I found a tidbit at This Modern World on the evils of the past few hundred years and thought I’d put it to readers:
In Europe and the U.S., we look at the past few hundred years and see two great evils: fascism and communism. But for most places on earth, there have been three great evils: fascism, communism, and colonialism. The colonization of the world by Europe and the U.S. killed tens of millions, just as many people as fascism and communism.
I’m removing it from its context because I’d like to pose the direct question to readers: were these three “isms” equally bad?
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Chirol
January 27, 2007
3:43 pm
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
January 27, 2007
4:30 pm
Jing
January 27, 2007
4:43 pm
Colonialism can be in part thought of as People A passively suffering the encroachment of People B. It is of course more complicated and examining the the role of the colonized in maintaining the colonial apparatus is material enough for a dozen papers, but the main point remains. Dominance was exerted by force by one against another.
The spread of communism is much more complicated because of the active involvement and participation of it's recipients. Rather than just via the traditional channels of hegemony, communism spread in no small part due the widespread acceptance of its tenants, i.e. Gramscian hegemony. The influence and popularity of state-dominant strains of thought on political-economy ranging from Fabian socialists to Maoists for most of the 20th century is a testament to this.
Communism's rise may often have been by predicated on force, but it had legions of welcomers.
steve laudig
January 27, 2007
5:05 pm
Lexington Green
January 27, 2007
7:33 pm
Communism and Fascism were ideologies. (Right and Left Hegelianism, according to Stanley Jaki, an interesting way to look at it.) They were mass political movements which led to large scale war and murder of the civil populations of the countries where they were in force. Communism was more coherent and more uniformly murderous. Fascism was more a grab bag, with someone like Franco looking more like a traditional authoritarian ruler with some spiffy uniforms. But the ideology and the political mobilization were the key things.
Colonialism was not an "-ism" in the same way. Colonialism is one phase of imperialism, which is one of the oldest phenomena there is. From the beginning of organized communities of humans, once one got rich enough to have a food surplus to feed warriors, these communities have tried to conquer, loot and enslave their neighbors. Colonialism, if by that we mean European ocean-borne conquest of other places, what Ludwig Dehio called the Columbian Age, the four centuries from Diu (1509) to Tsushima (1905). In this period all kinds of stuff happened. It was a mixed bag. The founding of the settler colonies by the British was a disaster for the indigenous peoples, but brought many benefits to the settlers, their descendants and the world. The Belgian colonization in the Congo was almost as bad as the Nazi genocide. But the French colonization in North Africa was a mixed bag of atrocity on one hand and road-building and economic development, etc. Merely looking at the body count of colonialism tells you very little.
It is almost a tautology to say "wealthy and well-organized communities prey upon their poorer and weaker neighbors, looting killing and enslaving them." Of course they do. That is the essence of what they do. It is what they got rich and well-organized to do in the first place. While it is unpleasant to be on the receiving end of this process, the response of anyone who knows any history is to yawn and ask why this needs to be spoken aloud. It is the very bone and sinew of human history.
The test of any comparison like this is "does it add clarity, does it provide a helpful perspective, does it enhance or stymie coherent analysis?"
It simply makes no sense to lump two fairly self-contained episodes in with a vast, sprawling process just because they all end in the word-fragment "-ism".
Joe
January 27, 2007
9:33 pm
So if we compare the badness of the three, we're basically comparing the effectiveness of each ideology's particular pool of despots, which is really not a measure of the ideologies themselves. It's like saying "Which will kill you quickest: alcohol, cigarettes or speed?" Each one can kill you, it's just a question of the user's predilections with it.
Lexington Green
January 27, 2007
11:33 pm
But people have not needed an ideology in the past.
Killing, maiming and robbing neighbors when you were strong enough to do it is the NORM in history to do this. Once you were strong enough to do it, you could always come up with an ideological justification.
And, usually, the damage was limited by greed, or the fact that people are more valuable as slaves or serfs than corpses. Only communism and Nazism (not the lesser fascisms) murdered millions of people solely and specifically out of ideology. Even the worst abuses of colonialism, which I think is probably the Belgian Congo, was about making money, and hence self-limiting. But there is nothing in colonialism or prior forms of imperialism to match what Pol Pot or Mao did, destroying millions of people in a way that provided no rational advantage to anyone, but out of simple fanaticism, and which had no limitation other than the exhaustion and demoralization of the murderers.
