´´It is modeled on the principles that economic research show works the best: free markets, low taxes, and not much regulation.´´
He says, as a Dane in Denmark, not realizing that his country proves that wrong. It should be pretty obvious that human capital is the variable that explains why both Denmark and Singapore are rich, while the Third World is not, and not low taxes.
Imagine how great the world would be if Europeans had never decided to colonize SSA and instead let the Arabs and later the Asians enslave, exterminate, and colonize it. There would be far fewer SSAs in the world, maybe none by now. It's harsh but unarguable, I think, that the fewer SSAs (and Arabs) there are in the world, the better it is. The EA morality of Bantu-maxxing or SSA-maxxing in general is impractical and unthinking. The most important graph as per Steve Sailer is relevant here. There will be ca. 3+ billion SSAs in 2100, and half of the world population will live in Africa. Based on surveys, half of them want to move. That means 1-2 billion SSAs moving to Europe (there wont be much of Western Europe left by 2100 but still some), North America, Australia, etc. because those are the only places that will want to take them. Non-whites don't want Africans, Arabs or SSAs, including their own racial/ethnic compatriots; they will only take them under pressure from the West. It's going to be interesting to see whether the West can force the Asians into mass 3rd world replacement immigration once they realize that they can't survive the onslaught much longer.
German here. Will continue to read, but first some wikipedia to set the record straight about the Herero Wars and the benevolent Germans:
"It took the Germans until 1908 to re-establish authority over the territory. By that time ... 65,000 of 80,000 Hereros and at least 10,000 of 20,000 Nama (had) died as a result of the conflict. ...
Aftermath: ... On 16 August 2004, 100 years after the war, the German government officially apologised for the atrocities. "We Germans accept our historic and moral responsibility and the guilt incurred by Germans at that time," said ... Germany's development aid minister. In addition, she admitted that the massacres were equivalent to genocide.
The Herero are suing the German government in a class action lawsuit. In 2021, Germany announced that they would repay Namibia €1.1 billion." -
Tsing-Tao/China: In 1900, the Kaiser famously said about the Boxer Rebellion in China: "Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German"
Colonialism sucks because baby sitting low iq masses is usually a sub optimal use of high iq peoples time.
In a world we’re physical access to resources or unique biological advantages (African disease immunity before anti biotics) there were reasons Europeans want colonies and slaves. But nowadays we can just buy cobalt or whatever from them while they do their own thing.
Japan, South Kore and Singapur have high hdi/gdp per capita than many european countries. They should colonize europe according to your logic. Newyork or California should colonize denmark. I hope you will be happy.
Maybe woke left was right in some topics. You are literally defending colonialism. It includes slavery, slave trade, genocide, massacre, pop transfers with force, occupation. I thought you are libertarian. I thought european/white right wing intellectuals were more libertarian than others. It seems i have to change my ideas.
I can anecdotally support this. I lived in Nauru, a tiny Pacific Island, for a while some time ago.
Basically there are 12 tribes who co-existed somewhat peacefully and somewhat not until western boats bought alcohol which led to essentially relentless violence.
The Germans then arrived, kidnapped the 12 Chiefs and said "you can have them back as soon as she we get all the guns", the deal worked a treat and Nauru knew perhaps the best 50 years of its history until it was transferred to Australia and NZ and GB after WWI.
But if we take a hereditarian/HBD view, then we couldn't simply hand wave away the Nazi experience, or the exterminationist or population replacement oriented colonialism of Northwest/Germanic Europeans in North America and Australasia.
Incidentally, Gilley seems to focus on a period in which colonialism was a backdrop to intense inter-state competition among the European powers. The colonies were sources of labor and resources to be marshalled to compete against other European states. The objective was a bit different than under population replacement oriented settler colonialism. Hitler and the Nazis made the argument that since most of the Earth was already colonized by European powers, trying to acquire territory outside of Europe meant going to war against European states, so it would make more sense to try to acquire territory in Europe for Germany.
Also, it's not clear that the kind of colonial rule Gilley extols was good for Europeans in general. There are claims that it benefited narrow sectional interests but that in general they were money and resource sinks for the broader European population. Moreover, if it were truly positive and beneficial, to such an extent that it would eventually uplift the colonized above and beyond the colonizing power, then it's not clear how Gilley could maintain that it would be good for Europeans and a worthy project. It seems his argument is premised on some sort of static situation that fossilizes into a caste system.
Gilley's argument is also premised on a kind of Fukuyama-esque End of History view in which liberal democracy is the final and best telos for human society, which seems dubious.
