Is Italy the Latest Failed Euro State?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Well that's a very good point, but when you think about it, they left Pakistan a shithole, they left Bangladesh in a similar state, and, worst of all, they left Pakistan in charge of Bangladesh. I'm not sure you can put any of that in the "pro" column for the Brits from the "trail of prosperity" perspective. Not trying to play the "blame-game" here, just trying to end the praise-game.

---

The Brits tried to create one country that incorporated India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. You can't blame them for not following through with that promise in the face of overwhelming resistance from the locals. Furthermore, Britain exercised indirect rule in most of India until the last few decades, which meant that it wasn't in a position to provide much development. However, it was hardly responsible for the local rulers not providing that development.

The idea that any colonial concern left a trail of anything except misery and exploitation flies in the face of any kind of objective reading of history. The British Empire did some good in places like India, but I think it's considerably outweighed by the harm it did. It was, in Orwell's words, "very largely a racket"

Of course, whether the Maratha's or the Mogul Empire would have left it in a better or worse state is completely unknowable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

The idea that any colonial concern left a trail of anything except misery and exploitation flies in the face of any kind of objective reading of history. The British Empire did some good in places like India, but I think it's considerably outweighed by the harm it did. It was, in Orwell's words, "very largely a racket"

Of course, whether the Maratha's or the Mogul Empire would have left it in a better or worse state is completely unknowable.

---

Only for those who don't know any history. Exploitation and progress aren't mutually exclusive. You're comparing British advances in Britain to British advances in the third world. You should be comparing the latter to the local advances in the third world. Britain might have exploited and it might have engaged in some nasty practices, but it was still generally better than the local elites. India as a country would not exist today if not for Britain. Instead, most of India would still probably be ruled by corrupt rajas who'd be incredibly cruel and corrupt and would wage non-stop warfare against one another (i.e. the history of India).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Only for those who don't know any history. Exploitation and progress aren't mutually exclusive. You're comparing British advances in Britain to British advances in the third world. You should be comparing the latter to the local advances in the third world.

---

No, I'm not, I'm just fighting against the idea that all the British Empire did was go around training civil servants and building railroads. In actuality, it was also a pretty ruthless system of exploitation designed to fleece the natives of their natural resources and was pretty brutal about keeping itself in place. Training the odd civil servant doesn't wash that away.

Quote:

---

Britain might have exploited and it might have engaged in some nasty practices, but it was still generally better than the local elites.

---

Well, I was just making a similar point to Nessie: that if it hadn't been the British it would have been someone else. I think saying they were generally better than local (or other foreign) elites is a bit broad to be meaningful, it would depend on the place and the time.

Quote:

---

India as a country would not exist today if not for Britain. Instead, most of India would still probably be ruled by corrupt rajas who'd be incredibly cruel and corrupt and would wage non-stop warfare against one another (i.e. the history of India).

---

The idea that India would just be exactly the same if it hadn't been for the British is pretty suspect.

Nobody is claiming that the British Empire did nothing but good, just rejected the claim it did nothing but bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Well, themselves I suppose :o EDIT: Possible temporary exception of Portugal

I have to admit I don't really understand the point to this particular discussion (specifically to the remarks that sparked it). Is assessing the "goodness" of colonialism particularly meaningful? In what ways, apart from national pride? As an layman I have no idea what eg. India or the ME would have looked like today if the British Empire had never been, and my personal opinion is that anyone who claims to know for sure should be viewed with some skepticism even if his analysis is both convincing and entertaining.

---

This is what it's about, Colonialism wasn't for the betterment of the nations ruled, it was for the benefit of the colonizing nations. IF good things came from colonialism you'd have to call them coincidental side effects of the exploitation of different nations.

To be proud of colonialism is as foolish as to be proud of great houses and palaces. I for my part value the fact that Holland has very very few of those. At least we didn't let a tiny elite build their big estates over the backs of working people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Nobody is claiming that the British Empire did nothing but good, just rejected the claim it did nothing but bad.

---

I don't think anyone's claiming it did nothing but bad, either, Randblade, it's just a question of emphasis. And if you emphasize stuff like outlawing sati or putting an end to the transatlantic slave trade over the systematic subjugation of a continent or the virtual extermination of the aboriginal Tasmanians then you're not giving an accurate picture of what actually happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

No, I'm not, I'm just fighting against the idea that all the British Empire did was go around training civil servants and building railroads. In actuality, it was also a pretty ruthless system of exploitation designed to fleece the natives of their natural resources and was pretty brutal about keeping itself in place. Training the odd civil servant doesn't wash that away.

