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

May 2018
443
Michigan
#31
The Idea that soem cultures/peoples are superior and they should gooven others (for their own good) It's paternalist racism to it's core.
No, it isn't. The idea that some cultures are superior to others, and they have a duty to govern those cultures is not inherently racist. It only becomes racist if race is a "factor of significance" in determining the relative superiority of cultures.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#32
That is the basis of colonialism. Colonies were founded for the benefit of the colonizing power. Plundering the colonies of their resources isn't some unforeseen mistaken side effect of colonialism.

It;s the very reason colonies were estbalished.
Yep, that's probably correct, and that's an argument against creating colonies (unless they're successful settler colonies, that is) in the first place.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#33
No, it isn't. The idea that some cultures are superior to others, and they have a duty to govern those cultures is not inherently racist. It only becomes racist if race is a "factor of significance" in determining the relative superiority of cultures.
So, if China thinks it can run the US better than Americans can, it is fair game for China to try sponsoring regime change in the US?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
#34
No, it isn't. The idea that some cultures are superior to others, and they have a duty to govern those cultures is not inherently racist. It only becomes racist if race is a "factor of significance" in determining the relative superiority of cultures.
Oh poor White Man's burden.

Have you seen anything in the history of Human's to suggest one culture ruling another is done for the subject culture's benefit?

Throughout Human history any privelegded group rules for itself, power corrupts.

who gets to determine which culture is superior and should rule others ? How can this be down peacefully?

people are sugguesting this stuff solely withthe intenetion that it should apply to others.

It;s just unrealistic and massive naive to think this is anyway to organize people.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
#35
Well, that's the thing--I disagree with the argument that having a superior culture or a higher average IQ justifies colonialism. For instance, I don't think that it would be legitimate for the Chinese to colonize America even if they do have a higher average IQ than the US has and think that they have a superior culture in comparison to Americans.
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.
 
Likes: bodhi
Aug 2018
341
london
#37
I can't believe people compare actual colonialism with what China is doing now in Africa. African countries agreed to do business with China, that's their choice.
Those countries were created by colonialism. When the Chinese go to Africa they don't find illiterate early-Iron and Stone Age tribes living in impenetrable jungles performing human sacrifices and attacking them with spears whenever they go. They find modern nation states with literate populations, modern government and state structures, technology and infrastructure, and countries where it's possible to operate without being randomly attacked by hordes of spear-chucking warriors. None of that existed when the europeans arrived.
 
Last edited:
May 2018
443
Michigan
#39
Those countries were created by colonialism. When the Chinese go to Africa they don't find illiterate early-Iron and Stone Age tribes living in impenetrable jungles performing human sacrifices and attacking them with spears whenever they go. They find modern nation states with literate populations, modern government and state structures, technology and infrastructure, and countries where it's possible to operate without being randomly attacked by hordes of spear-chucking warriors. None of that existed when the europeans arrived.
Exactly. The only reason they aren't "chucking spears" (to use a bad colloquialism) is because of colonialism.

Given that all (without exception) un-contacted peoples are still technologically, scientifically, politcally etc... in, at best, the early iron age?, it isn't too unreasonable to assume that most of the areas that were still in the stone age in 1850 would still be there if outside influences hadn't advanced their culture in, at the very least, the three categories previously listed.
 
Feb 2011
6,053
#40
Those "spear chucking" "stone age" Neanderthals were so backwards that their navy defeated the Portuguese in the battle of Benadir. Learn to understand other people before you judge other people. If all you see in Africa are a bunch of "stone age" or "early iron age" primitives, then you haven't bothered to learn about them.


Before you say that's the exception to the rule, here are the Timbuktu manuscripts from the other side of Africa:







If you don't know about these things from Africa, then you don't know enough to judge their "Stone Age" culture. And let us say you have a superior culture. And let us say that means it's your duty to spread this culture. Cutting people's hands off for failing to meet the daily rubber quota, is NOT how you go about it. Treating them as sub-humans, not even bothering to understand their culture, only expecting them to understand your culture, is NOT how you go about it. If you want them to adopt your culture, you must first have them respect your culture. And they have no reason to respect your culture if you never bothered to respect theirs. If it was just about spreading culture, then we wouldn't be calling it colonialism.
 
Last edited: