Last time I mentioned this, someone brought up to me that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. It's an okay document, it's got some of the best parts of the Magna Carta and U.S. Bill of Rights in it, but one part I particularly disagree with:

> The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

I think "the basis of the authority of government" should be sane, good governance - protecting individual rights, keeping peace and stability, and keeping citizens free from violence and crime. I could care less if I have a say in the government if they're generally keeping me safe and leaving me alone. I think sane, wise, and effective governance should be the basis of authority for government, regardless of whether it's "the will of the people" or not. I imagine many in Africa feel the same way, and would be much better off under rule from proven decent governors instead of what they've got now.

> Yes, after installing themselves as the local aristocracy and landowners, and relegating the natives to serfdom.

There's a map of the British Empire here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/The_Briti...

Almost every one of those regions has been more peaceful, stable, and prosperous than neighboring non-British managed regions. Almost all of them saw a decrease in prosperity once they left the British Crown, with only a couple exceptions.

Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule - nowdays, not so much.

India? Much further along than Pakistan and its non-British governed neighbors. Serious decline in prosperity, freedom, and safety; massive increase in religious violence and resurgence of the caste system after the British pulled out.

The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand obviously turned out quite well largely modeling British systems of common law, trade, treaty, military organization, and government.

Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance.

Ireland's a mixed bag, the British did some good and bad things there. I'm a quarter Irish and a quarter English by the way, and the British legitimately did some good things. The religious infighting was nasty, but Ireland is quite prosperous today, all of the UK is along with Wales and Scotland.

The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule.

And then there's Hong Kong, which is where I am right now. Any doubts there?

Oh, I forgot Singapore, and having done jobs in both Malaysia and Singapore, who are neighbors of the same ethnicity, climate, geography, and natural resources, there's no doubt that Singapore is much better off.

So was it serfdom under the British Empire? Was it bad? You tell me - would you rather be under British governed Burma, or Burmese governed Burma? British Egypt or Egyptian Egypt? British Hong Kong or PRC Hong Kong? British India or Indian India?

I missed the island countries - Maldives, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Bermuda, and the rest of the British Caribbean and Polynesia. If you had your choice in 1700, would you want to be in one of the British governed islands or the local governed islands?

Yeah, self governance? Not high on my list of priorities. Sane, good governance, minimal violence and corruption, safety? High on my list of priorities. Again, keep me safe and leave me alone, and I don't care so much that I have a say in the government.

I must tell you too, the infighting was and is not religiously motivated. This is a common mistake. The fight is and was between nationalists (those who desire an Irish republic) and loyalists (those British settlers and their offspring who desire British rule). Their religious affiliations are an aside.

What you're calling "better" was a cosmetic superficial metric of success; you had a ruling class that had a life-style comparable to that of the colonial masters, but the great unwashed masses had no such fortune.

You, and many others, use Britishness or Europeanness as a metric of progress. Things are good as long as they resemble comparable things in London. I read that bullshit in travel literature; Saigon is great because it has French architecture, and Eritrea is lauded for its Italian "heritage".

I swear, I could write a dissertation on every news headline, magazine article, ad, or a forum comment I come across everyday. Propaganda strikes and runs deep, methinks.

If you assume that it's just British rule, that assumes that it's random.

That is a very insightful point. That single sentence severely weakens grandparent's argument -- the un-stated assumption that the British rolled a die, and randomly picked among a set of uniformly desolate and completely undeveloped countries in order to colonize them.

British colonies are indeed more peaceful, prosperous, and educated than similar non-colonized areas. This is generally accepted as a fact amongst historians, if any of the stuff that I read is an indication.

However, there were also abuses of power, and although it might be hard to claim that they were truly systematic, they were also widespread and common.

Unfortunately, cheaper labor makes fast reconstruction and monumental development possible; slave labor makes it even more so. Does anyone think the pyramids could have been built by a free population of well-fed and prosperous peasants?