So, I will stick with my assertion that fascism (really Nazism) and Communism are fundamentally different from colonialism and not an apples-to-apples comparison. What happened in the 20th century was something new under the sun.
Eddie
January 28, 2007
2:10 am
Leopold's greed in the Congo, the Dutch (and Japanese) in Indonesia, England in India during the late Victoria El Nino famines, Germany in South-west Africa, France in Indochina, Americans among native Americans, etc, etc. The death toll from these combined atrocities may not match communism or fascism, nor may the mutation, perversion and occasional outright destruction of cultures equal the ravaging effects communism and fascism have had, but we live with it today.
A majority of the problems and crises we face in the world today relate to colonialism and its failings, from the delusions of Europeans in the Middle East and Africa to the cancerous racism and corruption of the elites in Latin America.
monocrat
January 28, 2007
3:57 am
Alexander Augustinius
January 28, 2007
1:05 pm
It appears to me that colonization is driven by monetary benefit via the acquisition of valuable resources or land. It is not a phenomenon that is attributable only to modern industrialized nations, viz. the ongoing colonization of southern Sudan by the Arabized north, Persian reacquisition of western territory. I believe that only the Western industrialized nations are self-critical for operating in the framework (I specifically indicate that Japan, curiously enough, does not belong to this group of self-critical nations).
Henrik Krog
January 28, 2007
2:15 pm
This overlooks like colonialism practiced by other cultures. First to mind comes - for lack of a better word - Sino-ism. After all, everything from the Yangze valley south, Shaanxi east and Beijing north are, historically, chinese colonies.
Only real difference to colonialism is, that they didnt give up their colonies, and are still suppressing and killing them.
von Kaufman Turkestansky
January 28, 2007
5:20 pm
Fascism I have seen called something like "placing of the concept of "nation" - what Benedict Anderson called an "imagined community" above all other loyalties." I have also heard it used to refer to state capitalism. Some have even said that Stalin's USSR was a fascist, not a communist, regime.
I think that in the way that we most often think about it, fascism is basically an ideology where the concept of nation is used as a force to weld togther a kind of state captialism, where the whole nation-state can be engaged in industrial production, and where ethnic minority rights are limited.
The USSR, China, and other communist states exhibited many of the same features.
Communist excesses were different from fascist ones fundamentally, however.
The goal of the elites in the communist states was really to modernise agrarian societys quickly, and the methods used to do it were brutal. They essentially compressed the centuries of human tragedy that were involved in the transition from agrarian to industrial society in Western Europe into a much shorter period, and the effects were magnified.
The fascist states of the 20th century were already modern, but again were concerned that they would fall behind behind in the race to catch up to Britain and the United States. Again, in playing catch-up, this time geopolitical catch-up, brutal methods were employed. The ends justified the means.
At the end of the day, it seems that when ends justify means, we end up with systems that allow brutality. Something to keep in mind for those plotting the course of the world.
It is curious that we are sometimes admonished for self-criticism. The only reason I say that is that is that the main thing Western civilization has to offer the rest of the world stems from the Enlightenment, all that humanism and science that went with it, all that critical thinking. Without that, we might as well go back to old-style empire-building.
lirelou
January 28, 2007
11:33 pm
snow
January 29, 2007
8:26 am
Millions? I call bullshit. I also hardly think that colonialism by the West (ignoring the 'colonialism' practiced by many or most cultures throughout history) as being the equivalent to communism and fascism. Brutality was(is) the norm throughout human history and the West also used such practices, but as with slavery, the West (in terms of nation-states) got into the game late and left it early.
Such claims sound like the moral equivalency meme I've often heard from people who hate the West. I'm always suspicious of people who make such claims because often they have a less than honorable hidden agenda.
