Bruce Gilley, a political scientist at Portland State University, put up an article which appeared in September’s issue of the journal Third World Quarterly. A selected synopsis is from the foreword ....
“For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism, was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it. It is hard to overstate the pernicious effects of global anti-colonialism on domestic and international affairs since the end of World War II."
“Anti-colonialism ravaged countries as nationalist elites mobilised illiterate populations with appeals to destroy the market economies, pluralistic and constitutional polities, and rational policy processes of European colonisers. In our ‘age of apology’ for atrocities, one of the many conspicuous silences has been an apology for the many atrocities visited upon Third World peoples by anti-colonial advocates."
“Third World despots have raised the spectre of recolonisation to discredit democratic oppositions and ruin their economies.” ...... “A hundred years of disaster is enough. It is time to make the case for colonialism again.”
In these PC times in the West (with its lack of academic argument, in favour of student led mob hunts of those deemed fascists, or colonialists etc etc), and the ultra-nationalist Indian Subcontinent (with no history of peaceful public debate and discourse over these matters), it was obvious there was going to be some comment.
It was pulled by TWQ, but not for academic reasons, but rather because the editor Shahid Qadir received death threats. Whilst National Association of Scholars President, Peter Wood, said Gilley had also received death threats in addition to those against Mr Qadir, by “Indian nationalists.”
This sort of threatening response not unusual now, and the biggest threat to Western Free Speech comes from the Indian sub-continent, with both the Islamists and Hindu Nationalists both against it, and now immigrant groups in our own universities. Indeed so worrying has this last groups swing towards censorship been, that a government minister has had to threaten sanctions against universities that don't uphold free speech and peaceful debate ...
... Universities must protect free speech and "open minds, not close them", Universities Minister Jo Johnson said in a speech in Birmingham saying that "No-platforming", the policy of banning controversial speakers, is stifling debate. "No-platforming" is the practice of banning certain groups from taking part in a debate if their views are considered to be offensive or unacceptable. Whilst "Safe space" policies are intended to protect students from views and language they find offensive, including discrimination.
The minister said that "In universities in America and worryingly in the UK, we have seen examples of groups seeking to stifle those who do not agree with them. We must not allow this to happen. Young people should have the resilience and confidence to challenge controversial opinions and take part in open, frank and rigorous discussions."
These 'student' groups such 'Common Ground Oxford' (a 'student' group that aims to examine Oxford's "colonial past"), in Oxford University are already here. However from next April, a new regulator - the Office for Students - will have the power to fine universities that fail to uphold free speech.
No-Platforming is another ill thought out PC policy, it was only used to prevent anyone who challenges left wing liberal elites 'accepted truth' on any matters. So white historians who fought for academic speech, banned. Anyone slating colonial crimes, not banned .... Free Speech is under assault from many directions.
 |
| Colonialism Has Had Too Bad A Name? |
“For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism, was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it. It is hard to overstate the pernicious effects of global anti-colonialism on domestic and international affairs since the end of World War II."
“Anti-colonialism ravaged countries as nationalist elites mobilised illiterate populations with appeals to destroy the market economies, pluralistic and constitutional polities, and rational policy processes of European colonisers. In our ‘age of apology’ for atrocities, one of the many conspicuous silences has been an apology for the many atrocities visited upon Third World peoples by anti-colonial advocates."
“Third World despots have raised the spectre of recolonisation to discredit democratic oppositions and ruin their economies.” ...... “A hundred years of disaster is enough. It is time to make the case for colonialism again.”
In these PC times in the West (with its lack of academic argument, in favour of student led mob hunts of those deemed fascists, or colonialists etc etc), and the ultra-nationalist Indian Subcontinent (with no history of peaceful public debate and discourse over these matters), it was obvious there was going to be some comment.
It was pulled by TWQ, but not for academic reasons, but rather because the editor Shahid Qadir received death threats. Whilst National Association of Scholars President, Peter Wood, said Gilley had also received death threats in addition to those against Mr Qadir, by “Indian nationalists.”
 |
| Censored By Violence |
This sort of threatening response not unusual now, and the biggest threat to Western Free Speech comes from the Indian sub-continent, with both the Islamists and Hindu Nationalists both against it, and now immigrant groups in our own universities. Indeed so worrying has this last groups swing towards censorship been, that a government minister has had to threaten sanctions against universities that don't uphold free speech and peaceful debate ...
... Universities must protect free speech and "open minds, not close them", Universities Minister Jo Johnson said in a speech in Birmingham saying that "No-platforming", the policy of banning controversial speakers, is stifling debate. "No-platforming" is the practice of banning certain groups from taking part in a debate if their views are considered to be offensive or unacceptable. Whilst "Safe space" policies are intended to protect students from views and language they find offensive, including discrimination.
The minister said that "In universities in America and worryingly in the UK, we have seen examples of groups seeking to stifle those who do not agree with them. We must not allow this to happen. Young people should have the resilience and confidence to challenge controversial opinions and take part in open, frank and rigorous discussions."
These 'student' groups such 'Common Ground Oxford' (a 'student' group that aims to examine Oxford's "colonial past"), in Oxford University are already here. However from next April, a new regulator - the Office for Students - will have the power to fine universities that fail to uphold free speech.
No-Platforming is another ill thought out PC policy, it was only used to prevent anyone who challenges left wing liberal elites 'accepted truth' on any matters. So white historians who fought for academic speech, banned. Anyone slating colonial crimes, not banned .... Free Speech is under assault from many directions.
Interesting discussion and like any subject shouldn't be stifled.
ReplyDeleteWhereas "The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it." this says nothing about how these countries might have developed had Colonialism not darkened their shores in the first place. So it could be that Colonialism had an overall detrimental effect? If we are to speculate about the state of a country had it not spurned its colonial inheritance, it's only fair to speculate about its possible state had it not been colonised at all.
Well I haven't really gone through his argument and the counter arguments. I think his argument is that there's empirical evidence on the state of countries that have either embraced or spurned their colonial inheritance. Its therefore not speculation.
DeleteBut as I say I haven't gone through his argument in detail although I have some sympathy for the idea having discussed something similar once before.