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 -
An anonymous substacker has written up a good piece on the Rise of the West. Essentially, he comes to the conclusion that the divergence began in the 1000-1500 A.D. period and that subsequent colonisation efforts by Europe of the rest of the world was simply an outgrowth of those earlier advantages.
This of course upends the familiar trope of "the West got rich by the backs of the Third World" so popular with leftists in the West and in countries like India, across the political spectrum. I bring this up because if the poor countries of the world today have any hope of catching up, they should first re-examine honestly why they fell behind in the first place. Yet I see precious little of that, except mostly moral grandstanding about the evils of the exploitative West.
This also has domestic political implications because a lot of white guilt-driven narratives are sprung from the narrative that the West got rich by exploitation and thus the logical corollary is that evil white people should repent (preferably through monetary reparations). The narrative that colonisation was simply a natural outgrowth of European pre-existing advantages that grew over time naturally undermines it. One could also note that the Barbary slave trade, or the slave auctions in the Ottoman Empire, shows that the Third World was far from innocent. But of course these historical facts don't have high political payoffs in the contemporary era, so they are ignored or underplayed.
I was reading about technology in Sub-Saharan Africa the other day. They bought up the University of Sankore which was apparently very big and prestigious, scholars from there blitzed their Islamic brethren in terms of erudition. Some fellow there had a very big library. Yet nobody seems to know specifically what they discovered or taught in any specific sense.
There was also metalworking in the Kongo, which was apparently very advanced. Apparently they had very good iron-working, competitive with 18th century Europeans:
I'm not terribly confident in the reliability of the source African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter. Eventually they explain that there was an ecological disaster and cheap, inferior European steel was imported anyway. Nevertheless, Kongolese slaves made good steel when they were taken to America!
But why were Kongo people being dispatched as slaves if their steel was so good? Why were the Portuguese coming to them as opposed to the Kongolese coming to Europe? For that matter, the Portuguese somehow took control of maritime trade routes all over the world from as soon as they showed up. A small kingdom like Portugal directly ruled half of Ceylon/Sri Lanka, various parts of India (Goa is still the richest Indian state), swathes of the African coast. They eventually had issues defending their global empire - but only from other Europeans like Britain, France and the Dutch. The natives weren't capable of beating back the Portuguese alone, they usually had to get help from the Dutch or somebody else. It's like the whole non-European world were NPCs, unable to withstand even small forces from Europe. They were usually in a passive position, regardless of whether they had better or worse technology.
Time after time, tiny European armies show up and dominate. Pizarro, Cortes, Clive... They usually exploited divisions amongst the locals - yet nobody manages to do the same against Europe. When the Ottomans attacked, half of Christendom united to fight at Lepanto. Later on the Poles launch the largest cavalry charge in history to save Vienna from the Turk. Only the perfidious French actually worked with the Ottomans and it was a fairly loose alliance.
The real answer is because, generally speaking, the natives had no reason to 'beat back' the Portugese, or any other colonial state. They benefited from colonial contact, especially in the 18th century onwards. Colonial states had legitimacy and widespread local support until the mid-20th century.
It was less the natives 'getting help from the Dutch or somebody else' but more 'Europeans getting the help from the natives' to kick out their European rivals.
But if the British or Portuguese rule a territory, it means that the locals don't. The pre-industrial world was largely a zero-sum affair, the pie was growing very slowly. This was the age of mercantilism, where you fought hard to control markets. The Europeans certainly fought hard against eachother, they invented the concept. The same competitive dynamics should apply for everyone else vs the Europeans. If the Portuguese have the trade, it meant the Muslims don't. That's taking money directly out of their pockets. And then there's a big culture clash and religious clash.
Plus, as I mentioned below, the Portuguese were on an absolute rampage in the Indian Ocean. They were directly taking on Indian principalities and the Ottoman Empire, a gigantic country with far more resources than Portugal. Most of the time the Portuguese won and they were fighting on the enemy's home turf!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Diu_(1538)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cannanore_(1507)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Malacca_(1511)
The vast, vast majority of people working in Indian colonial administration were native Indians, to say nothing of the local Rajas who had significant influence. This is generally true of all European colonial states in Africa and Asia in the 1800s onwards. In a large sense, the locals did rule themselves, even if guided by European thought and colonial administrators.
It's really only through the power of ideologies such as nationalism that to a native in Cochin/Kochi that rule from London (not matter how hands off) is illegitimate but rule from New Delhi is legitimate.
Colonialism in the context being discussed (that is, Africa and Asia reperations) is a mostly post-industral or at the very least a proto-industrial phenomeon. A bunch of Portugese trading posts scattered around Asia and Africa isn't really colonialism proper. Only in the latter part of the 1800s (as with most European powers, scramble for Africa) did Portugal really gained substantial control over what we would call colonial states (e.g. Mozambique and Angola).
Regardless, I also object to the claim that pre-industrial trading was zero-sum. It was obviously not zero-sum, or else the participants (e.g. Portugal and costal Indian kingdoms) wouldn't have participated in it! Portugal got their spices, the Indians got their silver. The actual participants in the trading mutually benefit. The fact that traders might seek to monopolise that trade doesn't change the fact that the people actually doing the trading are mutually benefiting. They're looking to gain an economic advantage over their trading competitor not their trading partner. This is no different to modern economics - the fact that some business try to monopolise or engage in anti-competitive behaviour today isn't evidence of economic activity being zero-sum!
But they make sure that the profiting participants are all Portuguese as opposed to Dutch or Muslim, that's the whole point! The Portuguese took control of the key ports and entrepots, they ensured that they were in control of the lucrative trade routes. They buy spices in Asia, sell them in Europe and the vast majority of the profit goes to Portuguese traders and eventually back to the state. They find ways to ensure that nobody else can challenge their control of the region. Maybe their ships go missing at sea, maybe their warehouses burn down, maybe they charge tolls and duties that render them uncompetitive.
On a strategic level, from the point of view of the state or state-like companies such as the EIC or VOC, global trade is zero sum in this period. That's why they fought wars to control it. There's a big difference between what we call anti-competitive behaviour today and companies waging full-scale war to secure monopolies on trade, to secure strategic bases and oceans. They often annexed various islands and ruled directly.
Trade itself isn't zero-sum. That is, the very act of exchanging goods and services between mutually consenting and informed parts is not zero-sum, and is in-fact mutually beneficial.
The issue is 1) rentseeking behaviour by organisations and individuals which is self explanatory, 2) goods, particularly exotic commodities are finite, so there is competiton and an incentive to monopolise. But this doesn't change the fact that trading in of itself is mutually beneficial. Preventing someone else from trading because you traded with a third party and they did not is still a net benefit overall. You and the third party trading partner benefit. The trading competitor who was muscled out of the market doesn't lose anything except the opportunity to trade and benefit themselves, destroyed and captured ships notwithstanding.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link