Lexington Green
January 29, 2007
2:57 pm
The body count for colonialism cannot be known, and the offsetting benefits have to be considered if you try to do so. Better to study the history without starting out to assign blame, but to understand what actually happened, and what the people at the time actually thought they were doing, and why they did what they did -- without regard to our current moral stance toward it all. Those kinds of things can help us to understand the past, and our own times as an added benefit. Moral posturing in the face of long dead people and long past events is easy and doesn't have much point to it. Actually understanding the people of the past as they understood themselves is harder and more interesting.
The main point, though, is "colonialism" is not sufficiently similar to 20th totalitarian ideologies in power to make a comparision between them meaningful or useful.
jon
January 29, 2007
3:38 pm
The greatest danger to the rest of human society was when the 20th cent. "isms" combined with colonialism and nationalism to form regimes like the Nazis and the Japanese military regime of WWII. These countries had the worst of both worlds. The competence and drive of the facsists and the almost missionary zeal to spread their doctrine by the sword and wipe out all who didn't fit with it. Remember the invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't just a fight for supremacy in the traditional European sense of the 16th through the 19th centuries. It was a war to create lebensraum for the German people at the expense of the unter-menschen of Poland and the Soviet Union.
Lirelou,
An even better question than,, is "Would Ho have been communist if Vietnam had been granted ints independence after WWII?" Could he have been swayed towards the west? He claimed during the late forties I believe that he loved Thomas Jefferson and thought the Declaration was one of the great documents of history.
von Kaufman,
I agree 100% when you say that self-criticism is the greatest gift the West has for the world. It is the best way to improve oneself and country.
lirelou
January 29, 2007
11:17 pm
ps. Vietnam still publishes stamps honoring Marx and Engels.
Eddie
January 30, 2007
5:23 am
Lex,
Tell that to the Africans, the Indonesians, the Latin Americans or the Indians. The drawbacks of colonialism in Sub-Saharan Africa and the MENA is enough to approach the level of historical meaning various 20th Century ideologies have had. Communism's effects linger on in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but perhaps we should view them as colonial victims of Imperial Russia (in the guise of the Soviet Union). Fascism has new fans as of late but cannot and will not approach the level of damage and unaddressed upheaval caused by colonialism in its various forms.
We'll be dealing with the nightmares of European arrogance and ignorance for decades to come around the world.
snow
January 30, 2007
6:16 am
True, but that still doesn't make it the equivalent of communism or fascism, which were systems. As mentioned earlier, colonialism is imperialism as practiced throughout human history.
"Fascism has new fans as of late but cannot and will not approach the level of damage and unaddressed upheaval caused by colonialism in its various forms."
I think you're casting a very wide net. Fascism had a very short life span and accomplished a great deal of death and destruction whereas colonialism (if we limit our definition to the European powers) took place over a far longer time and was practiced by a far greater number of players. Still doesn't make it the equivalent of the other two.
lirelou
January 30, 2007
11:34 pm
And the names of African countries who are better off now than they were under colonialism? Perhaps South Africa, only because they still have enough residue of the colonial experience to keep the economy going.
THe Indonesians. Agreed. Whatever kleptocracy they may have developed on their own, they are running their own affairs and count as a major sovereign nation.
The Latin-Americans? Which Latins should we ask? The Chileans, Argentines, Uruguayans, and Paraquayans have no problem with their Spanish colonial experience. Indeed, they are the result. The Brazilians? Brazil's break with Portugal was amicable. Indeed, they left a royal family in their wake. As for the "colonial" experience in Brazil, it was extremely varied, differing greatly from region to region. (Salvador da Bahia versus Florianopolis, for example) The Andean Ridge countries. Ah, you've hit paydirt there. Indian masses, mixed race middle class, white upper class. Colombia and Venezuela? Again, they are the products of their colonial experience. Other then the extreme left, you'll get no anti-colonial sentiment there. Central America? Their "Giant from the North" is Mexico. Costa Ricans are largely descended from Spanish and other European peasants. Nicaragua? They were a colonial outpost of the Aztecs before the Spanish arrived. Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador? Similar to the Andean Ridge, except the Indian masses were Mayan. Yet they count themselves "mestizo" nations, though millions of pure Mayans are alive and well in Guatemala. Mexico? Yes, much anti-colonial sentiment there, and much residue. Indeed, modern Mexican nationalism is founded upon: The Spanish did this to us (we were a nation before the "gachupines" arrived), the Americans did this to us, and the French did this to us. Occasionally, an erudite few will note that perhaps Mexico and Mexicans are to blame for their own problems. (no accident that the "manual del perfecto idiota latinoamericano" was publlished in Mexico long before it was translated into English)
And the Indians? I presume you refer to the subcontinental variety. Yes, they suffered much during partition (i.e., after colonialism). But I note that they retained much of their colonial institutions. Indeed, when the British arrived, India was a plethora of feuding and warring mini-states. They left a (largely) unified India which has remained a democracy. My gad, man: They even play cricket! Yes, India is governing itself very well. But one may ask if they would be doing that well had they never experienced the British Raj.