Finally, I don't think this is a completely intellectually honest case. I don't think Gilley would argue that colonialism enabled population explosion of Africans, for example, and their extensive integration with Europeans, were good and good for Europeans in particular. And I don't think he would believe that genuine uplift of colonized populations that raised them above and beyond Europeans in wealth and power would be good. But he's not making an explicit case for domination that maintains static hierarchies. He's couching his case in terms of beneficent uplift.
İs western colonialism include soviet rule on central asia&caucasia, german(habsburg/prussia) rule on slavs in eastern europe? Some people think there is such thing as a polish colonization of ukraine.
Colonialism may have indirectly promoted communism. Foreign oppression and violence can strengthen vengeful socialism. Thailand, for example, is did not have a communist revolution. This country has maintained its independence unlike Vietnam, Cambodia or Burma. Thailand is also the most integrated to western world and 2nd richest country(after malaysia) in that region.
Quite interesting. But isn't colonialism really difficult to set up from an economical and an administrative standpoint, especially in today's advanced market conditions? Do you think a more modern form of "colonialism" would be genetic interventions? If we get to the point where we have really accurate genomic selection, or even the more futury stuff like CRISPR and iterated embryo selection, increasing IQ by 1 SD would have the same if not greater effect on economic and political prosperity, and it would have the added benefit of being more easily accepted (I think you posted a poll where third world countries were much more approving of genetic interventions to boost intelligence). Anecdotally, I don't see anyone from the EA crowd having the "coloniser" vibe (those were some tough dudes)
Fascinating article, and thank you for excerpting it, though I think some of your commentary steers too far towards Scylla in an attempt to avoid Charybdis. The reduction in the population of Herero and Nama from 100,000 to 30,000 was an appalling crime, not "a pretty civil method of achieving peace". You can argue that the popular image of German colonialism is inaccurate without whitewashing atrocities.
Niall Ferguson is another historian that has talked about the benefits of colonialism and has gotten a lot of hate.
I know this article is about German colonies. But if there's one that compares English/American colonies vs French ones, it will be very interesting indeed. The gift of the English language to the people of the Philippines and India is perhaps the biggest factor in their rise and integration into the world economy. In contract, look at Haiti or Ivory Coast. I think the French language has held back those countries.
Another related study linking colonial to higher average incomes. Probably know of it but I'll include it here anyways because it is related.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-016-9130-y
´´It is modeled on the principles that economic research show works the best: free markets, low taxes, and not much regulation.´´
He says, as a Dane in Denmark, not realizing that his country proves that wrong. It should be pretty obvious that human capital is the variable that explains why both Denmark and Singapore are rich, while the Third World is not, and not low taxes.
Imagine how great the world would be if Europeans had never decided to colonize SSA and instead let the Arabs and later the Asians enslave, exterminate, and colonize it. There would be far fewer SSAs in the world, maybe none by now. It's harsh but unarguable, I think, that the fewer SSAs (and Arabs) there are in the world, the better it is. The EA morality of Bantu-maxxing or SSA-maxxing in general is impractical and unthinking. The most important graph as per Steve Sailer is relevant here. There will be ca. 3+ billion SSAs in 2100, and half of the world population will live in Africa. Based on surveys, half of them want to move. That means 1-2 billion SSAs moving to Europe (there wont be much of Western Europe left by 2100 but still some), North America, Australia, etc. because those are the only places that will want to take them. Non-whites don't want Africans, Arabs or SSAs, including their own racial/ethnic compatriots; they will only take them under pressure from the West. It's going to be interesting to see whether the West can force the Asians into mass 3rd world replacement immigration once they realize that they can't survive the onslaught much longer.
German here. Will continue to read, but first some wikipedia to set the record straight about the Herero Wars and the benevolent Germans:
"It took the Germans until 1908 to re-establish authority over the territory. By that time ... 65,000 of 80,000 Hereros and at least 10,000 of 20,000 Nama (had) died as a result of the conflict. ...
Aftermath: ... On 16 August 2004, 100 years after the war, the German government officially apologised for the atrocities. "We Germans accept our historic and moral responsibility and the guilt incurred by Germans at that time," said ... Germany's development aid minister. In addition, she admitted that the massacres were equivalent to genocide.
The Herero are suing the German government in a class action lawsuit. In 2021, Germany announced that they would repay Namibia €1.1 billion." -
Tsing-Tao/China: In 1900, the Kaiser famously said about the Boxer Rebellion in China: "Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German"
Enlightened monarchy is best, or maybe not?
Colonialism sucks because baby sitting low iq masses is usually a sub optimal use of high iq peoples time.
