Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Keith Hamburger · Apr 8, 2007, 10:33 am

Everyone in this discussion, thus far, has made some very basic errors in this discussion.

One big issue is how to define a "good" vs. a "bad" outcome. You have all made the quintessential error that is almost always made in such evaluations. You are judging "good" and "bad" outcomes using purely modern, Western standards. That may, or may not, be a valid measure, but it is not the only measure possible.

Many of the colonizers of the third world were missionaries. Their goal was to "bring God to the heathens". By that measure, many of the colonized areas which have been discussed, thus far, had VERY successful outcomes. Before colonization, the indigenous populations had never heard of the Christian God. Today, most of the people in those areas, in particular the Pacific islanders and Latin Americans are Christians of one sort or another. By the measure of the European missionaries, the outcome of colonization was positive.

By measures of population densities, GDP, literacy, infant mortality and other health metrics, and many other Western type measurements, the outcomes of colonization in virtually all parts of the world have been positive. Most of them haven't kept up with the colonizing countries, but they are ahead of where they were before. There are a lot of issues with how that colonization took place but virtually all of those former colonies are better off than they were 100-300+ years ago.

But, do either of these measures mean that the overall outcome was good?

The first, the only way to tell is to die. If the colonized peoples die and find out that the Christian missionaries were right, then, I guess the outcome is better. If they find out the missionaries were wrong, however, then the outcome is worse. They wasted their entire lives following an introduced belief that wasn't true. Perhaps the beliefs they had before that have been all but wiped out were true, or closer to the truth, than Christianity. In that case colonization wasn't simply worse for the indigenous populations but worse for the entire world.

On the second, there is a lot that is dependent on point of view. Perhaps it was "better', by the locals method of measurement, to live in a world that was more harsh but overall had less stress and worry. Perhaps it would be better for all if we had smaller populations, unfortunately subject to disease with a short lifespan, but that was overall happier and more relaxed. Perhaps living in relative poverty, but closer to nature, had greater value to the conquered peoples than the system that was forced upon them that gave them relative wealth and health.

We really can't give a clear answer to any of these questions.

Nor can we tell, as most libertarians would claim, if the same benefits, at lower costs, could have been acheived through open trade and dialogue, rather than conquest. Perhaps by teaching those in other regions about how we lived our lives, and learning from them how they lived theirs, we could have reached a synthesis that was overall better than anything that was achieved by forcing them to submit to a single way of life.

Overall I would contend that colonization resulted in a number of bad outcomes for a lot of different reasons. But, it is impossible to tell if the world, as a whole, is a better or worse place because of it. Or even, in most cases, if the populations of those countries are better or worse.

Most of the deaths in the Americas, after the "discovery" of the New World, were due to introduced diseases. Sometimes those diseases were introduced intentionally, but usually not. And, even if the Europeans had come with purely peaceful intentions to teach, to trade and to learn, the end result would have been much the same. Millions would have died due to diseases they had no resistance to. Eventually, even if the migrations or Europeans to the Americas had been as equals wishing to utilize previously unused or underused resources, and no violence had occured between the immigrants and the existing populations, the final result would be much the same. Certainly we would have a stronger population of "Native Americans" treated as equals in these lands, but there would probably have been more intermixing of the populations and far fewer "pure" indigenous peoples.

We could have avoided a lot of bloodshed and strife, but it is unlikely that the final results would have been drastically different.

(this could go on and on, perhaps I should stop now and see where the discussion heads)

Keith

Apr 8, 2007, 10:33 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Keith Hamburger Libertarian Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 1,609	Everyone in this discussion, thus far, has made some very basic errors in this discussion. One big issue is how to define a "good" vs. a "bad" outcome. You have all made the quintessential error that is almost always made in such evaluations. You are judging "good" and "bad" outcomes using purely modern, Western standards. That may, or may not, be a valid measure, but it is not the only measure possible. Many of the colonizers of the third world were missionaries. Their goal was to "bring God to the heathens". By that measure, many of the colonized areas which have been discussed, thus far, had VERY successful outcomes. Before colonization, the indigenous populations had never heard of the Christian God. Today, most of the people in those areas, in particular the Pacific islanders and Latin Americans are Christians of one sort or another. By the measure of the European missionaries, the outcome of colonization was positive. By measures of population densities, GDP, literacy, infant mortality and other health metrics, and many other Western type measurements, the outcomes of colonization in virtually all parts of the world have been positive. Most of them haven't kept up with the colonizing countries, but they are ahead of where they were before. There are a lot of issues with how that colonization took place but virtually all of those former colonies are better off than they were 100-300+ years ago. But, do either of these measures mean that the overall outcome was good? The first, the only way to tell is to die. If the colonized peoples die and find out that the Christian missionaries were right, then, I guess the outcome is better. If they find out the missionaries were wrong, however, then the outcome is worse. They wasted their entire lives following an introduced belief that wasn't true. Perhaps the beliefs they had before that have been all but wiped out were true, or closer to the truth, than Christianity. In that case colonization wasn't simply worse for the indigenous populations but worse for the entire world. On the second, there is a lot that is dependent on point of view. Perhaps it was "better', by the locals method of measurement, to live in a world that was more harsh but overall had less stress and worry. Perhaps it would be better for all if we had smaller populations, unfortunately subject to disease with a short lifespan, but that was overall happier and more relaxed. Perhaps living in relative poverty, but closer to nature, had greater value to the conquered peoples than the system that was forced upon them that gave them relative wealth and health. We really can't give a clear answer to any of these questions. Nor can we tell, as most libertarians would claim, if the same benefits, at lower costs, could have been acheived through open trade and dialogue, rather than conquest. Perhaps by teaching those in other regions about how we lived our lives, and learning from them how they lived theirs, we could have reached a synthesis that was overall better than anything that was achieved by forcing them to submit to a single way of life. Overall I would contend that colonization resulted in a number of bad outcomes for a lot of different reasons. But, it is impossible to tell if the world, as a whole, is a better or worse place because of it. Or even, in most cases, if the populations of those countries are better or worse. Most of the deaths in the Americas, after the "discovery" of the New World, were due to introduced diseases. Sometimes those diseases were introduced intentionally, but usually not. And, even if the Europeans had come with purely peaceful intentions to teach, to trade and to learn, the end result would have been much the same. Millions would have died due to diseases they had no resistance to. Eventually, even if the migrations or Europeans to the Americas had been as equals wishing to utilize previously unused or underused resources, and no violence had occured between the immigrants and the existing populations, the final result would be much the same. Certainly we would have a stronger population of "Native Americans" treated as equals in these lands, but there would probably have been more intermixing of the populations and far fewer "pure" indigenous peoples. We could have avoided a lot of bloodshed and strife, but it is unlikely that the final results would have been drastically different. (this could go on and on, perhaps I should stop now and see where the discussion heads) Keith The great thread killer.