"We'll be dealing with the nightmares of European arrogance and ignorance for decades to come around the world."Â?
Yes, and like it or not, the modern world is a European construct. Without European colonialism, East Asia would be a hermetically sealed 16th century entity where the masses dare not question their social betters, the Americas would still be neolithic, tribal wars, genocide, cannibalism, and slavery would be the order of the day in Africa south of the Sahara. As for the Muslim world, it would probably be pretty much as it is today. Their civilization also borrowed from the Greeks.
Michael
January 31, 2007
12:52 am
At the risk of committing my own act of overgeneralising, comparing colonialism, fascism and communism as monolithic ideologies or social structures seems to be nothing more than an excuse for already-opinionated people to get angry about something.
lirelou
January 31, 2007
1:15 am
In re: "This isn't comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing a whole produce section!"
Amen. And I rather admired the Soviet's creation of buffer states. Pity that so many have collapsed. And Yugoslavia was better off for Tito, however short-lived that proved to be.
As for a "Jefferson-admiring Ho Chi Minh", my earlier post presents my views on that. (Balderdash!) If you go to Vietnam, a trip through Ba Chuc will pretty much explain why the Viets turned on their Khmer Rouge allies. Ba Chuc lies south of Chau Doc, towards Ha Tien. They have a display of skulls and bones of those massacred during KR incursions. Of course, the KR were conducting such attacks precisely because the entire Mekong River delta used to be Cambodia's, and they had irredentist ambitions to recover it. Several hundred thousand (at least!) ethnic Cambodians continue to live in the delta, and up until 1975 their primary loyalty was to the government in Phnom Penh. In 1945-46, the Royal Cambodian government was anxious to get the French back into Indochina, as they perceived the Indochinese Communist Party's aims to be cleverly disguised Vietnamese expansionism. Indeed, they volunteered two battalions of troops to fill the undermanned French Army, drafting one battalion from within Cambodia, and the other battalion within Soc Trang (legally, Vietnam), which shows that an underground Cambodian government was in operation there. (You can find this in Henry-Jean Loustau's book "Les Deux Bataillons". Loustau was a platoon leader in one of the Cambodian battalions, and later switched to a North Vietnamese battalion.
And, you are spot on in that all three had their true believers, and contained their share of idealists. (even if some were apples, others oranges, and yet others grapes)
Not sure about anyone "getting angry", however. The views presented seem pretty civilized, even when poles apart.
snow
January 31, 2007
2:01 am
Skippy-san
January 31, 2007
3:40 pm
What would be better to decry is the idea that every little chunk of real estate on the planet needs to be independent. A world with 224 nations is just stupid.
All of the former colonies of the British Empire are better because of the British presence. Rule fo law, English language, respect for other nations was a result of British influence. One cannot say that about the other two isms.
In my perfect world, the British Empire would still exist.
Aceface
January 31, 2007
3:53 pm
Lexington Green
January 31, 2007
10:52 pm
Now, analytical clarity may not be the goal. If the goal is to make a rhetorical point for a political reason, then this may make sense. To suggest that "the West" is defined by its colonial past, and in turn that this colonial past is the moral equivalent of totalitarian mass-murder is to condemn the West as morally despicable, and to deny its institutions any positive value. This then would support various political positions that are currently relevant. But that would be a gimmick, not an argument. Unfortunately, some people are convinced by gimmicks of this type.
lirelou
January 31, 2007
11:42 pm
Aceface
February 1, 2007
11:48 am
But then again if you try to show some document or couterargument aginst the hype in English,you will pretty much follow the passage of Gerry Bevers and Yoko Kawashima Watkins....
