Niall Ferguson

[vogtmurr]

You know, I never thought in all that time I spent pointing out the good that the Japanese Empire did that I was actually saying that the Japanese Empire was not a bad thing.
Who knew?

It's to Vogtmurr's line of reasoning.

I guessed it was a reverse affirmation of Aelf's logic, but the analogy was beyond me. I don't myself recall ever saying bad events couldn't lead to good outcomes.


It just caught me by surprise when a routine history discussion, which became inflammatory, suddenly evolved into a

ethical judgement made about the British Empire is not a historical assessment.

and therefore no longer subject to any standards of historical assessment. So on a pure modernistic ethics level, nobody can really challenge it. I just have a little problem with the degree to which you apply it, while conspicuously avoiding the application to any comparable scenario, and testing the soundness of your method. I'm not talking about defending my stance by just making others look worse. I steadfastly refuse to start mudslinging as an attempt to deflect attention from our topic - but oh yes I could. I'm talking about a relative weighting of the changes and what took place. For instance the Spanish conquest of Mexico went through some horrible phases that aren't excusable, but the Aztec empire could not go on like it was forever either, talk to any anthropologist. One atrocity doesn't justify another, but I think it weakens the argument that the right of continued self-determination in a collision of cultures is such a sacrosanct principle that it trumps any other argument. I really can't expect any native or aboriginal culture to embrace this concept, but there were some cases and the near possibility in other cases, where colonizers and native inhabitants early on became equal partners, and evolved their culture together. New France comes to mind (its not British but I'm familiar with it), and so does Roger William's colony. EDIT: later in Africa too - few tribes were willing to accept these newcomers as arbitrators at first, and some had to test their arms, but were not brutally subjugated, retained self government uninterrupted to this day, with positions of power or tribal hegemony.

I mean you have to be a pretty ardent supporter of the backward notion of a European 'civilising mission' if you think that subjugation by force in this case can be justified by the accomplishment of a greater good or, worse, the good of the subjugated.

don't put words in my mouth - we all know that colonization took place in a variety of ways, so it is really a question of how that took place, and how long before there was a workable relationship or coexistence, is it not ? Or is the conversation already over because colonization in any form is so intolerably evil ? If so, then your whole argument is incredibly fascile and overrated - there's nothing more to discuss. And I can tell you in the majority of cases, colonization was rarely highlighted by bloody conquests. Conflicts between European powers more often drew locals into one side or the other - or conflicts between the locals drew in the Europeans. In N. America there are a few instances when English colonists, not very numerous in the 17th century, actively pursued a war of injustice, vengeance or even at a stretch, extermination; but it wasn't with the blessing of the crown.

This is why people like you are being stereotyped. I mean, it's not like you're simply coming up with philosophical arguments about the ability to apply hindsight to come up with valid assessments about the soundness of past decisions. You're busying yourself with pointing out the good of the empire as if it can whitewash or balance out the horrible.

You've confirmed the stereotyping part, good. Are you denying that any amount of good can outweigh the evil ? How do we assess historical personalities ? I have to say history discussions are usually more detached, I don't often see an empire or culture, labeled by anybody as 'evil'. And when we say British Empire - that is an embracing categorization.

Yes you can point out some events from the past, no matter what the circumstances, should fill us with horror. Thats been a part of human existence since forever. It really comes down to how much and how often, and where you choose to place the focus. In all this you have yet failed to produce a balanced assessment, you've just made blanket statements, and when a number of people react to it, you stereotype. Not that that assessment is likely to result in any agreement - when the words 'genocide' and 'slavery' dominate. Whoa - isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, when we are discussing the empire that led the world in the abolition movement. Fighting colonial stereotypes is as difficult as trying to defend some religions nowadays.

But, really, this is just a roundabout and silly way of illustrating what I've already said - that more positive developments can arise from a negative event.

Some of those good things happened during the Imperial age, not just after. It wasn't like two centuries of atrocities gradually diminishing into the 20th century.

Nevertheless, it might be worth emphasising that an ethical judgement made about the British Empire is not a historical assessment. It is precisely an anachronistic one, contingent not on the ethical milieu of a past age, but on that of today. Its significance is not so much in being a platform for the practical purpose coming up with a historical thesis on a period or event, but in being a marker of the moral zeitgeist in which the individual making the assessment is presently situated. Our progress in moral thinking is partly marked by our ability to look back on things past and say that some were bad, no?