---

Then you're attacking a strawman; no one here is claiming Britain only did good. The point made by everyone here was that the Empire was responsible for plenty of positive, long-lasting changes, even if we accept all the negatives. You're also grossly underestimating the importance of training the odd civil servant and building roads (and allowing local elites to get an education in either missionary schools or in Britain). These are the factors that allowed the newly independent states to function.

Quote:

---

Well, I was just making a similar point to Nessie: that if it hadn't been the British it would have been someone else. I think saying they were generally better than local (or other foreign) elites is a bit broad to be meaningful, it would depend on the place and the time.

---

You can't say Britain is better or worse unless there's a baseline category to compare it to. It's fairly obvious that Britain did a better job than the local rulers in most of its colonies. There's also fairly convincing evidence (i.e. once we control for factors typically associated with wealth and civil stability, being a former British colony still increases a country's GDP and decreases its odds of having a civil war) that Britain did a better job than did the French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, and the Dutch.

Quote:

---

The idea that India would just be exactly the same if it hadn't been for the British is pretty suspect.

---

What would change? Without Britain creating one Indian administration and the nationalist backlash to British rule, it's incredibly unlikely that the petty-Indian states would ever merge (why would the local rulers give up power?). It's conceivably that some of those rulers would be benevolent, and perhaps those Indian states might be somewhat developed by now, but it's far too much to hope for most of them (if we compare them to similar states that have existed in Asia and Africa during the same time period). Given centuries of enmity, it's also unlikely that these local rulers would suddenly make nice and stop fighting; after all, the reason Britain was able to conquer India is due to all these local rivalries. Lastly, it's highly unlikely that most of these states would be democratic. India was already one of two poor countries in the world to remain a democracy throughout its history, with virtually every possible factor going against it remaining a democracy. If you take away the nationalism, the common elite language and education, and a basic level of administrative capacity, I doubt the Indian states would be any more democratic than their counterparts in sub-Saharan Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

This is what it's about, Colonialism wasn't for the betterment of the nations ruled, it was for the benefit of the colonizing nations. IF good things came from colonialism you'd have to call them coincidental side effects of the exploitation of different nations.

To be proud of colonialism is as foolish as to be proud of great houses and palaces. I for my part value the fact that Holland has very very few of those. At least we didn't let a tiny elite build their big estates over the backs of working people.

---

You just had a massive colony that had 8 times the population of the metropolis, a colony that you treated more brutally than the British treated theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

The question was (cunningly) phrased as 'english-speaking'. I replied by simply taking the list of failed states, and check if they had been under British rule. About half of all failed states were. I didn't bother to go down to the states being on the verge of being declared a failed state.

---

Considering how much of the world the British empire covered at its height, a list of 8 failed states is really underwhelming... even more so when you consider that "failed state"/brutal dictator X with a hardon for atrocity Y is basically the default condition anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hi Draco,

I'm from Bangladesh and I'm not sure if we live in the same world because the Brits certainly didn't leave a particularly noticeable "trail of prosperity" on the Indian subcontinent. I don't deny that the Brits have done a great deal of good for the world, but let' not lose sight of reality eh.

---

Hi Aimless :p

I'm aware that not every single colony flourished, and like I already said, in such cases (as the Indian subcontinent), the British can't be held soley accountable as to why these regions never prospered. Fact remains that states as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, the US, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia were made possible by the British empire. Oh and I just wanted to clarify that when I said the modern world was made possible by the British, I meant to include the US as well ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Hi Aimless :p

I'm aware that not every single colony flourished, and like I already said, in such cases (as the Indian subcontinent), the British can't be held soley accountable as to why these regions never prospered. Fact remains that states as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, the US, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia were made possible by the British empire. Oh and I just wanted to clarify that when I said the modern world was made possible by the British, I meant to include the US as well ;)

---

Dear Draco,

We, the aboriginal people,


nah, just kidding.


But I do wonder how you square the treatment of those who already lived in those places with the rest of your philosophy/worldview.

Given his obsession with personal 'responsibility' and 'morals' and social Darwinism, I suspect that with a sufficient number of iterations we'd get into the argument that cultures unable to defend themselves from outsiders deserve to perish/be exploited by the stronger party. The demand for absolute self-rule demands inversely the absolute ability to defend it autonomically; expecting outside interference or help is both weakness and preying on the rights of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

But I do wonder how you square the treatment of those who already lived in those places with the rest of your philosophy/worldview.

