Robert Farley brings attention to a racist defense of colonial that appeared at Powerline, a popular conservative blog:
It's great to see someone standing up for colonialism, especially British colonialism. I agree wholeheartedly with this observation, for example: "Had Britain had the courage to face down Gandhi and his rabble a few years longer, the tragedy that was the partititon [sic] of India might have been avoided."
That's what John Hinderaker (commonly called "Hindrocket" or "Assrocket" by all the people who are forced to correct his many errors) wrote in response to a piece published by Roger Kimball at New Criterion:
As for colonialism, this third-world feminist of color should get down on her knees and thank Siva that her country was the beneficiary of British colonialism. Without it, she would never have heard of feminism or even of the third world, since the very concept depends upon the freedom, education, and language that the West brought to savages countries in the 18th and 19th centuries. ... If the British sinned, it was not because of their colonial rule, but because of the failure of nerve that led them to withdraw too precipitously from colonies that were ill-equipped to govern themselves--colonies in Africa, for example, and India itself.
Farley comments:
Arguing that a British imperial project that was built around a divide-and-rule strategy and that relied upon inflaming Muslim-Hindu tensions in order to retain power could actually have defused those tensions in a few short years is a)asinine, and b)moronic. Like many supporters of the imperial project, British or no, Assrocket would like to laud the imperialists for everything good that happened (the relative stability of the world's largest democracy, for example), while blaming leftists and anti-colonials for everything bad that happened (the horrors of partition). These supporters never consider the fact that the imperial project typically left its victims with minimal institutions of governance when evaluating post-colonial failure. They also conveniently forget the violence and brutality of the imperial project (not just in Congo, Assrocket, but in Kenya, India, and other British possessions).
Powerline, just to bring some perspective to all of this, is the blog that accused Jimmy Carter of being a traitor, that insisted the Terri Schiavo memo was a forgery, and objected to mentioning the sexual orientation of openly gay activists. Hinderaker himself denies the truth of evolution on "scientific grounds." This is what Time magazine considers "high quality" writing, given the fact that they named Powerline the "blog of the year."
Hinderaker doesn't know any more about British colonialism (in India or elsewhere) than he does about evolution. It's absolutely true that colonial powers added some value to their colonies — for example, in places like infrastructure. They failed in more significant areas, however — areas that would have allowed for post-colonial societies to succeed. These areas include education and local banking, for example.
A comment on Farley's post says:
By the same (il)logic.... "Had Britain had the courage to face down George Washington and his rabble a few years longer, the tragedy that was the U.S. Civil War might have been avoided."
I'm sure that Hinderaker is too busying smearing former presidents and increasing his ignorance of science to do extensive research on British colonialism, but I'm sure he has enough time to read The Lion and the Tiger: The Rise and Fall of the British Raj 1600-1947. It's a relatively short book, but quite detailed and informative.
Here's a pertinent quote that helps show just how wrong Hinderaker and Kimball are:
"It was often far more effective to negotiate deals with the Mughals or with local potentates than to rush in with guns blazing and swords flashing. Statecraft, and the patient playing-off of one group against another, was often an excellent and economical way forward. So was the encouragement of collaboration between a variety of Indian elites and groups with the English authorities. Indeed, it is arguable that, even at its hight of its power, the Raj relied upon the collaboration of the ruled with the rulers just as much as upon military strength."
The British ruled successfully in part because they played one group against another — for centuries. This exacerbated the religious and ethnic tensions that already existed in India and that, in turn, was what led to partition. Gandhi opposed partition, but he didn't have a lot of choice but to go along with it in the end.
There were positive and negative aspects to British colonial rule in India. The relationship between the British and the people of India was complicated — too complicated to say definitively that the Raj was all bad or all good. That, however, does not excuse the simplistic nonsense spouted by Hinderaker and Kimball.
Read More:
first of all, why would it have been necessary for the colonial governments to ‘provide’ banking and ‘education’. It certainly hasn’t done a lot of good in the West when the government has ‘provided’ these ‘services’, and at the same time most countries in the West and the East provided these long before there was any kind of centralized government. Perhaps the failing is not with the colonial powers (who I am not defending, in particular, I think colonialism is a waste of money) but instead with the intellectual, cultural and social organization of the previously occupied cultures. Most of these countries basically fell apart when the white colonists left. Not because of some mysterious exegesis of ‘banking’ or ‘education’ which had never been present before the colonization anyway, rather it was because the local regimes and local populace were ignorant, criminal and infected with western ideas like welfarism, nationalism and socialism. It’s no wonder they turned into cesspools of civil war and slavery; and with the exception of China and a handful of other east-asian countries, they remain so to this day.
Those who blame the West for the failure of their former colonies are simply presenting the myth of the ‘white man’s burden’ all over again; the simple fact is that these countries suck for reasons largely their own fault.
They failed in more significant areas, however — areas that would have allowed for post-colonial societies to succeed. These areas include education and local banking, for example
Lol is this meant to be funny? What kind of education and banking system would Sudan have without brits – what was their currency again?
You can only be anti-colonial if you dont care about the wellfare of people – thanks for Mugaby poopyhead.