I didn't mind the last paragraph in your reply to me; its a far cry from some of the other rhetoric which I am going to attribute to incomplete knowledge. Yes we do acknowledge that a lot of things they did are ethically unacceptable today. I don't really need a lesson in ethics, I can talk to a priest for that, but I don't have a problem with it. Now please don't take my points as a personal attack, or insult our intelligence further with your claim we are unable

to comprehend or entertain what has been written

.

Is there a need, for example, to see a negative opinion of the British Empire as a condemnation of every facet of it? Could it not be that some people simply see it as something that is, on balance, not good?

At least the label has evolved from 'bad thing' and 'evil' to 'not good'. There's hope yet.
...nahh. We're all going to hell - I say let's have a party.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I guessed it was a reverse affirmation of Aelf's logic, but the analogy was beyond me. I don't myself recall ever saying bad events couldn't lead to good outcomes.

Indeed, but you have said these good outcomes justify the bad things, and, even if they do not outweigh the evil, we cannot label something "evil" if there are a few good outcomes.

 

[vogtmurr]

Indeed, but you have said these good outcomes justify the bad things, and, even if they do not outweigh the evil, we cannot label something "evil" if there are a few good outcomes.

no sir - not that part. I said it requires some analysis and fairness, and is not something commonly done, or accepted, on the basis of selective blanket statements. I can't force people to say they like the British Empire obviously - but hyperbolic statements on a purely modern ethical level are just that - they might characterize it on those terms to some people; but I've already gone through this ad nauseum.
Are you trying to be irritating or objective, I can't figure it out.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

He wrote a horrible book on the history of economics once, which Masada roundly destroyed. Basically he's a competent - not great, or even good - historian who has decided to push for fame rather than respect, and therefore gone crazy with the gibberish.

yeah, that was the reason I've asked; he seemed pretty poor at economics and, since I assumed he was an economist, I didn't exactly understand why such a fuss with what he said or why he should show up on tv(ok, unfortunately, being mediocre doesn't automatically ban you from showing up on tv, but...)

 

[ParkCungHee]

no sir - not that part. I said it requires some analysis and fairness, and is not something commonly done, or accepted, on the basis of selective blanket statements. I can't force people to say they like the British Empire obviously - but hyperbolic statements on a purely modern ethical level are just that - they might characterize it on those terms to some people; but I've already gone through this ad nauseum.

So you simply assume that our statements are selective, without analysis and fairness, and it is on those grounds that you object to our labeling of the British Empire as evil. While those are equal grounds for unfairly labeling it "not evil", I will instead put your fears to rest that the conclusion that the British Empire was an Evil thing was based on a good deal of analysis, fairness and was not based on Selective Blanket statements.

 

[vogtmurr]

PCH -you are contradicting how others have directly characterized their own posts. So don't label this as 'our statements' - if that is your conclusion so be it - but you are clearly a selective reader, and I think you are just jerking someone's chain. I recognize Masada's arguments as well as Aelf's and Kangaru's up to a point, EDIT: a big part of the issue was the refusal of other people not just me, to accept these statements, which should also be respected. But if you are going to start it off again and make your conclusion a public affirmation, be prepared for some resistance. I have still very compelling arguments in my arsenal - and they are not specific to the British Empire but certainly have a bearing on this topic. I just don't have time for this anymore.

 

[ParkCungHee]

PCH -you are contradicting how others have directly characterized their own posts. So don't label this as 'our statements' - if that is your conclusion so be it - but you are clearly a selective reader, and I think you are just jerking someone's chain

I didn't characterize Masada's or Aelf's posts, I restated your latest that the problem isn't that people characterize the British Empire as an Evil thing, but with the fact that arguments rely on blanket statements, and a lack analysis and fairness. I have pointed out the same can be said for any historical argument, and moreover, that your opposition to arguments for the British Empire as evil relies on the assumption that such arguments lack analysis, fairness and rely on blanket statements.
Now, I'm not going to speak for Masada and claim that he believes his arguments have undergone a good deal of self-analysis, he tried to approach the proposition and a fair manner, and that he did not make blanket statements. It may well be he considers such a statement a horrible mischaracterization of his arguments, which he intended to be brainless, prejudiced and to use poor examples.
However, even leaving aside this possibility, it doesn't change the fact that my argument for the evil nature of the British Empire does not rely on blanket statements, etc. etc. and so your latest argument, and the problem you most recently claimed you took issue with, is groundless.