---

I sure hope you're not implying/suggesting that I'd sanction any sort of mistreatment or taking away of life...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You just had a massive colony that had 8 times the population of the metropolis, a colony that you treated more brutally than the British treated theirs.

---

Do you hear me go around telling everybody what a wonderful thing we did by enabling Indonesia to exist as a continued prison of nations? Tempo doeloe is a vague memory where the raj still make many Brits swell with pride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Considering how much of the world the British empire covered at its height, a list of 8 failed states is really underwhelming... even more so when you consider that "failed state"/brutal dictator X with a hardon for atrocity Y is basically the default condition anyway.

---

The 8 states I mentioned were the ones termed failed state; it is not a definition that includes mere dictatorship. The list would have been significantly longer in that case.

Colonialism brought very little good to this world and the good it did bring was unintentional. FYI, I am also against Development Aid, just in case you are going to accuse me of bleeding heart liberalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Colonialism brought very little good to this world and the good it did bring was unintentional.

---

That's categorically untrue. Much was done deliberately with (an often misguided) sense of it being the right and civilised thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

I sure hope you're not implying/suggesting that I'd sanction any sort of mistreatment or taking away of life...

---

I don't think you would, which is precisely why I'm surprised by your statements in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's categorically untrue. Much was done deliberately with (an often misguided) sense of it being the right and civilised thing to do.

---

Being the right thing only if you consider yourself the owner of another nation's land. British (and all colonial rule) was just an instrument to perpetuate the subjugation of other nations. And that includes the 'White Man's burden' claptrap that followed up on the worst exploitation. It is for a reason Indians prefer their own inadequate rule over the well run Raj.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Being the right thing only if you consider yourself the owner of another nation's land. British (and all colonial rule) was just an instrument to perpetuate the subjugation of other nations. And that includes the 'White Man's burden' claptrap that followed up on the worst exploitation. It is for a reason Indians prefer their own inadequate rule over the well run Raj.

---

It's called nationalism, and it's hardly only applicable to former British colonies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Well, themselves I suppose :o EDIT: Possible temporary exception of Portugal

I have to admit I don't really understand the point to this particular discussion (specifically to the remarks that sparked it). Is assessing the "goodness" of colonialism particularly meaningful? In what ways, apart from national pride? As an layman I have no idea what eg. India or the ME would have looked like today if the British Empire had never been, and my personal opinion is that anyone who claims to know for sure should be viewed with some skepticism even if his analysis is both convincing and entertaining.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It's called nationalism, and it's hardly only applicable to former British colonies.

---

No, it is called self-determination. The freedom to choose one's own destiny rather than live under the tutelage of a foreign power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

No, it is called self-determination. The freedom to choose one's own destiny rather than live under the tutelage of a foreign power.

---

Which is what Loki said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

No, it is called self-determination. The freedom to choose one's own destiny rather than live under the tutelage of a foreign power.

---

Self-determination is the belief that each nation should be able to rule itself. It's equivalent to support for nationalism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Self-determination is the belief that each nation should be able to rule itself. It's equivalent to support for nationalism...

---

If you're going to play that game; which nation? The 'Indian' nation that didn't exist prior to 1948? FYI, the 'nationalism' of the INC was inclusive of Pakistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Then you're attacking a strawman; no one here is claiming Britain only did good. The point made by everyone here was that the Empire was responsible for plenty of positive, long-lasting changes, even if we accept all the negatives.

---

As I said to Randblade, it's a matter of emphasis.

Quote:

---

You're also grossly underestimating the importance of training the odd civil servant and building roads (and allowing local elites to get an education in either missionary schools or in Britain). These are the factors that allowed the newly independent states to function.

---

For someone value of function, Loki. Can we name a former British colony, or anyone's former colony, which doesn't primarily consist of imported European settlers and which is actually a semi-functional modern state? India is the only one that comes close and it of course has massive problems with poverty and corruption.

Quote:

---

You can't say Britain is better or worse unless there's a baseline category to compare it to. It's fairly obvious that Britain did a better job than the local rulers in most of its colonies.

---

Why is it obvious?

