This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I feel compelled to quote US historian Mike Davis, via Wikipedia:
It is absolutely standard, expected practice for imperial subjects to pay for things that benefit the overlord. If they rebel, it's also expected that a larger garrison of loyal troops from the metropole will be deployed there. Control of Egypt also had a great deal to do with India since much Europe-Indian trade passed through Egypt/Suez.
Upon investigating further, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty about how the home charge system actually worked, with various British commissions saying more should be done to pay rebates to India. Perhaps the repayment system was more honoured in the breach than observance. Nevertheless, the fact that there was even debate about repayment being insufficient indicates that this is not harsh imperialism.
The Mughals who previously ruled India fielded a huge army, it's hard to see how the relatively small British/Indian forces based in India, around 300,000, were unduly taxing the Indian economy. The Qing fielded a million men and embarked on their own expensive indigenous naval programs. If India weren't colonized by Britain, it would likely have undertaken similar expenditure and/or get invaded by someone, resulting in an increased fiscal burden. Russia for instance spent about 30% of its budget on the military around 1900.
Likewise, it's hard to see how a few thousand British administrators running the whole country could cause famine actively, though they were not great at stopping famine. The Raj was not run like a top-down Soviet machine, rule was largely indirect and delegated to Indians. I dispute Mike Davis's 'Late Victorian Holocausts' thesis. Firstly, it's inappropriate to compare to a Holocaust since a famine isn't an organized mass killing so much as a mildly disorganized mass not-saving. Secondly, much more severe famines were occurring right next door in China in this period. India has innately inconsistent weather via the monsoons and famines will happen in a subsistence economy.
Preventing famines isn't passive, it's active. It requires early warning, the suppression of hoarding and speculation, circulation of money so that poor people can buy grain and don't just get extorted by landlords and most importantly land reform... which the British weren't in a position to do given the size of the country and their hands-off stance. Indian food security still has not been fixed even today, hundreds of millions are stunted due to malnutrition.
It's normally the publishers who decide on book titles and subtitles, not the authors, and it's their evident interest to grab the readers' attention. I imagine the author is probably not a Holocaust 'relativist' himself.
From the same Wikipedia article:
This book explores the impact of colonialism and the introduction of capitalism during the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) related famines of 1876–1878, 1896–1897, and 1899–1902, in India, China, Brazil, Ethiopia, Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and New Caledonia.
From the same page:
Davis argues that "Millions died, not outside the 'modern world system', but in the very process of being forcibly incorporated into its economic and political structures. They died in the golden age of Liberal Capitalism; indeed, many were murdered ... by the theological application of the sacred principles of Smith, Bentham and Mill."
The book's main conclusion is that the deaths of 30–60 million people killed in famines all over the world during the later part of the 19th century were caused by laissez-faire and Malthusian economic ideology of the colonial governments.
From a different article:
The regular export of grain by the colonial government continued; during the famine, the viceroy, Lord Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight (320,000 tons) of wheat, which made the region more vulnerable. The cultivation of alternate cash crops, in addition to the commodification of grain, played a significant role in the events.[6][7]
Fair points. However, is the main standard argument for colonial rule not the idea that it results in a higher level of flourishing and prosperity for its subjects compared to the dictatorship of their native brutish elites?
Yeah I read that part, the 'many were murdered' part and that's what made me unhappy with the thesis. OK, the British killed some people at Amritsar. That's what state killing looks like, shooting guns. Or active collectivization where they're moving people around and intensively interfering with agriculture, or in wartime when armies pass by and loot/wreck irrigation and cause famines. That's killing/murder, or at least much closer to what we mean by murder.
I don't accept that people were dying due to the ideals of Bentham. There were no Benthamite death squads, the very idea is a contradiction.
This is bad but it's not like he was sending troops to take the grain off to England. The grain export was due to the governments commitment to laissez-faire economics and practical limits on its power, as it says. The fundamental cause was that the Indian economy wasn't very developed, people who had grain didn't want to sell it to starving people who had no money, the govt had little capacity to force them to do so and didn't try very hard. So if one wants to say the British were negligent in their governance, then sure. But that's not actually murder, it's just not-saving, not-reforming the economy, not-reforming land distribution.
Colonial rule is an innately imbalanced thing, it's about a stronger side controlling a weaker. So in a purely moral level, it's never really justified if you believe in sovereignty and autonomy of peoples.
Nevertheless, in this instance I think that the British ran India quite generously as compared to other potential rulers, foreign or local. The British could've been much more extractive and heavy-handed if they wanted. It was a British former civil servant who initially organized what became the Indian National Congress because he thought they hadn't solved the country's economic problems. The meeting was approved by the Viceroy. They could've pulled a Mao and invited people to speak freely about their opinions and then arrested anyone who opposed the government. They could've had a zero-tolerance policy for dissent. They could've forced Indians into humiliation rituals like the queue hairstyle in China.
Colonialism is basically about power dynamics, that the British were at all thinking about it as 'how can we have a cordial win-win relationship rather than a I win, you submit relationship' is a sign they really weren't that evil. Just think about the different mindsets. The British have this narrative that 'colonialism was good because we kept order, built railroads' or 'colonialism was bad because we caused famines, intruded on other people's sovereignty' where it's all coached in this moral frame. Turkey doesn't really care about any of that, their official attitude towards Armenia is closer to 'it never happened and they were enemies anyway, they had it coming, we were a great empire'. No Libyan will apologize for slave-raiding the Mediterranean coast, though they have more pressing issues. The Mongols put up statues to Genghis Khan, he's a national hero to them, not a genocidal murderer.
The British were/are uniquely concerned with the well-being of their subjects as an imperial power, it follows that they weren't that bad.
Just to nitpick: it wasn't British state policy though, not even in India. The massacre wasn't ordered or sanctioned from above. The troops had no orders to disperse the protestors with lethal force.
On the other hand, the government very much had capacity to construct an inland customs barrier thousands of miles long in order to enforce the salt tax. Something doesn't add up. Also, wasn't it within the power of the government to buy up wheat and then distribute it to famine victims in order to prevent mass death? Provided they wanted a 'cordial win-win relationship' with their colonial subjects, that is?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Amusingly, Indian nationalists and Western post-colonialists like to point to a study that shows the Bengal famine was caused by the British, because it's the only Indian famine that doesn't correlate with the monsoon conditions which have caused famine in India since time immemorial. They then turn around and blame the British for all the previous famines, too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link