I have still very compelling arguments in my arsenal - and they are not specific to the British Empire but certainly have a bearing on this topic. I just don't have time for this anymore.

For future reference, if time is a finite commodity, start with the compelling arguments, and leave the claptrap arguments every apologist uses (but none recognizes the universal validity of) for overtime.

 

[aelf]

Uh, I don't even know how to start a new thread for this. I mean, is there even much of substance to talk about anymore?

I guessed it was a reverse affirmation of Aelf's logic, but the analogy was beyond me. I don't myself recall ever saying bad events couldn't lead to good outcomes.

Of course, you did - through your repeated suggestions that empire can't have been a Bad Thing if it led to more world unity and etc.

It just caught me by surprise when a routine history discussion, which became inflammatory, suddenly evolved into a and therefore no longer subject to any standards of historical assessment. So on a pure modernistic ethics level, nobody can really challenge it. I just have a little problem with the degree to which you apply it, while conspicuously avoiding the application to any comparable scenario, and testing the soundness of your method.

I still have no idea what you're talking about when you bring up hypocrisy or double standards or something like that. Where did you find any of those? You've never actually explained.

I'm not talking about defending my stance by just making others look worse. I steadfastly refuse to start mudslinging as an attempt to deflect attention from our topic - but oh yes I could. I'm talking about a relative weighting of the changes and what took place. For instance the Spanish conquest of Mexico went through some horrible phases that aren't excusable, but the Aztec empire could not go on like it was forever either, talk to any anthropologist. One atrocity doesn't justify another, but I think it weakens the argument that the right of continued self-determination in a collision of cultures is such a sacrosanct principle that it trumps any other argument. I really can't expect any native or aboriginal culture to embrace this concept, but there were some cases and the near possibility in other cases, where colonizers and native inhabitants early on became equal partners, and evolved their culture together. New France comes to mind (its not British but I'm familiar with it), and so does Roger William's colony. EDIT: later in Africa too - few tribes were willing to accept these newcomers as arbitrators at first, and some had to test their arms, but were not brutally subjugated, retained self government uninterrupted to this day, with positions of power or tribal hegemony.

don't put words in my mouth - we all know that colonization took place in a variety of ways, so it is really a question of how that took place, and how long before there was a workable relationship or coexistence, is it not ? Or is the conversation already over because colonization in any form is so intolerably evil ? If so, then your whole argument is incredibly fascile and overrated - there's nothing more to discuss. And I can tell you in the majority of cases, colonization was rarely highlighted by bloody conquests. Conflicts between European powers more often drew locals into one side or the other - or conflicts between the locals drew in the Europeans. In N. America there are a few instances when English colonists, not very numerous in the 17th century, actively pursued a war of injustice, vengeance or even at a stretch, extermination; but it wasn't with the blessing of the crown.

So, essentially, you're still saying that the good that colonialism brought about outweighs the bad? I have no hope that you'd actually admit it, though. You'll probably resort to more obfuscation to try and weasel your way out of that corner.

You've confirmed the stereotyping part, good. Are you denying that any amount of good can outweigh the evil ? How do we assess historical personalities ? I have to say history discussions are usually more detached, I don't often see an empire or culture, labeled by anybody as 'evil'. And when we say British Empire - that is an embracing categorization.

You don't often? I wonder what kind of literature you stick to, then. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that you hold the untenable views that you do?

Moreover, your notion of detachment is reminiscent of a particular kind of juvenile fantasy. Perhaps you also believe in the positivist notion of the complete objectivity of science? Maybe you think you can even extend some of that to the social sciences and humanities? If so, here's a pro tip: Learn what interpretation means. It's absolutely essential to the humanities and makes it impossible to ignore the interpretive position of the student/researcher.

As for categorisation, I'm not doing that, mang. It's already been done with the label 'the British Empire'. I mean, if you really want to quibble, you can nitpick the label endlessly: Under which guise and when? Under which controlling interest and in which part of the world? So you end up concluding that, hey, since any form of categorisation and generalisation is bad and unhistorical, we can't even refer to the British Empire anymore. You know who that actually reminds me of slightly? Derrida, which is kind of amusing but probably reading too much into something that is a lot more simplistic.

Yes you can point out some events from the past, no matter what the circumstances, should fill us with horror. Thats been a part of human existence since forever. It really comes down to how much and how often, and where you choose to place the focus. In all this you have yet failed to produce a balanced assessment, you've just made blanket statements, and when a number of people react to it, you stereotype. Not that that assessment is likely to result in any agreement - when the words 'genocide' and 'slavery' dominate. Whoa - isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, when we are discussing the empire that led the world in the abolition movement. Fighting colonial stereotypes is as difficult as trying to defend some religions nowadays.

