Colonial Rule Restored - In The Carribean

[La_Dolce_Vita]

A huge diffeence. Ask any Zimbabwean.

 

In the sixties, malaria had been eradicated along most of the East African coast. Now it's a huge problem again.

 

The difficulty is simply that most colonies were given independence before there was a sufficiently large and educated middle class to run things properly and ensure stability.

 

S

 

Oh no, I quite agree. I think you are quite right in commenting on the fact that the colonies were governed by people with better experience and were more stable.

But in a lot of these colonies and possessions there was the nationalist cause that wanted the British presence out of their land no matter what.

 

How though do you wait for a middle class to develop when the economy largely controlled and operated by foreigners and when the country's economic structure is not one that creates an environment conducive to the development of entrepreneurialism?

 

What I was saying is that people object to colonialism for very good reason - it is economic exploitation of a land and its people for the benefit of the elite in another country. But objections to colonialism from the perspective of democracy, i.e. that people should be governed by their own people isn't that important unless it engenders greater oppression.

[Sebrof]

Oh no, I quite agree. I think you are quite right in commenting on the fact that the colonies were governed by people with better experience and were more stable.

But in a lot of these colonies and possessions there was the nationalist cause that wanted the British presence out of their land no matter what.

 

In many cases, there wasn't really a nationalist cause because there was no indigenous concept of nationhood. Much of the agitation for independence came from a small educated elite which saw opportunities for itself.

 

How though do you wait for a middle class to develop when the economy largely controlled and operated by foreigners and when the country's economic structure is not one that creates an environment conducive to the development of entrepreneurialism?

 

The answer to that depends enormously on which colonies you are discussing. In India there was already a huge and embedded middle-class (and aristocracy). In much of Africa, which was still in the Iron Age until about 1900, the picture was very different. In the Caribbean there was a white and mulatto middle class, which was much depleted after independence when new rulers enouraged those with lighter skins to leave. Sometimes with good reason. But generally, there was a great effort to educate, and little evidence of an effort to stifle entrepreneurialsim.

 

What I was saying is that people object to colonialism for very good reason - it is economic exploitation of a land and its people for the benefit of the elite in another country. But objections to colonialism from the perspective of democracy, i.e. that people should be governed by their own people isn't that important unless it engenders greater oppression.

 

It is difficult to know how, in the context of the times, "backward" countries might have more effectively been brought into the modern world without colonialism. As so often, there was a trade-off. The host country, and settlers, derived a benefit in exchange for providing education, healthcare, the rule of law, and infrastructure (roads, harbours, power and light, etc.). Some "empires" did this better than others. There are no Belgian, German or Italian versions of the Commonwealth.

 

Almost as certain as death and taxes is the fact that nations will exploit each other given half a chance. All is fair in love, war, and international affairs.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In many cases, there wasn't really a nationalist cause because there was no indigenous concept of nationhood. Much of the agitation for independence came from a small educated elite which saw opportunities for itself.

 

Well nationalism was a european concept, was it not? I know what you mean though. But though in many cases these small elites drove a nationalist agency in many places they had an appreciable base of support.

 

The answer to that depends enormously on which colonies you are discussing. In India there was already a huge and embedded middle-class (and aristocracy). In much of Africa, which was still in the Iron Age until about 1900, the picture was very different. In the Caribbean there was a white and mulatto middle class, which was much depleted after independence when new rulers enouraged those with lighter skins to leave. Sometimes with good reason. But generally, there was a great effort to educate, and little evidence of an effort to stifle entrepreneurialsim.

 

I think I was thinking of Africa after you mentioned Zimbabwe, but yes you are right. I didn't say the entrepreneuralism was stifled.

 

It is difficult to know how, in the context of the times, "backward" countries might have more effectively been brought into the modern world without colonialism. As so often, there was a trade-off. The host country, and settlers, derived a benefit in exchange for providing education, healthcare, the rule of law, and infrastructure (roads, harbours, power and light, etc.). Some "empires" did this better than others. There are no Belgian, German or Italian versions of the Commonwealth.

 

A trade-off? That almost sounds as if there was agreement between ruler and ruled and they came to sort some of compromise. It was not a particularly symbiotic relationship, Britain was the parasite exploiting the people and the resources of those areas. The infrastructure was largely developed to more easily facilitate access to resources (including access to labour).

 

There are no German ones because places like Tanganyika, Tsingtao, Togo, etc were removed from German control in WW1. The same was true for the Italians after WW2. Belgium ruled its colonies very differently than Britain, I think you're right on this one.

 

 

Almost as certain as death and taxes is the fact that nations will exploit each other given half a chance. All is fair in love, war, and international affairs.

 

The elites of nations will exploit anything if it does them well. But it isn't fair at all.

[Chinahand]

Well nationalism was a european concept, was it not?

Really. are you really saying that Chinese, Japanese and Thai nationalism, etc didn't exist until the Europeans turned up.

 

You really do have a very odd political attitude LDV - you have the mind set of a 19th century anarchist, obsessed with the European ruling elite.

 

The world is far more complicated than that.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well nationalism was a european concept, was it not?

Really. are you really saying that Chinese, Japanese and Thai nationalism, etc didn't exist until the Europeans turned up.

 

You really do have a very odd political attitude LDV - you have the mind set of a 19th century anarchist, obsessed with the European ruling elite.

 

The world is far more complicated than that.

 

I am saying that nationalism was originally a European concept. Would you really classify the Chinese, Japanese, and Thai identification of themselves, prior to say the 20th century, as nationalism?

 

Obsessed with the elite? Not really, but it is relevant to discuss them to understand who exploited who/what. It isn't technically one nation exploiting another, for example.

Why do you say the mindset of a 19th century anarchist?

[Sebrof]

A trade-off? That almost sounds as if there was agreement between ruler and ruled and they came to sort some of compromise. It was not a particularly symbiotic relationship, Britain was the parasite exploiting the people and the resources of those areas. The infrastructure was largely developed to more easily facilitate access to resources (including access to labour).

 

Britain originally made a lot of money out of its colonies. But as the 19th Century wore on, there was increasingly a feeling that Britain's role was to bring civilisation to a troubled world.

 

The Colonial Service was staffed by classical scholars of the highest calibre who saw Britain as the natural successor to Rome, and whose Pax Britannica was a gift to the world. Read up on MacCaulay, who invented the modern civil service, and sent the best people to the ICS. He also wrote some splendid poetry. But those seeking salacity in the "Lays of Ancient Rome" will be disappointed.

 

Many colonies made very little money, because so much emphasis was placed on development. A place like Kenya, for instance, was totally transformed over the 60-odd years that it was a colony. The cost of building the Uganda railway, which chiefly benefitted Kenya, was enormous. I doubt that Kenya was profitable, except perhaps by providing something of a captive market for British products.

 

S