Saturday, May 21, 2005
Taking down the neo-colonialists
Some of you may have heard of this truly amazing post by Roger Kimball in which he sings the praises of the British empire. The post included lines such as these:
The right-wing Powerline blog thinks Kimball is a bona fide genius.
I was wondering whether such idiocy spouted by the right-wing in America was worthy of a response. Manish Vij spares me the bother by doing an excellent takedown of Kimball at Sepia Mutiny.
This hapless duffer who calls himself an American patriot is arguing against American independence, which happened precisely because the crown raped its colonies and kept its boot upon the throat of political freedom. And in crediting the Brits with everything, despite their focus on their own economic interests, he falls prey to the classic fallacy of correlation vs. causation. It’s the one made famous by animism and sports superstition: ‘I wore a cap one day, I won, therefore my cap caused the victory.’
For Kimball to give the Brits all credit requires projecting an artificial stasis in India for 200 years. If you flash-freeze hundreds of millions of people and put them into deep hibernation for two centuries, that they’ll end up relatively poor is a tautology. You have to project India along the political, developmental and educational trajectories of similar regions not under colonial rule. Otherwise you’re reduced to a bogus argument: that absent the British, India would never have built a railroad, regional highways, river ports or seaports. Even the smallest and poorest of nations have managed that, if for no other reason than the economic interests of their kleptocrats.
‘Had Britain had the courage to face down Washington, the tragedy that was the Civil War might have been avoided.’ Kimball doesn’t grasp even the basics of history: Britain intentionally divided colonies upon retreat to keep them warring and pliable, and Gandhi was the one against Partition. Divide and rule was the basis of British strategy both coming and going. So where does this argument come from? What modern-day situation could possibly motivate conservatives to argue against withdrawing rapidly from an invaded country? Thinking… thinking… wait, it’ll come to me…
I wonder when these neocolonialists will welcome a Chinese invasion of the U.S. mainland so they can bequeath to us their bullet trains, their high-tech factories and their shiny new cities. I wonder when neocolonialists will send their kids to elite schools in Beijing to learn Mandarin, the dominant language of the 21st century, and look down on English speakers as natives with sawdust for brains. I wonder when neocolonialists will say, ‘If tens of millions are killed under Chinese rule, so be it, it’s for the national good. Who knows how backward we’d be had the Chinese not developed us.’
Manish also points to blogs like ADC and Logical Meme which continue to defend the indefensible with lines like these:
A Sepia Mutiny reader very generously links to a photograph of Kimball, which begs the question -- what is it with moronic American conservatives and bow ties?
Had Britain had the courage to face down Gandhi and his rabble a few years longer, the tragedy that was the partititon of India might have been avoided.
Everywhere that Britain went--I cannot think of a single exception--it left better off.
The right-wing Powerline blog thinks Kimball is a bona fide genius.
It's great to see someone standing up for colonialism, especially British colonialism.
I was wondering whether such idiocy spouted by the right-wing in America was worthy of a response. Manish Vij spares me the bother by doing an excellent takedown of Kimball at Sepia Mutiny.
This hapless duffer who calls himself an American patriot is arguing against American independence, which happened precisely because the crown raped its colonies and kept its boot upon the throat of political freedom. And in crediting the Brits with everything, despite their focus on their own economic interests, he falls prey to the classic fallacy of correlation vs. causation. It’s the one made famous by animism and sports superstition: ‘I wore a cap one day, I won, therefore my cap caused the victory.’
For Kimball to give the Brits all credit requires projecting an artificial stasis in India for 200 years. If you flash-freeze hundreds of millions of people and put them into deep hibernation for two centuries, that they’ll end up relatively poor is a tautology. You have to project India along the political, developmental and educational trajectories of similar regions not under colonial rule. Otherwise you’re reduced to a bogus argument: that absent the British, India would never have built a railroad, regional highways, river ports or seaports. Even the smallest and poorest of nations have managed that, if for no other reason than the economic interests of their kleptocrats.
‘Had Britain had the courage to face down Washington, the tragedy that was the Civil War might have been avoided.’ Kimball doesn’t grasp even the basics of history: Britain intentionally divided colonies upon retreat to keep them warring and pliable, and Gandhi was the one against Partition. Divide and rule was the basis of British strategy both coming and going. So where does this argument come from? What modern-day situation could possibly motivate conservatives to argue against withdrawing rapidly from an invaded country? Thinking… thinking… wait, it’ll come to me…
I wonder when these neocolonialists will welcome a Chinese invasion of the U.S. mainland so they can bequeath to us their bullet trains, their high-tech factories and their shiny new cities. I wonder when neocolonialists will send their kids to elite schools in Beijing to learn Mandarin, the dominant language of the 21st century, and look down on English speakers as natives with sawdust for brains. I wonder when neocolonialists will say, ‘If tens of millions are killed under Chinese rule, so be it, it’s for the national good. Who knows how backward we’d be had the Chinese not developed us.’
Manish also points to blogs like ADC and Logical Meme which continue to defend the indefensible with lines like these:
The pseuds at Crooked Timber are aghast Roger Kimball dared to blaspheme Gandhi, the diaper wearing, urine drinking idol of the modern Left. A fool and windbag, Gandhi is arguably the most overrated figure of the 20th century, and the 20th century is a century filled with overrated figures.
The great untold story (at least today, anyways) of British colonialism in the third world: the introduction of running water, basic medicine, reductions in infant mortality, education/literacy, infrastructure (railroads), etc.
A Sepia Mutiny reader very generously links to a photograph of Kimball, which begs the question -- what is it with moronic American conservatives and bow ties?