More obfuscation. I can't quite make out what you're saying. What is a "balanced assessment"? Just because I didn't mention the caveat 'but it also brought about some good' when saying that the British Empire was a bad thing, I'm not giving it a balanced assessment? Does that invalidate the claim that the British Empire was a bad thing? Are just saying that the British Empire was really not a bad thing but a good one?

Some of those good things happened during the Imperial age, not just after. It wasn't like two centuries of atrocities gradually diminishing into the 20th century.

So? There is no implicit assumption of chronological ordering in what I said.

I didn't mind the last paragraph in your reply to me; its a far cry from some of the other rhetoric which I am going to attribute to incomplete knowledge. Yes we do acknowledge that a lot of things they did are ethically unacceptable today. I don't really need a lesson in ethics, I can talk to a priest for that, but I don't have a problem with it. Now please don't take my points as a personal attack, or insult our intelligence further with your claim we are unable .

Your suggestion that you can learn ethics from a priest is kind of indicative of how much knowledge you have about the subject. I guess I should again not be surprised. In any case, I have no idea what "other rhetoric" you're talking about. I've pretty much stuck to a particular position and said what I have to in arguing for it.

At least the label has evolved from 'bad thing' and 'evil' to 'not good'. There's hope yet.

I don't recall calling it 'evil'. Maybe you'd like to point an instance or two out to me? As for 'bad' and 'not good', by way of clarification, I'm not implying a real difference in this case. I'm assuming here that 'not good' implies 'bad'.

no sir - not that part. I said it requires some analysis and fairness, and is not something commonly done, or accepted, on the basis of selective blanket statements. I can't force people to say they like the British Empire obviously - but hyperbolic statements on a purely modern ethical level are just that - they might characterize it on those terms to some people; but I've already gone through this ad nauseum. .

Again, what constitutes a 'fair assessment'? Also, the notion of "selective blanket statements" is hilarious in a contradictory way.

PCH -you are contradicting how others have directly characterized their own posts. So don't label this as 'our statements' - if that is your conclusion so be it - but you are clearly a selective reader, and I think you are just jerking someone's chain. I recognize Masada's arguments as well as Aelf's and Kangaru's up to a point, EDIT: a big part of the issue was the refusal of other people not just me, to accept these statements, which should also be respected. But if you are going to start it off again and make your conclusion a public affirmation, be prepared for some resistance. I have still very compelling arguments in my arsenal - and they are not specific to the British Empire but certainly have a bearing on this topic. I just don't have time for this anymore.

I really have no idea what you're arguing against. You complain about being stereotyped but I can't recognise your characterisation of the argument or "rhetoric" of the people you're arguing with. Those who have argued with you are not proving to be non-selective readers and have instead taken the time to go through and respond to the disparate bits of your posts. Thus, I can only conclude that you're imagining some cardboard interlocutors, also known as strawmen.

 

[vogtmurr]

I didn't characterize Masada's or Aelf's posts, I restated your latest that the problem isn't that people characterize the British Empire as an Evil thing, but with the fact that arguments rely on blanket statements, and a lack analysis and fairness. I have pointed out the same can be said for any historical argument, and moreover, that your opposition to arguments for the British Empire as evil relies on the assumption that such arguments lack analysis, fairness and rely on blanket statements.
Now, I'm not going to speak for Masada and claim that he believes his arguments have undergone a good deal of self-analysis, he tried to approach the proposition and a fair manner, and that he did not make blanket statements. It may well be he considers such a statement a horrible mischaracterization of his arguments, which he intended to be brainless, prejudiced and to use poor examples.
However, even leaving aside this possibility, it doesn't change the fact that my argument for the evil nature of the British Empire does not rely on blanket statements, etc. etc. and so your latest argument, and the problem you most recently claimed you took issue with, is groundless.

For future reference, if time is a finite commodity, start with the compelling arguments, and leave the claptrap arguments every apologist uses (but none recognizes the universal validity of) for overtime.

ok I will
Just so you know - when I described how the arguments thus far have been characterized - it was only to recognize it was the way kangaru and Aelf described it.

an ethical judgement made about the British Empire is not a historical assessment. It is precisely an anachronistic one, contingent not on the ethical milieu of a past age, but on that of today.

