21st century shows how much we've evolved.

I'll go even further and say that colonialism was the last manifestation of business as usual from the pre-modern era: conquest as usual. Today it's different, because of the rise of the concept of "popular sovereignty" or "democracy". Outright conquest is out as an option - it pollutes the voting base with potentially uncontrollable voters. But "military protectorates" serve a similar enough purpose, economically and strategically at least, and those are definitely on the rise lately. And then there's always the power dynamics inside each state, which usually allows one small minority to continually run things, whatever the system of government.

It's not just different trappings, the end of open colonialism/despotic rule did correspond to an objective improvement in living standards. Some bones have to be thrown to the plebeians. But huge power inequalities remain...

 

[aelf]

I don't know why I bothered - its not like I have a personal stake in the game or even a relative who did. I come from a former colony, that along with many others took to the defense of the free world, including yours, alongside our commonwealth partners. Thats my only fetish - other than you used to be able to travel to all kinds of really cool places in the world, and be greeted with relative law and order.

'colonialism' as a concept was inevitable - get over it, and in the broadest definition it still goes on today. I agree, we'd be better off without it ever happening - this mindset of smug and selective judgement in the 21st century shows how much we've evolved.

Um, nice try there with the ethos. But more importantly, you still don't get it, do you, even after I spelled it out so clearly? If you don't understand how "relatively good" doesn't mean 'good' or 'not bad', then you either have a fundamental linguistic misunderstanding or just plain bad sense.

He does have a point, you know? "Good" or "bad" things are relative, relative to other realistic options at the time. Looking at history and wanting to classify past stuff as (morally!) "good" or "bad" using a (relative!) scale arbitrarily chosen from our present time is less more intellectually honest that trying to figure out a scale from the time under analysis: you can't understand history without having some idea of the motivations and worldviews of its actors. Judgments of value should be used to present those points of view, not for modern moralist polemics.

Um, no? You could argue that an individual existing in that era would be quite incapable of judging it wrong. But if you as an individual with access to hindsight and the ethical sensibilities of the modern age is not even capable of judging something in the past as being a bad thing, then what ethical judgement can you make?

It's not just different trappings, the end of open colonialism/despotic rule did correspond to an objective improvement in living standards. Some bones have to be thrown to the plebeians. But huge power inequalities remain...

I struggle to imagine how this justifies the colonialism of the British Empire.

 

[innonimatu]

Um, no? You could argue that an individual existing in that era would be quite incapable of judging it wrong. But if you as an individual with access to hindsight and the ethical sensibilities of the modern age is not even capable of judging something in the past as being a bad thing, then what ethical judgement can you make?

I don't. I flatly refuse to judge past events according to modern ethical sensibilities. I'll condemn the massacres of WW2 because they were condemnable even then, but I don't care the least bit about the massacres done by the mongols.
Hell, I'll also admit that I'm probably doing this also because I can much more easily identify with a modern world of 70 years ago than with ancient events. Ethics get beaten by distance. And that is all right by me, I don't have the least intention of ethically judging distant people - both in space and in time.

I struggle to imagine how this justifies the colonialism of the British Empire.

It doesn't. I'm just pointing out that modern ethics are hardly applied in in our time. Thus it amazes me that people concerned about ethics should waste time trying to apply them to old events!

Unless the whole discussion is just political mud-slinging, which I can understand very well.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It doesn't. I'm just pointing out that modern ethics are hardly applied in in our time. Thus it amazes me that people concerned about ethics should waste time trying to apply them to old events!

People concerned about ethics shouldn't study history?

 

[innonimatu]

People concerned about ethics shouldn't study history?

Let anyone study whatever they like, I just figure that it's a waste of time to argue about ethics of past events using modern ethics as a yardstick.
I'm sure you know what I mean ...I'll just quit this thread!

 

[Dachs]

I think that any historical assessment of any action pretty much has to have ethical judgments involved, even if they're only implicit, due to the mechanism of language and word connotations. That's not exactly what you guys are arguing about, of course.

 

[Lord Baal]

Masada IIRC you are of african descent. Without colonisation you probably wouldn't have your PC to post on CFC and you are a smart guy from numerous posts. Would you honestly prefer to live in modern Africa or a alt history Africa or the modern liberal democracy you live in now?

Ignoring the rest of your post, Masada is, um, Maori.

 

[Dachs]

he's an orange man who's also an Orangeman!

 

[aelf]

I don't. I flatly refuse to judge past events according to modern ethical sensibilities. I'll condemn the massacres of WW2 because they were condemnable even then, but I don't care the least bit about the massacres done by the mongols.

Um, saying that a historical event is bad doesn't mean you "care" about it in the sense that people usually imply that (i.e. having an emotional investment in the issue). It just means you have a particular opinion of it. This is a relevant counterpoint to the typical assumption that having an opinion means you're 'angry' or 'moaning' about something, which is a very reactionary sentiment, of course. Or maybe it reflects an emotivist way of thinking about ethics (i.e. that an ethical judgement is nothing but an expression of emotions about something).

Hell, I'll also admit that I'm probably doing this also because I can much more easily identify with a modern world of 70 years ago than with ancient events. Ethics get beaten by distance. And that is all right by me, I don't have the least intention of ethically judging distant people - both in space and in time.

It doesn't. I'm just pointing out that modern ethics are hardly applied in in our time. Thus it amazes me that people concerned about ethics should waste time trying to apply them to old events!

Let anyone study whatever they like, I just figure that it's a waste of time to argue about ethics of past events using modern ethics as a yardstick.

Neither does the application of ethical thinking to historical events imply some grand project to dehistoricise them in any way. You're, of course, right in that an individual's ethical judgement of historical events often have little or no bearing on significant contingent questions about them, say, on whether they could have been avoided. But what it can certainly have is a bearing on the individual's character. I don't respect anyone who relativises the ethical merits of historical events in order to feed or facilitate his fantasies of them.