Follow your advice and I'll stay away from the minefield.
Down with the colonialism!
Sonagi
February 1, 2007
11:59 pm
The real problem is that most primary source documents required to evaluate it are written in languages most of us cannot read.
And the only online Asian comprehensive historical archive I know of is the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty. The minefield has pretty much been cleared by now, at least temporarily. :)
Aceface
February 2, 2007
1:06 am
Alexander Augustinius said
"I specifically indicate that Japan, curiously enough, does not belong to this group of self-critical nations"
Now what do you know about Japanese self criticism on colonialism.Alexander Augustinus?I think Japan did pretty much apology and tried it's best to mend the relatioship in last half century,at least with South Koreans.
It took 16years of negotiation just to normalize the relationship with Seoul,ï¼·ï½”¦ paid nearly 30% worth of our entire foreign currency deposit of 1965.Send them foreign aids for more than 30 years long.Gave them the best steel mill knowing that will boomerang at our industries,Saved them from the abyss of national bankruptcy during Asian finacial crisis,Shared the world cup game in 2002,directly apologized every president from Chun Doo Hwang til current bastard.Trying to ignore every kind of insult on us including illegal occupation of our territories.
We kept silenced only because we wanted to be friends with Koreans ,maybe not in our generations but in the future.And look what we 've got in return.
Somehow both Koreans and outside world doing their best not to recognize these fact and demanding more and more and more and more.
Henrik Krog said
"If really charitable, people will include Japanese as honorary Europeans."
That was what South Africans were saying about Japanese when Nelson Mandela was still in prison.Henrik.
lirelou
February 2, 2007
5:03 am
:-(
Sonagi
February 2, 2007
1:03 pm
Sonagi
February 2, 2007
3:07 pm
Michael
February 2, 2007
6:33 pm
As for my comment about people getting angry: to the extent I applied it to this list, I apologize. I was tired, glancing through the other comments revealed the usual strong rhetoric on these subjects, so I made assumptions that a re-read reveals to be false.
It wasn't entirely aimed at this list, though. My reaction was based in part on reading far too many political threads on partisan political blogs as well as Slate's Fray. A discussion like this on one of those sites would quickly have degenerated into a round of name-calling and dogmatic rhetoric.
This was my larger point. People hear words like these and automatically attach their own associations (positive or negative). Too often, they then judge others by whether they share the same associations-- unaware of, or indifferent to, the larger and more complex reality of the subject at hand.
Eddie
February 4, 2007
5:47 am
Perhaps a more clarifying argument here would be to inquire about the effects colonialism had on institutions, societies and economies in order to ascertain what nations are dealing with now. This goes especially for those in what we commonly call the 3rd World, where widespread environmental disasters which often fueled a vortex of colonial mismanagement, exploitation and expansion that helped to spread disease, worsen famine's effects, weaken traditional societies and collapse traditional economies.
Btw, trying to imagine a world without European (or the Japanese impression of it) colonialism is rather interesting but worthless in the long run if we're just going to dismiss the countries in E. Asia, Africa & India to perputal ruin and rot because they weren't "colonized".
The last few decades have seen a flurry of activity showcasing how often the "European" version of 17th/18th/19th/early 20th history about the rest of the world is of course history of the victors, by the victors and for the victors.
For example, strong evidence now shows per capita incomes for India, China & Western Europe/US were about the same until 1850....(1)"South Indian labourers had higher earnings than their British counterparts in the 18th century..." Ditto for 18th Century China (2)
Of course, a major reason the "current" and future colonies (and exploited countries like China) in the 19th Century could not compete (or catch on) with the European Industrial Revolution was the widespread use of violence by Europeans to prevent this kind of competition.
The social effects of colonialism are widespread and vary, but rare are the key states to our concern (India, Brazil, China, Nigeria, Egypt, etc.) which do not bear lasting and lingering psychological, cultural and economic scars from the process. The modernization of widespread poverty happened in India because of the British lack of concern and/or foresight in destroying economic and society processes that worked for hundreds of years to be replaced by poorly crafted impressions of British common law and market economics that last even today. Yes democracy is alive and well in India, and that did come from the British.... but at what high cost to India in the past, now in the present and into the future?