I can't speak for Masada on this either.

Aelf: it occurs to me we are reacting more on a personal level now but for all this energy neither of us is likely going to get any satisfaction. If we analyze it to death we are not likely to convince the other party either. I can understand how some people would react differently to this topic. I have some interesting points that might make for a good objective discussion in a more general sense - not a defensive reaction. But it will have to wait for now.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The only book I've read in entirety of Ferguson was "Ascent of Money." He seems to specialize in economic history, and the book is a very good summary of the history of finance and economics, at least since the Middle Ages. His commentary in the book seem very measured compared to what's been claimed in this thread. The commentary isn't very controversial. He largely states that economic crises have occured in history before and there's always a bounce-back, but that few people seem to learn from history, even when it recurs in their own lifetime, so that there's often repetition of the same flawed and over-leveraged investment schemes. That's not exactly a controversial topic.

I haven't read the long version of his thoughts on empires, such as the British, just the short synoptic version, but his argument in its favor shouldn't be taken for more than what it is. He seems to make the same mistake as Hobbes, in that he argues in favor of stability, not necessarily prosperity. The British Empire, and many empires, created stability over a wide area that might not otherwise have had it. Its great wealth was not necessarily shared by all, however, and therein lies the problem. I would argue that stability can be achieved even with a totalitarian state, but that is at the expense of a large segment of society that is both impoverished and oppressed.

 

[RedRalph]

The first one.

Itch don't dink so - except in very rare cases of Anglicised Irish names. But I could be wrong.

 

[aelf]

ok I will
Just so you know - when I described how the arguments thus far have been characterized - it was only to recognize it was the way kangaru and Aelf described it.

I can't speak for Masada on this either.

Aelf: it occurs to me we are reacting more on a personal level now but for all this energy neither of us is likely going to get any satisfaction. If we analyze it to death we are not likely to convince the other party either. I can understand how some people would react differently to this topic. I have some interesting points that might make for a good objective discussion in a more general sense - not a defensive reaction. But it will have to wait for now.

Don't know about you, but I feel pretty satisfied knowing that you have no better way of defending your position other than by coming up with some bogeyman of an opponent to argue with. Kinda helps to sink your own cause, a cause that I find rather morally distasteful. And, yes, that means I stand by my belief that, in this day and age, anyone who is not willing to recognise the British Empire as on the whole a bad thing has something wrong with him/her.

 

[Arakhor]

Why do you keep singling out the British Empire? What is wrong with saying that, on the whole, all imperialism is a bad thing?

 

[Zardnaar]

He has an axe to grind. I'm part Irish but you don't hear me bleating about 1840. Human rights as such in their modern form largely evolved out of the British Empire either directly or indirectly (USA).

 

[aelf]

Why do you keep singling out the British Empire? What is wrong with saying that, on the whole, all imperialism is a bad thing?

Um, because the British Empire is what we're talking about? Duh. If anything, I benefited from the British Empire, so I have no axe to grind. It simply takes some honesty and a clear head to see it. Besides, if you say that all imperialism is bad, certain people might come down on your "selective blanket statement", so it pays to stick to talking about cases that have been established to be bad, like the British variety.

 

[Arakhor]

Hell, I'm British and I deplore the actions of the British Empire in Suez and the Raj, but if we're going to rail about imperialism, let's be more ecumenical, eh?

 

[Masada]

... this is a thread about Niall Ferguson notable British apologist. I don't see given the context who we else we should be railing against. Moreover, Plot asked us to stay on tapic. So suck it up I suppose?

 

[SnowlyWhite]

And, yes, that means I stand by my belief that, in this day and age, anyone who is not willing to recognise the British Empire as on the whole a bad thing has something wrong with him/her.

probably you're in a very selective minority...

It was an empire; it did what empires do. It happen to be better at "empiring" job then the average; hence, more praises.

man, political correctness and nitpicking can be boring...

 

[aelf]

probably you're in a very selective minority...

It was an empire; it did what empires do. It happen to be better at "empiring" job then the average; hence, more praises.

man, political correctness and nitpicking can be boring...

Meh. Already given an answer to that. Like I said, either not able to comprehend or to entertain what some of us have written, and probably have defective moral sense too. So /shrug.

 

[Dachs]

Itch don't dink so - except in very rare cases of Anglicised Irish names. But I could be wrong.

It's how he's always introduced on TV whenever CNN has him do an apologia or something.