It's a shame you got downvoted at all. A carefully-researched and made point shouldn't be getting downvoted here in all places, even if people disagree with its conclusions.

That's actually the current theory. The theory that the Pyramids were built by slaves has fallen under question."Archaeologists now believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza (at least) was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of tax payment (levee) until the construction was completed, pointing to worker's cemeteries discovered in 1990 by archaeologists Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_t...

You don't actually have to pay the workers extra money, either, if pyramid labor was a form of tax payment. It's still somewhat of a mystery how they managed to design and construct the damned things, but it would have required a large amount of skilled and compensated workers even if the brunt physical labor was borne by slaves. "The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have a mean error of only 58 millimeters in length. The base is horizontal and flat to within 21 mm. The sides of the square base are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 4 minutes of arc) based on true north, not magnetic north, and the finished base was squared to a mean corner error of only 12 seconds of arc." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza)

EDIT: Once you have enough skilled foremen, the gain from enslaving a bunch of other people to do the heavy lifting isn't as much as you'd think--especially for an already-rich civilization that already had to invent a lot of clever, labor-saving techniques just to get the damned things built.

I was just questioning that the entire base of labor for the construction of the pyramids was skilled and compensated.

I think that if we were to still disagree, it would only be on the relative involvements of the two forces, and frankly I don't know enough on this specific subject to make that kind of argument.

You can reminisce about British/Euro colonialism all you want, but we as East Africans didn't want them. When given a choice between accepting the super power, or fighting them off, we chose the later and paid for it dearly. Independence didn't come to us cheap, we had to bloody the nose of the empire and send it packing :-)

Neither you nor anyone else has the right to dictate the fate of a people. Sovereignty above prosperity my man.

You say self governance is not high on your list. Nearly everyone on earth is either from a colonial power, or from a former colony. Unless you're from one of the few places on earth that escaped colonization; you're either implicitly rejecting your country's fight for independence, or you're a colonialist yourself, or a direct beneficiary, and have no right to speak for your so-called "subjects".

That's not very nice, nor constructive. It doesn't improve the conversation at all. I really wish people wouldn't do that.

> Sovereignty above prosperity my man.

There are a few hundred thousand women in Africa that might take issue with your absolutist position.

One of the points of the article here was that, absent any governance at all, the violence in some areas of Africa has gone from being about anything to merely being violence for violence's sake. How can that possibly be considered a better outcome?

To badly quote Bertrand Russell, once you begin to think about human suffering, it's hard to think about anything else. It is hard for me to fathom how anyone could see the actual condition in these areas, and conclude that their ideology justifies those conditions!

I have every right to speak for my "so-called subjects"; I have the right of a rational argument, which is this: colonial rule is a lesser atrocity than the rule of anarchic violence.

I wonder if Britain had had the same natural resources and geographical vulnerability as your average African nation, would they have become a colonial power?

Well, this is a bad thing for me to hear from you, because you're one of the commentors on here I admire and always look to read your point of view. You're usually saying some quite insightful stuff.

So let me ask if I may, how could I put forth the idea that colonialism isn't such a bad thing without being inflammatory and libelous? I know a lot of people hate it, are raised and taught in school that their country's revolution was most justified and glorious, etc, etc. (I was taught the same way, and had the same feelings until doing a lot of research and reading) Now I don't think that's the case, I think the British did a generally good job, and if I was alive in the times of the British Empire, I'm pretty sure I'd want to be under British rule. Is there a way I can put that point of view out there straightforwardly without tweaking people?

As a general rule, you're not wrong in the sense that a strong government can provide stability to a region. But it's important to remember the native population had no role in government. They never were taught how to govern by the British or allowed to develop their own methods of governing, because it was the British intention that their colonies always be dependent on Britain. The collapse after British withdrawal backs this up I think. Had the native population played a larger role in governing themselves or been given the freedom to develop their own system, they might have been able to create a stable government after Britain left.

