This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

British Imperialism is good

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

L i b

Cage

Colonialism is inherently intended to benefit the colonist above the colonised.

Colonialism does not equal imperialism. Nor does Imperialism inherently imply anything of the above.

Reply 21

Oswy

Libertin du Nord

Colonialism does not equal imperialism. Nor does Imperialism inherently imply anything of the above.

Imperialism does, however, generally involve colonialism.

Reply 22

Dionysus

Consie

So what? People are only pissed off becasue they got owned.

Right, so enslaving, murdering, pillaging and financially wrecking various countries was ok, was it?

Reply 23

Agent Smith

Libertin du Nord

Colonialism does not equal imperialism. Nor does Imperialism inherently imply anything of the above.

However, in the notoriously unreliable thesaurus of the public consciousness, nay Zeitgeist, the historical link between the two has been transmogrified (what a word) into synonymity.

EDIT: Dear God, I'm turning into Profesh.

Reply 24

Agent Smith

Libertin du Nord

And one might argue that having political states at all 'almost always' ends in warfare between them.

^+1

Is it possible to set up standing orders for reputation? :wink:

Reply 25

Bastiat

Cage

Right, so enslaving, murdering, pillaging and financially wrecking various countries was ok, was it?

Which countries?

Economically, every colonised nation in Africa was better off relative to the respective mother country than it is now, relative to the same country, with the exception of Botswana. In the mid to late fifties, British incomes were 7 times greater than those living in Zambia and Sierra Leone. Now they're 28 and 16 times greater, respectively. The same is true of almost every African ex-colony - as Niall Ferguson observes, "It has been since independence that the gap between the colonizer and the ex-colony has become a gulf."

Reply 26

L i b

Oswy

Imperialism does, however, generally involve colonialism.

On many occasions it does, but to suggest it must is ridiculous - particularly when it has been clarified that the strand which is being discussed does not.

Reply 27

L i b

Agent Smith

^+1

Is it possible to set up standing orders for reputation? :wink:

Nope, but I can PM you my Paypal details. :biggrin:

Reply 28

Consie

Right, so enslaving, murdering, pillaging and financially wrecking various countries was ok, was it?

Yeah, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Reply 29

Agent Smith

Libertin du Nord

Nope, but I can PM you my Paypal details. :biggrin:

D&D MINIMOD IN CORRUPTION SHOCKER
Most Users Say: We Knew That Already

Reply 30

Tory Dan

Oswy

Imperialism does, however, generally involve colonialism.

Have you read anything of what I said?

Reply 31

Oswy

thermoregulatio

In the mid to late fifties, British incomes were 7 times greater than those living in Zambia and Sierra Leone. Now they're 28 and 16 times greater, respectively. The same is true of almost every African ex-colony...

Even if these figures are correct (and I'm not convinced they are) there's an implicit speculation here that had Empire continued a certain income relationship would have also continued or improved - there's no way of knowing that, given all the factors which might influence such matters.

Reply 32

Consie

thats true, but theres a good chance they did.

Reply 33

Oswy

dan_man

Have you read anything of what I said?

Uh? I wasn't even responding to you there! Check your ego.

Reply 34

Bastiat

Oswy

Uh? I wasn't even responding to you there! Check your ego.

I think he was trying to explain that he means economic, not political imperialism - which the original post makes very clear, if you read it. Just seeing the word 'imperialism' and automatically equating it with slavery and the deliberate destruction of local institutions of rule isn't especially helpful, when the discussion revolves around one facet of a liberal economic empire.

Reply 35

Tory Dan

Oswy

Uh? I wasn't even responding to you there! Check your ego.

Friendly person, oh and who's the coward who neg repped me for the first post, if you wish to prove a point instead of going,

"You clearly never lived under the British rule of South Africa"

Well Mr or Mrs Invisible neg repping person, I very much doubt you lived in British rule in South Africa. If you do wish to bring something of higher intellectual calibre to this table of debate then please do, I would be honoured.

Reply 36

Consie

SA was dominion from like day 1, what's he on about?

Reply 37

Agent Smith

dan_man

Yeah... although I am on occasion guilty of employing it myself, I don't hold the "you weren't there, man" argument in particularly high regard.

Reply 38

Bastiat

Oswy

Even if these figures are correct (and I'm not convinced they are)

They are, generally. I don't know exactly where Niall Ferguson got his data from, but I came to the same conclusions using information from here and here (page 31).

All these figures are GDP per capita in 1996 US dollars.

In 1955, Zambian GDP/capita = 907. British GDP/capita = 8769.
In 2000, Zambian GDP/capita = 892. British GDP/capita = 24642.

So the difference between Zambian and British incomes grew from (8769/907) roughly 9 times in 1955 to (24642/892) roughly 28 times in 2000.

In 1961, Sierra Leonese(?) GDP/capita = 1070. British GDP/capita = 9790.
In 1996, Sierra Leonese GDP/capita = 921. British GDP/capita = 20066.

So the different between Sierra Leonese incomes grew from (9790/1070) roughly 9 times in 1961 to (20066/921) roughly 21 times in 1996.

The people of these countries were economically better off under imperialism than since their independence. The two figures above clearly show that, having adjusted for inflation, citizens of Zambia and Sierra Leone were not merely less relatively well off - they were poorer in real terms.

Oswy

There's an implicit speculation here that had Empire continued a certain income relationship would have also continued or improved - there's no way of knowing that, given all the factors which might influence such matters.

True. But given the above figures, I doubt that the British Empire would have screwed up the economy as badly as the post-independence leaders. The permanent economic stasis of most decolonised nations is due to their crappy protectionist policies and corrupt governance. The British empire was free trade (until the 1932 Ottowa conference, at least) and competent, streamlined administration.