In a world we’re physical access to resources or unique biological advantages (African disease immunity before anti biotics) there were reasons Europeans want colonies and slaves. But nowadays we can just buy cobalt or whatever from them while they do their own thing.
Japan, South Kore and Singapur have high hdi/gdp per capita than many european countries. They should colonize europe according to your logic. Newyork or California should colonize denmark. I hope you will be happy.
Maybe woke left was right in some topics. You are literally defending colonialism. It includes slavery, slave trade, genocide, massacre, pop transfers with force, occupation. I thought you are libertarian. I thought european/white right wing intellectuals were more libertarian than others. It seems i have to change my ideas.
I can anecdotally support this. I lived in Nauru, a tiny Pacific Island, for a while some time ago.
Basically there are 12 tribes who co-existed somewhat peacefully and somewhat not until western boats bought alcohol which led to essentially relentless violence.
The Germans then arrived, kidnapped the 12 Chiefs and said "you can have them back as soon as she we get all the guns", the deal worked a treat and Nauru knew perhaps the best 50 years of its history until it was transferred to Australia and NZ and GB after WWI.
But if we take a hereditarian/HBD view, then we couldn't simply hand wave away the Nazi experience, or the exterminationist or population replacement oriented colonialism of Northwest/Germanic Europeans in North America and Australasia.
Incidentally, Gilley seems to focus on a period in which colonialism was a backdrop to intense inter-state competition among the European powers. The colonies were sources of labor and resources to be marshalled to compete against other European states. The objective was a bit different than under population replacement oriented settler colonialism. Hitler and the Nazis made the argument that since most of the Earth was already colonized by European powers, trying to acquire territory outside of Europe meant going to war against European states, so it would make more sense to try to acquire territory in Europe for Germany.
Also, it's not clear that the kind of colonial rule Gilley extols was good for Europeans in general. There are claims that it benefited narrow sectional interests but that in general they were money and resource sinks for the broader European population. Moreover, if it were truly positive and beneficial, to such an extent that it would eventually uplift the colonized above and beyond the colonizing power, then it's not clear how Gilley could maintain that it would be good for Europeans and a worthy project. It seems his argument is premised on some sort of static situation that fossilizes into a caste system.
Gilley's argument is also premised on a kind of Fukuyama-esque End of History view in which liberal democracy is the final and best telos for human society, which seems dubious.
Finally, I don't think this is a completely intellectually honest case. I don't think Gilley would argue that colonialism enabled population explosion of Africans, for example, and their extensive integration with Europeans, were good and good for Europeans in particular. And I don't think he would believe that genuine uplift of colonized populations that raised them above and beyond Europeans in wealth and power would be good. But he's not making an explicit case for domination that maintains static hierarchies. He's couching his case in terms of beneficent uplift.
İs western colonialism include soviet rule on central asia&caucasia, german(habsburg/prussia) rule on slavs in eastern europe? Some people think there is such thing as a polish colonization of ukraine.
Colonialism may have indirectly promoted communism. Foreign oppression and violence can strengthen vengeful socialism. Thailand, for example, is did not have a communist revolution. This country has maintained its independence unlike Vietnam, Cambodia or Burma. Thailand is also the most integrated to western world and 2nd richest country(after malaysia) in that region.
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_the_Union_of_Burma
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Vietnam
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_People%27s_Revolutionary_Party
Quite interesting. But isn't colonialism really difficult to set up from an economical and an administrative standpoint, especially in today's advanced market conditions? Do you think a more modern form of "colonialism" would be genetic interventions? If we get to the point where we have really accurate genomic selection, or even the more futury stuff like CRISPR and iterated embryo selection, increasing IQ by 1 SD would have the same if not greater effect on economic and political prosperity, and it would have the added benefit of being more easily accepted (I think you posted a poll where third world countries were much more approving of genetic interventions to boost intelligence). Anecdotally, I don't see anyone from the EA crowd having the "coloniser" vibe (those were some tough dudes)
Fascinating article, and thank you for excerpting it, though I think some of your commentary steers too far towards Scylla in an attempt to avoid Charybdis. The reduction in the population of Herero and Nama from 100,000 to 30,000 was an appalling crime, not "a pretty civil method of achieving peace". You can argue that the popular image of German colonialism is inaccurate without whitewashing atrocities.
Niall Ferguson is another historian that has talked about the benefits of colonialism and has gotten a lot of hate.
I know this article is about German colonies. But if there's one that compares English/American colonies vs French ones, it will be very interesting indeed. The gift of the English language to the people of the Philippines and India is perhaps the biggest factor in their rise and integration into the world economy. In contract, look at Haiti or Ivory Coast. I think the French language has held back those countries.