There's also the fact that the British enslaved millions while building their empire. The military that created the stability you admire was paid for by the lives of millions of Africans. Seems like there is something wrong about glorifying that stability, given how it came about.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the stability provided by the British Empire was a false and immoral stability. But factually your right that there was some temporary stability. That said, you can stabilize a region by enslaving everyone if you wanted to. Clearly there is a continuum for moral and immoral ways to stabilize a region. It's my belief British colonialism leans more towards the immoral side, but I understand where you are coming from.

Sorry, that was stream of consciousness haha. I know it's not well formed.

EDIT:

Is there a way I can put that point of view out there straightforwardly without tweaking people?

I'm not sure. I think there is something important to what you are saying, but it is difficult to frame it without implying that the colonized are inferior. There are positive things to say about the British system of government yes, but who's to say the native populations wouldn't have developed something just as good given the chance? Do I wish all the lives in Africa since the British withdrawal could be brought back? Yes. Do I think subjecting the entire African continent to British rule for two centuries is a fair price to pay for that? I'm not sure. Ultimately African nations need to learn (with international help) how to govern on their own.

i.e., I'm not getting any sense of "fundamental inferiority" from his statements. Rather, he's been saying that the resident populations have generally been more peaceful, and more prosperous, during British colonial rule. The bits of world history that I've been reading lately would support his case. (I keep flipping through my books in the background here trying to locate the specific examples that I know I've read.)

You're also right that the British colonization tended to be exploitative, but that's a different argument altogether.

For me, I'm resolving the two arguments by comparing the violent anarchy of the Congo to the oppressive British rule in, say, Burma. If I had to choose to live as a native of one of those countries in the relevant time period, I would definitely choose British colonial Burma over modern Congo, and if I had to go in as a female, I would beg for Burma. That's not to say that Burma would be ideal, but just that I would be less likely to experience as much misery.

So if Britain was really concerned with stability, why didn't they just leave China alone? Britain did create stability yes, but only after they invaded a nation and remade it in their own image. Who knows how many African "Zexus" were suppressed by the British? Could African nations have created stable governments for themselves if left alone? The only reason why know about Lin Zexu is because China was powerful enough to resist complete control by the British.

I guess I'm not really challenging the fact that some countries were more stable under British colonial rule. I definitely understand the idea that British Burma is preferable to anarchist Congo. But these aren't the only two possibilities. China proves it was possible to govern without British rule. The Qing Dynasty (and subsequently) the Republic of China are evidence of this. It's not clear what kind of governments could have developed in Africa had the British not enslaved millions of the resident population right off the bat. If we extend our thinking to before the British actually colonized Africa, we no longer have to choose between British Burma and anarchist Congo

EDIT: So this gets at where the sense of inferiority comes from. In lionhearted's argument either we assume British colonization as acceptable and a given OR we assume that the African nations could not have developed a stable government on their own. If neither of those two assumptions are made then we don't have to choose between only British stability and general anarchy.

Our notions of altruism now weren't prevalent at that time, so of course Britain would remake a country in its own image. They were terribly arrogant and had little to no respect for indigenous cultures (and I never meant to argue otherwise).

And, of course nations can potentially create stability on their own, and without British influence. Many have done exactly that throughout history. That said, I wouldn't tend to argue for the colonization of peaceful, well-organized countries.

I do think that colonization, under modern approaches and with the intentions of being present in a country only temporarily, is a reasonable approach to countries which can't seem to govern themselves.

> It's subtle, but it feels like the argument you put forth implies the colonized were lesser than the British in a fundamental sense.