Quote:

---

There's also fairly convincing evidence (i.e. once we control for factors typically associated with wealth and civil stability, being a former British colony still increases a country's GDP and decreases its odds of having a civil war) that Britain did a better job than did the French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, and the Dutch.

---

I should like to see that evidence, if it's available public domain.

Quote:

---

What would change?

---

What changed in Britain to turn it from a slightly backwards and irrelevant island on the periphery of Europe into a global superpower?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

The 'Indian' nation that didn't exist prior to 1948?

---

Yes, that's why they call it 'nationalism'.

Those of you who're in the know, how come the Brits didn't do a better job of civilising India? Like, did the British empire benefit in some way from having Indian society be more dysfunctional than British society? The vague impressions I have lead me to believe that India really wasn't too great at the time it became independent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

If you're going to play that game; which nation? The 'Indian' nation that didn't exist prior to 1948? FYI, the 'nationalism' of the INC was inclusive of Pakistan.

---

Eh? The Indian state didn't exist before 1948. Indian nationalism (the belief that all ethnic Indians share a common heritage and should control a specific piece of territory) was alive since at least Gandhi (perhaps from the Sepoy rebellion).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Those of you who're in the know, how come the Brits didn't do a better job of civilising India? Like, did the British empire benefit in some way from having Indian society be more dysfunctional than British society? The vague impressions I have lead me to believe that India really wasn't too great at the time it became independent.

---

Because civilizing the masses is difficult and expensive. It wasn't worth their effort. In which country did the imperialists civilize the masses? I can't think of any. The only advanced colonial countries are ones that had a majority population from the imperialist state's own people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Eh? The Indian state didn't exist before 1948. Indian nationalism (the belief that all ethnic Indians share a common heritage and should control a specific piece of territory) was alive since at least Gandhi.



Because civilizing the masses is difficult and expensive. It wasn't worth their effort. In which country did the imperialists civilize the masses? I can't think of any. The only advanced colonial countries are ones that had a majority population from the imperialist state's own people.

---

Indian nationalism pertaining to India didn't exist prior to the partition. Ghandi was of the opinion that Pakistan should be part of the new state India.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Those of you who're in the know, how come the Brits didn't do a better job of civilising India? Like, did the British empire benefit in some way from having Indian society be more dysfunctional than British society? The vague impressions I have lead me to believe that India really wasn't too great at the time it became independent.

---

It really wasn't for the masses, it's just that they had the decency to die away from the eyes of nice society so they could believe they were doing a jolly fine job running the country. Nowadays poor are so gauche, it's unbearable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

For someone value of function, Loki. Can we name a former British colony, or anyone's former colony, which doesn't primarily consist of imported European settlers and which is actually a semi-functional modern state? India is the only one that comes close and it of course has massive problems with poverty and corruption.

---

Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Bahamas, Seychelles, Barbados, Antigua, Trinidad, St. Kitts, Botswana, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Uruguay, Mauritius, Dominica, Grenada, Panama, St. Lucia, Venezuela, St. Vincent, Brazil, and Cost Rica. These are all countries with a GDP per capita of above the global average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita), aren't ruled by particularly bad dictators, and don't rely upon oil for most of their income.

Quote:

---

Why is it obvious?

---

Because the African and Asian areas that were colonized late were no better off than the ones that were colonized early. Ethiopia, which was the only state from Africa to not get colonized for a substantial period of time, didn't exactly do well either.

Quote:

---

I should like to see that evidence, if it's available public domain.

---

"Modernization, the Arab population share, and the sex ratio are fairly robust correlates with democracy. Ethno-linguistic fractionalization, the average neighborhood polity score, the average world polity score, British colonial history, the share of taxes in state revenues, and the Muslim population share are significant in some specifications." (p.20)

Table 11 is in page 22. All of the above variables have a significant effect on democracy; the effects of Muslim population, Arab population, and ethno-linguistic fractionalization are negative. The rest are positive.

http://www.relooney.info/00_New_3140.pdf

Quote:

---

What changed in Britain to turn it from a slightly backwards and irrelevant island on the periphery of Europe into a global superpower?

---

Emphasis on trade and a large navy, and taking advantage of the first wave of industrialization. Being an island-state and therefore rarely being directly threatened and avoiding the need to have a large standing army didn't hurt either.

Mexico has its own problems, but that's more about modern cum current US policy than anything else.

Yeah, the main reason the cartels so thoroughly infiltrated Mexican society and have no qualms about killing their own people in massive numbers is US policy. :bored: