Has anyone taken a look at Bruce Gilley's pro-colonialism article?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#92
The thing is "superior culture" and "higher IQ" are totally nebulous concepts. Who gets to decide these things, How is it measured. What checks and balances will resist. It's totally unworkable thought bubble garbage from people who are just looking for an intellectual excuse for racism and fascism. These are the arguments trotted out but Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

It's just like the absentee propetry laws or Jim crow laws they are only expected to used against the target group.
IQ actually can be measured pretty well to my knowledge--though it would certainly be nice to get much more thorough IQ data for various countries. You are correct that culture is subjective, though.

Also, if one is actually going to use IQ to justify colonialism, one might as well also support stripping low-IQ people of their right to vote. Obviously I don't support either this or colonialism.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#93
Also, I've got a question for everyone here--can we say that colonialism is more likely to be good when the natives are treated as political and legal equals? For instance, within two decades after it acquired each of these territories, the U.S. gave citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In turn, this allowed their people to move to the U.S. and to vote in U.S. elections after they moved here. Also, these territories could apply for U.S. statehood but so far there appears to be insufficient desire there for such a move.

Are the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands really worse off as a result of U.S. colonialism? Or does colonialism actually work in these specific cases?
 
Feb 2011
6,037
#94
If they treated them as equals then it would just be same ol' same ol' conquest and annexation.

IQ don't measure actual intelligence. It measures how well you do taking tests.

Why on earth did he do that?
They didn't want food to fall into the hands of the Japanese in case they invaded, and hence they took away Bengal surplus food and gave it to the British army in India. And because they wanted India to be a contributor to the war, rather than a receiver of aid. However, to be fair once it became obvious that the Japanese were going to lose, Churchill did privately ask Roosevelt to donate ships for transporting wheat aid from Australia to India in April of 1944: https://history.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2016/06/Reiman-Julien-Thesis.pdf

This is better than making Indians suffer for the sake of making them suffer. But it's still racism. This was not the policy Churchill adopted for the British mainland. He did not make his fellow white British citizens starve because he was afraid the food will fall into the hands of the Germans. Indians may not have been white, but they were still a part of the British Empire and Churchill should have treated them the same as white British citizens.
 
Last edited:
Likes: bodhi

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#95
If they treated them as equals then it would just be same ol' same ol' conquest and annexation.
Can't there be some overlap between this and colonialism, though?

IQ don't measure actual intelligence. It measures how well you do taking tests.
Chapter 3 in Stuart Ritchie's book appears to come to a different conclusion in regards to this:


Intelligence: All That Matters

Please feel free to take a look at this book and see what you can find.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#96
Also, to elaborate on my first point above, I'll use the example of Algeria. France officially annexed northern Algeria, but made it extremely difficult for Algerian Muslims to acquire French citizenship and also in large part treated Algeria as a colony. For instance, a small elite (the pieds-noirs) made the major decisions in regards to Algeria and were primarily motivated at helping themselves rather than helping the Algerian Muslim population.
 
Feb 2011
6,037
#97
Can't there be some overlap between this and colonialism, though?
Of course. Colonialism is a type of conquest, but not all conquest is colonialism.

Chapter 3 in Stuart Ritchie's book appears to come to a different conclusion in regards to this:


Intelligence: All That Matters

Please feel free to take a look at this book and see what you can find.
Reading the preface of the book it seems the main argument is that IQ test have a positive correlation with how well you do in life. I can believe that, just like how people who score higher in tests tend to do better in life. But that doesn't mean they are smarter. I know for sure that the job I have now, somebody somewhere in a God-forsaken village would be able to do it many times better than me if he only had the same advantages I had growing up. But he or she did not, so I'm here and he's buried in the middle of nowhere. The same probably goes for most everybody else too. It's not enough to be a genius, you also need resources like an education. If you were born with the brain of a math whiz, but you were never taught anything beyond how to count, then you can't compete with an average university student majoring in Mathematics.
 
Last edited:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#98
Of course. Colonialism is a type of conquest, but not all conquest is colonialism.
OK.

Reading the preface of the book it seems the main argument is that IQ test have a positive correlation with how well you do in life. I can believe that, just like how people who score higher in tests tend to do better in life. But that doesn't mean they are smarter. I know for sure that the job I have now, somebody somewhere in a God-forsaken village would be able to do it many times better than me if he only had the same advantages I had growing up. But he or she did not, so I'm here and he's buried in the middle of nowhere. The same probably goes for most everybody else too. It's not enough to be a genius, you also need resources like an education. If you were born with the brain of a math whiz, but you were never taught anything beyond how to count, then you can't compete with an average university student majoring in Mathematics.
I get your point, but I also strongly doubt that all people have the same ability in regards to this (or in regards to other things, such as sports) even if they are given equal resources. For instance, I know that I won't be able to do what Einstein was able to do even if I lived during the same time that he did and had the same resources that he had.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
I don't deny that. What I'm saying is that IQ testing is positively correlated with your educational background. I'm not saying that everybody is born with the same intelligence, in fact I was saying the exact opposite in my last post.
OK. Also, though, I would like to point out that the causation here could go in the other direction as well--as in, people who were smarter to begin with being more inclined to pursue a greater amount of education.