Ah, this is not at all my sentiment. Perhaps because I chose England people feel this way? I did it because it's a common frame of reference, anyone discussing on this site in English knows about the British Empire. But I just as much love studying histories of other periods, and am greatly impressed with people like Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu during Sengoku Japan, Sejong of Korea, Ismail of Morocco, Mehmed of the Ottomans, Mustafa Ataturk of Turkey, Cyrus of Persia, Shah Jahan of India, Saladin of Arabia, Trajan, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius of Rome, the eight great builder-kings of the Khmer Empire, Deng Xiaoping of China, Washington, Jefferon, Franklin, and Jackson of America, and many more really. I've spent most of my time learning the history of the Americas, Western Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia with less about other places, because I've spent most of my time in the Americas, Western Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, and I usually learn about the cultures I'm in. So I was finding it kind of strange to get accused of a bias for Euro-dominance - people are reading something I'm not saying into what I'm writing. I picked the British Empire because everyone knows the basic story. People are probably less familiar with the Roman territories, their names, and the relative prosperity of them during different eras of Roman rule. And still less so about the Ottoman Empire, or the Carthaginians, or the Khmer, and so on.

> But it's important to remember the native population had no role in government. They never were taught how to govern by the British or allowed to develop their own methods of governing, because it was the British intention that their colonies always be dependent on Britain. The collapse after British withdrawal backs this up I think.

Yes and no. One of the largest checks and balances on nations in history has been that a grossly misgoverned country could be conquered by its neighbors. It made rulers need to keep the progress of science, commerce, civil order, and general health of the population so that they could have the resources to make an adequate defense. If a place gets corrupt, incompetent, or backwards, it falls to its neighbor. For instance, Rome goes more corrupt and falls to the Vandals. Then, almost always, the conquering side installs their own governors. It's how the world has worked for a long time, really up until mutually assured destruction actually. The Korean War is probably the last "this place near us is mismanaged, let's take it over" war on a large scale.

> There's also the fact that the British enslaved millions while building their empire. The military that created the stability you admire was paid for by the lives of millions of Africans. Seems like there is something wrong about glorifying that stability, given how it came about.

I'd be sympathetic to that point of view, except the British conquered Africa from Shaka Zulu, a brilliant but extraordinarily viciously brutal man. Like, Shaka makes Genghis Khan or Alexander look mild at times. It's really pretty inarguable that the British ruled a hell of a lot better than utter brutality, genocide, and massacre that was Shaka.

> I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the stability provided by the British Empire was a false and immoral stability.

They took over by force - this is questionable, but it's the history of the world of that era. It's what pretty much everyone was trying to do, everywhere; just, Britain succeeded. But anyways, that part is morally grey.

Once they were in charge though, they were generally pretty good and stable administrators. They built a lot of infrastructure, had pretty low taxes outside of wartime usually, in most places took a live-and-let-live approach with the natives, brought education, sanitation, and industry with them, and the people usually got wealthier, healthier, and more prosperous in places they governed.

> I'm not sure. I think there is something important to what you are saying, but it is difficult to frame it without implying that the colonized are inferior.

Well, this is a good point. I'm not sure how I'd do it, but I should bear it in mind. Mind you, I've got some Polish blood in me, I've got some Irish blood in me, I've got some French blood in me. I've got ancestors who were enslaved and kicked around by the English, Germans, and Russians. But none the less, I'm generally an admirer of the good English, German, and Russian governments, and not a fan of the bad English, German, and Russian governments. I'm just a fan of good government.

But I understand what you mean about inferiority. I was never too proud of my Irish or Polish heritage in particular until I learned of certain people I greatly admired - Derek Gleeson who rebuilt the Dublin Philharmonic Orchestra, and a Polish-Jewish woman in Los Angeles whose relatives were Polish resistance fighters against the Nazis, and later black market smugglers during the Soviet Occupation.

Yeah, some places my ancestors hail from got their asses kicked by other nations. That's history, we were an incredibly violent and warlike species until recent history, the winners won, and any of our ancestors who lost would've done it similarly to the other side if they could. But I've come to this conclusion with lots of reading and lots of time, so I should be more sensitive that a lot of people don't feel the same way. I'm not sure how to carefully pick my words on a topic to not hit at someone's emotions, but I'll think about it. Thanks for the feedback.