The festering, rotting kleptocratic states of the Congo & Nigeria are massive powderkegs waiting to explode without easy answers because of the near impossible task set forth for these countries by their forced composition from their days as colonies. Many of them, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, are doomed to fail, and that is directly the result of European colonialism. Most subsequent damage from incompetent, untrained and unprepared leaders and Cold War era influence peddling only hammered extra nails in the state coffins.
(1) Prasannan Parthasarathi - "Rethinking Wages And Competitiveness in 18th Century England & South India"
(2) Kenneth Pomeranz "Rethinking 18th Century China: A High Standard Of Living & Its Implications"
Its not a political point to say colonialism was bad or that its effects are inherently negative. Its an important understanding for now and the future so we can figure out what we're dealing with and often for why things have developed the way they have and will.
von Kaufman-Turkestansky
February 4, 2007
6:11 pm
I would even say that colonialism was great for the populations of the European countries in that after 1850, the gap between the ordinary workers of those countries and the colonized ones really took off. The foundations for a world system were laid. For more on that increasing gap as a "tectonic stress" that we will have to face, I do reccomend looking at Thomas Homer Dixon's "Upside of Down" (which does not talk about colonialism, but points out some of what I would regard as the effects of the system that has developed over the last two centuries).
Eddie
February 4, 2007
6:33 pm
lirelou
February 5, 2007
3:30 am
As regards Africa states: "Many of them, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, are doomed to fail, and that is directly the result of European colonialism." I agree, but see colonialism as "directly" responsible only in that their legacy was a state to begin with. Perhaps Africans would have been better served to have been split up into ethnic enclaves? First impression makes than an attractive idea, but reflection makes me a doubter. I see no African ethnic enclaves turned "modern" states as having been possibly more attuned to the needs of their populations, or any less inclined to ethnic warfare.
Saying that colonialism was "bad" is a moral judgment best left for polemecists and sohpmores. Colonialism was, that's all. But uderstanding its positive and negative contributions to the development of any former state certainly helps to lay the basis for figuring out why things developed as they did, and what one is dealing with.
From a historical perspective, I see no viable alternative for Africa in the 19th Century other than some international covenant by which the European powers declared the entire continent south of the Mediterranean littoral a vast ecological zone in which Europeans were not allowed more than an occasional safari to shoot and collect exotic species. Had that been possible, I believe that the lives of modern Africans would be for the worse: Nasty, brutish, and short.
Eddie
February 5, 2007
6:58 am
I apologize as my vague 2nd point was in regards to your previous comment: "Without European colonialism, East Asia would be a hermetically sealed 16th century entity where the masses dare not question their social betters, the Americas would still be neolithic, tribal wars, genocide, cannibalism, and slavery would be the order of the day in Africa south of the Sahara. As for the Muslim world, it would probably be pretty much as it is today."
An interesting historical aside I came across while reading the "Dominion of War" (pg. 90-94) was the "Long Peace" experienced by Indian groups in the early and mid 1700's after the bloodletting of colonial encroachment and warfare. What made it work first and foremost was the
"factiousness of native peoples living in decentralized societies. Factionalization proved to be an adaptive feature in intercultural politics during the Long Peace because of the multiplicity of connections it fostered."
I wonder after another decade or so of state decline, warfare, famine, epidemics and economic exploitation if at least one region in sub-Saharan Africa could not find itself in a similar state.
What makes it very interesting for me is the possibility of Southern Africa in a situation similar to this had the El Nino/La Nina droughts, famines and floods not destroyed native agriculture, economies and ways of life in a short time frame in the late 1800's. The wholesale devestation wreaked on most tribes and kingdoms across Africa experienced opened the floodgates for European colonialism in most places, while sealing the deal in others.
I apologize for delayed commenting on this, the demonic Navy internet blocks Coming Anarchy and most other blogs so I will not be able to respond for nearly 48 hours as I have duty onboard in the morning.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Leading the Post-Mortem Fight against Communism
February 13, 2007
10:38 pm