I enjoyed the article but the idea that India's time in the British Empire was "relatively beneficial" is a massive whitewash of the colonial violence required to conquer and rule India.
You caught me - I have never been outside the West. But I have been to the library, and had the pleasure of reading about the Bengal Famine, the apartheid regime of the British Raj, the malicious cleaving of the country into East Pakistan, West Pakistan, and India, and a thousand other extravagant colonial abuses.
Then I can understand your perspective. I thought the same way when my view was based on secondary sources.
The trouble is: Most of the world can't be put into numbers, or even into words.
You can read that a country has 'corruption' or 'efficiency' or 'twenty thousand miles of railroad'.
Why does a country succeed? A shared spirit and a desire to improve. It doesn't matter if a country starts with little, as long as its surpluses are reinvested it will soon be rich.
But which cultures do this?
You'll be shocked how few follow this simple path. The two cultures which invest the most in the future are Germanic/protestant and Confucian.
As a presumed American, if you go to India or Africa, you will see all the good farmland, the beauty spots, the enormous human capital and think: 'Surely it's all waiting to burst into life! I can see the seeds of prosperity all around me. Come, my friends, let us build a heaven on earth together!'
This is not an innate human response, it is a protestant response. If you excitedly try to explain your vision to some local Indians or Africans, they might seem to nod along. They will of course be delighted to work with you. But only you will have a vision of creating an earthly paradise, of lifting the wretched masses out of poverty. The people you hire don't care about a golden future, they don't care about improving life for the poor. The best ones care about personal enrichment, but most not even that. Most of them only care about getting loaded and laid as soon as possible.
My experience comes from Africa, I assume India is slightly better in all this, but still: I see the same stories of Europe being to blame for India/Africa being dysfunctional.
When you've lived in a country where all the infrastructure was built sixty years ago by the British, where the locals have never reinvested anything, or are even capable of the necessary organisation to invest in anything: It really makes you cringe to see people blaming colonialism for the world's problems.
I don't doubt that the British in India weren't perfect. But in the context of the local sloth, incompetence, or simply disinterest in improvement, blaming the British hurts my ears.
This is entirely reasonable, and I appreciate the thorough reply.
There is, however, a sense in which we're talking past each other.
My original point is that India's time in the British Empire was NOT beneficial, whereas you are contending that these countries have done less than possible in their time since independence. These are not mutually exclusive.
England colonized India for one purpose and one purpose only: to transfer wealth from India to England. In the process they procured raw materials such as cotton, created strategic military/naval emplacements, and gained access to a labor market that was far cheaper than what they had at home. Before colonization, India had approximately a quarter of the world's GDP. After a generation, that money was in British banks and joint-stock corporations, as intended.
In the process of extracting resources, Britain created a lot of objectively beneficial things in India: public education, hospitals, railroads, and so on. That India/Africa has done less than possible in expanding those resources is likely due in large part to the cultural differences which you cite, and I find perfectly credible.
Blaming everything bad in the world on colonialism is inappropriate, and I share your dismay at all evils in the world being laid at the door of historical actors that haven't been active in at least four generations.
I emphasize the negative outcomes of colonialism not because it's the most important or only thing, but because it is undeniable (and too frequently denied) and cannot be ignored in a fair account of a country's development.
Also: As a Westerner, I reserve my criticism for the West. I cannot tell India or Cambodia or China how to govern themselves because as you point out, I don't get it and more to the point I have no influence in that sphere. What I can effect, is change in policy in countries that are either the US, or client-states of the US since I live here, vote here, speak the language, etc.
I enjoyed the article but the idea that India's time in the British Empire was "relatively beneficial" is a massive whitewash of the colonial violence required to conquer and rule India.
It's all so tiresome. You've never been outside the West, have you?
You caught me - I have never been outside the West. But I have been to the library, and had the pleasure of reading about the Bengal Famine, the apartheid regime of the British Raj, the malicious cleaving of the country into East Pakistan, West Pakistan, and India, and a thousand other extravagant colonial abuses.
Then I can understand your perspective. I thought the same way when my view was based on secondary sources.
The trouble is: Most of the world can't be put into numbers, or even into words.
You can read that a country has 'corruption' or 'efficiency' or 'twenty thousand miles of railroad'.
Why does a country succeed? A shared spirit and a desire to improve. It doesn't matter if a country starts with little, as long as its surpluses are reinvested it will soon be rich.
But which cultures do this?
You'll be shocked how few follow this simple path. The two cultures which invest the most in the future are Germanic/protestant and Confucian.
As a presumed American, if you go to India or Africa, you will see all the good farmland, the beauty spots, the enormous human capital and think: 'Surely it's all waiting to burst into life! I can see the seeds of prosperity all around me. Come, my friends, let us build a heaven on earth together!'
This is not an innate human response, it is a protestant response. If you excitedly try to explain your vision to some local Indians or Africans, they might seem to nod along. They will of course be delighted to work with you. But only you will have a vision of creating an earthly paradise, of lifting the wretched masses out of poverty. The people you hire don't care about a golden future, they don't care about improving life for the poor. The best ones care about personal enrichment, but most not even that. Most of them only care about getting loaded and laid as soon as possible.
My experience comes from Africa, I assume India is slightly better in all this, but still: I see the same stories of Europe being to blame for India/Africa being dysfunctional.
When you've lived in a country where all the infrastructure was built sixty years ago by the British, where the locals have never reinvested anything, or are even capable of the necessary organisation to invest in anything: It really makes you cringe to see people blaming colonialism for the world's problems.
I don't doubt that the British in India weren't perfect. But in the context of the local sloth, incompetence, or simply disinterest in improvement, blaming the British hurts my ears.
Still using coaches from ‘58
https://www.seat61.com/Zimbabwe.htm
This is entirely reasonable, and I appreciate the thorough reply.
There is, however, a sense in which we're talking past each other.
My original point is that India's time in the British Empire was NOT beneficial, whereas you are contending that these countries have done less than possible in their time since independence. These are not mutually exclusive.
England colonized India for one purpose and one purpose only: to transfer wealth from India to England. In the process they procured raw materials such as cotton, created strategic military/naval emplacements, and gained access to a labor market that was far cheaper than what they had at home. Before colonization, India had approximately a quarter of the world's GDP. After a generation, that money was in British banks and joint-stock corporations, as intended.
In the process of extracting resources, Britain created a lot of objectively beneficial things in India: public education, hospitals, railroads, and so on. That India/Africa has done less than possible in expanding those resources is likely due in large part to the cultural differences which you cite, and I find perfectly credible.
Blaming everything bad in the world on colonialism is inappropriate, and I share your dismay at all evils in the world being laid at the door of historical actors that haven't been active in at least four generations.
I emphasize the negative outcomes of colonialism not because it's the most important or only thing, but because it is undeniable (and too frequently denied) and cannot be ignored in a fair account of a country's development.
Also: As a Westerner, I reserve my criticism for the West. I cannot tell India or Cambodia or China how to govern themselves because as you point out, I don't get it and more to the point I have no influence in that sphere. What I can effect, is change in policy in countries that are either the US, or client-states of the US since I live here, vote here, speak the language, etc.