There are a bunch of other ways the world worked for a really long time too: no civil rights, jailing or killing your political opponents is acceptable, no equality between gender or races. Just because the world has always worked one way doesn't mean it's the right way. In fact, quite the opposite. History suggests almost everything we've done in our past is wrong. Like you said Korea suggests we could have been wrong about this idea.

I'd be sympathetic to that point of view, except the British conquered Africa from Shaka Zulu, a brilliant but extraordinarily viciously brutal man. Like, Shaka makes Genghis Khan or Alexander look mild at times. It's really pretty inarguable that the British ruled a hell of a lot better than utter brutality, genocide, and massacre that was Shaka.

Well sure, but you have to remember once upon a time the British Isles were tribal as well. I'm sure they had their own Shaka Zulu equivalents. For example Diodorus Siculus on the Celts:

"They cut off the heads of enemies slain in battle and attach them to the necks of their horses. The blood-stained spoils they hand over to their attendants and striking up a paean and singing a song of victory; and they nail up these first fruits upon their houses, just as do those who lay low wild animals in certain kinds of hunting." [1]

Yes, when British colonization was happening Britain had outgrown that stage, but perhaps they were able to outgrow it because they were allowed to develop independently as a people? I'm not sure justifying colonization because of people like Shaka is valid. Colonization might have slowed down Africa's growth out of the tribal stage.

Once they were in charge though, they were generally pretty good and stable administrators. They built a lot of infrastructure, had pretty low taxes outside of wartime usually, in most places took a live-and-let-live approach with the natives, brought education, sanitation, and industry with them, and the people usually got wealthier, healthier, and more prosperous in places they governed.

The issue here is that everything the British did was based on their own worldview. It's not clear the British worldview is what is right for Africa. The nations they conquered were not allowed to develop their own systems of government and methods of education. From my perspective that seems like a contributing factor for the current instability in the region.

But I understand what you mean about inferiority. I was never too proud of my Irish or Polish heritage in particular until I learned of certain people I greatly admired - Derek Gleeson who rebuilt the Dublin Philharmonic Orchestra, and a Polish-Jewish woman in Los Angeles whose relatives were Polish resistance fighters against the Nazis, and later black market smugglers during the Soviet Occupation.

That's not quite what I meant. It just seems that you aren't open to the possibility that the colonized nations could have grown to govern themselves. I know there is evidence to support this, but I think you might be minimizing the role that colonization itself played in the long term instability of these areas. Like I said in the beginning, if we looked at the British Isles during the time of the Celts (or even before that), we might also conclude that they could never grow to govern themselves.

--

This line of conversation has been really interesting for me and I'm definitely going to think about it more as well.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#Head_hunting

Although the Britons weren't exactly allowed to develop independently. They were alternatively conquered by many stronger cultures, starting with the Romans and continuing through to the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings and eventually the Normans. As far as cultural shifts go, that's quite a bit more extreme than that experienced by colonies during 19th and 20th century European colonialism, with British cultures being not only shocked by exposure to outside forces but in some cases completely obliterated. But they turned out ok. Strong cultures have been invading weak cultures for nearly all of human history, it has traditionally been one way for cultural innovations to spread.

If a culture is strong enough to be able to so comprehensively conquer another, it's obviously doing something right. I've often thought that the optimal strategy for a conquered territory in that sort of scenario might be to assimilate their victor's culture as far as possible, gradually take over the reigns of power and build up strength locally so as to eventually present the reigning power with a fait accompli. See for how example how the Boers (called Afrikaners later) in South Africa went from being mostly ill-educated and rural farmers who badly lost a war with Britain in 1902 to running most of the government when the Union of South Africa was formed in 1910 and being dominant enough to declare the creation of an independent republic by 1961 without significant opposition and no bloodshed. Ignoring apartheid and all the rest, that has always struck me as a particularly smart way to go about achieving independence. Whether the same approach would have applied in all situations is an open question, but it must surely have been better than overthrowing an external authority without any kind of viable replacement ready for it.

Lewis Lapham on a rather nasty defeat of the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest around a.d. 9: "In the Teutoburg Forest, tribesmen led by a chieftain named Arminius surprised and annihilated three Roman legions -- 15,000 men plus camp followers. Arminius had the heads of his victims nailed to trees: it provided a telling psychological message that was not lost on Rome. Violence became its own reward. The empire retreated behind the Rhine and, except for occasional forays, left Germany alone." Among other fun things, the Cherusci (the "barbarian" group that carried out the attack) were known for nailing defeated-but-living enemies to the trunks of "sacred oak trees".

Don't worry, I can make up for all my lost points here with a witless one-liner against PHP or relational databases.

I think you and I are closer together in perspective than you might think. I don't care about having a say in how the roads are laid out or the standardization of weights and measures, but I do expect freedom and will take it over promises of prosperity yes. As soon as the ruling authority, whether internal or external, starts mandating how I run my life we've got a problem. But I don't care if the guy choosing the layout of the roads looks like me and has the same bloodlines or not - I do spend the majority of my time abroad in countries where I have no vote, and the ruling authority looks differently than me, speaks a different language, and has no common ancestry. I'm comfortable under another person's rule if their rule is good. I don't need a say or someone with shared blood running things as long as whoever in charge is doing a good job.

> Unless you're from one of the few places on earth that escaped colonization; you're either implicitly rejecting your country's fight for independence

That's correct. Two-thirds of the masterminds behind the revolution in my country were complete thugs, brutal men who incited the crowds to mob violence, who burned down buildings, who tortured largely innocent representatives of the Crown, who even condoned the killing of those men's children! We were very fortunate to get some anti-revolutionary anti-"will of the people" types in my country to moderate and put safeguards against mob violence and oppression, and there were a couple exceptional leaders who didn't fully buy into the "spirit of revolution" nonsense. Of course, I live somewhere with public education that pumps you full of patriotism and winner's history, it's only been my detailed studies of primary sources and the opposing point of view that's gotten me to my opinion. Probably less than 1% of my countrymen feel the same way, as they've never seen or heard of the documents I've read and gone through. Again, give me individual liberty, I don't care if the governor looks like me or if I had any say in his taking his post. If he gives me a fair shake, leaves me to my business, and generally keeps the peace, this is fine with me. I'm not a nationalist, I don't think my people are superior to anyone else's, nor anointed to govern somehow. Good governance to me is what I want, which is why I'm just fine living abroad in a country where I can't vote and I'm under the local law of people who look differently than me, have different bloodlines, and speak a different language.

Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, then they'd start building roads, hospitals, and schools and generally managing their territories fairly well.

You then linked to a map of the British colonies and few short comments about a few countries .. which I am happy to quote and refute:

Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule

For the ruling white minority.

The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand obviously turned out quite well largely modeling British systems of common law, trade, treaty, military organization, and government.

Britishness as a metric of success .. wasn't half of Canada French? did they fare worse?

Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance.

The crooked King Farouk was a womenizing gambler and European puppet. It took Gammal Abdelnasser to take back the Suez Canal, bring education and health-care to the masses, and it took the socialists to reclaim Egypt for Egyptians. If you think English colonization is the true recipe for success, look at Turkey :-) Never been colonized, and fares better than all the colonies in its neighborhood.

Ireland's a mixed bag, the British did some good and bad things there.

Very safe to say that in the internet. After a thousand years, English occupation loses its novelty. I wonder how happy are the Irish with it?

The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule.

Is that why France has better presence there today?

And then there's Hong Kong, which is where I am right now. Any doubts there?

Being China's gateway to the world surely helped. It was a lab for China before China opened up and built its economic "Zones". As far back as 1970, Hong Kong was a port to ship smuggled Chinese goods. After '80 it was China's proxy PR agency / Accountant / Mailbox Etc.

But that's not what I said. You actually quoted me -

> This is what you said: Say what you like about colonialism, but this kind of shit never happened under the British Empire. They'd come in, kill the local armies and resistance, then they'd start building roads, hospitals, and schools and generally managing their territories fairly well.

Cutting off people's lips and ears, and arms, and mass rapes, and general brutal chaos - that didn't happen under British rule. By "say what you like about colonialism...", I mean that I don't think it's all roses and there were legitimate problems with it. However, I think peaceful, stable, prosperous colonial rule is one far superior option to bloodbath and no rule of law. Maybe it's not the best option, but it's certainly not all bad either.

> You then linked to a map of the British colonies and few short comments about a few countries

I tried to cover all of the Empire. Did I miss anywhere? They did some bad things - the largest was religious persecution in favor of the Church of England. Some of the monopoly Crown trading companies were bad. Tariffs and shipping laws were corrupt by modern standards; though, on the other hand, the British Navy did a very good job of protecting their territories' ships, transports, and people from pirates and raiders which was a very big problem back then. So it's a mixed thing. Again, not all roses.

> Burma was literally the wealthiest country in Asia under British rule - For the ruling white minority.

Okay, historically, the ruling minority has always done well everywhere. Pretty much everywhere in history was still reasonably comfortable for the ruling minority. That said, I actually just did a lot of reading about Burma recently because I was debating going there. The common people were much better off, wealthier, safer, and more free under British rule than they have been since. The biggest thing the British do well (that the Romans also did) is they let the local people keep their customs and cut off almost all local factional infighting. Burma has many different ethnicities of people in it, that have historically killed, raped, and pillaged each other with abandon. The period of the least amount of this was under British rule, when it was reasonably safe to be of any ethnicity, and you had almost complete religious freedom, and infinitely more free speech than you do today, along with much more free action, freedom of mobility, economic freedom, and economic prosperity. Burma was a hell of a lot better under British rule, almost infinitely so, for almost everyone in society. The British traders and governors there got wealthy, so did the local people, and they all lived exceptionally well. Again though, I might take issue with trade monopolies and tariffs as one of the worst things about the British Empire, so some of that ruling elite wealth was ill-gotten. True, but on balance, Burma was exceptionally better off under British rule, for everyone there.

> Britishness as a metric of success .. wasn't half of Canada French? did they fare worse?

But I didn't say Britishness was a metric of success - I said they used the British systems and turned out well. Common law, classic international trade law, reasonably open borders and consular protection, free markets, well-equipped and well-trained hierarchical professional military, limited powers with checked and balances - these are good systems. There's other good systems - I actually like the Napoleonic Codes from France, and prefer civil law to modern common law. So there's other alternatives, sure. But I point out, you could do a heck of a lot worse than installing the basic English governing system in a place.

> The crooked King Farouk was a womenizing gambler and European puppet.

This is a little "No True Scotsman", no? I'm saying British colonial rule was superior to what came after it, you're saying, "Well, it doesn't count because he was a womanizing gambler and puppet." Well, yes, I might agree. Colonial rule is better than womanizing gambling puppet rule. The assumption that !colonialism = goodgovernment just doesn't hold. Many places threw off colonialism and descended into something much worse. The places that didn't descend into worse largely kept the British system - common law, trade, military, habeas corpus, constitution, professional military, etc, etc.

> If you think English colonization is the true recipe for success, look at Turkey :-) Never been colonized, and fares better than all the colonies in its neighborhood.

Ah, so you point out that colonization is flawed by choosing one of the three most badass colonial empires of all time? Right, Turkey was a colonial power for over 600 years, only ending with WWI. Rome, Britain, China, and Ottoman were the four most successful empires in history. Also, it should be noted that Mustafa Ataturk did not serve the will of the people - I'm a huge admirer of his, and he went outright against the spirit of his times, ended the Caliphate, and basically forcefully modernized Turkey against the people's wishes, with free speech, free religion, a secular government, and other such modernities - these were actually not wanted and resisted by his people; his rule was tenuous in the beginning as a military dictatorship, opening up only later. But he was a great man, he's why Turkey became what it is instead of going the way of Germany after WWI. He's worth reading about if you haven't read about him, Ataturk was a great man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

> Very safe to say that in the internet. After a thousand years, English occupation loses its novelty. I wonder how happy are the Irish with it?

I'm part Irish and I said Ireland was a mixed bag. I'm not sure that's exactly an unsafe thing to say in person, considering a good many of my relatives are Irish and I spent time in Dublin. But yeah, you've got some Oliver Cromwell type stuff, and some Church of England type stuff that was terrible. It's a black mark on the British record.

To be clear, I'm not saying the British Empire is the greatest thing ever. There were problems. But many regions had their most prosperous times under British rule, for the people on the bottom, and the middle class, and the wealthy. But I'm not arguing for the British Empire, it's just an example I picked of good colonial governance. I'm a supporter of good governance, not colonialism itself. The Dutch, for instance, would brutally massacre the people they colonized, which is one reason they have very few friendly ties with anywhere they used to rule. The Spanish, likewise, were more interested in plundering and converting than establishing good government and live-and-let-living. But Rome, Britain, a couple of the Muslim Empires, a couple of the Chinese Empires, and so on - they brought good government to people. Maybe self government is better than foreign government, but if forced to choose, I'll take good foreign government over bad self government any day of the week.

I would like to see evidence of this. Take the most populous British colonies in a few continents: India, Nigeria, the United States and Ireland. How was British rule better than autonomy? You already dismissed Ireland and the U.S. as British "successes", so just focus on Nigeria and India. What figures do you have for literacy, education, life expectancy, and household income?

What?! Yes it did, horrific violence was the dominant factor in British control of many colonised nations.

I will pitch in one. The British war crimes in Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising

http://us.macmillan.com/imperialreckoning

Slavery was the core of the British empire in the West Indies and many other areas until it was abolished in the early 1800s. I'm not sure you can claim the safety provided by slavery is valid and without corruption. Slavery is by definition corrupt. No longer able to use slavery to control the population of colonies, Britain opted to smuggle Opium into China (in defiance of Chinese law I might add). This eventually lead to the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. Not exactly the kind of stability you claim the British Empire provided.

Hell, even today the British Empire is responsible for a lot of conflict in the world. Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan? Britain created state boundaries in these areas that ignored the religious and racial distribution of the ethnic populations. You can be sure this mistake is in part responsible for the conflicts we still see today in these areas of the world.

The issue is not as one sided as the picture you painted.

Egypt? Incredibly wealthy under the British, not so much under self-governance.

You seem to forget that Egypt has a history of more than thousands years and was a superpower long before the British empire even existed. And after that, there was Persian, Greek, Roman, Arab and Ottoman occupation. Thus comparing the country's wealth during and just after the British colonialism is reductive. How about trying to do the same comparison throughout these periods and see under which one Egypt was at its peak?

The United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand obviously turned out quite well largely modeling British systems of common law, trade, treaty, military organization, and government.

and

The African countries were much better under British Rule than non-British rule.

I'll ignore the fact that you're trying to mix together countries that have been independent for centuries with other ones which only acquired it roughly 50 years ago.

What I don't understand is your circular reasoning. If the rule under the British empire was that great, shouldn't the US and Canada be in a much worse state right now compared to that golden age? This seems to contradict your thesis.

And lastly, you seem to forget that most of the conflicts in Africa are due to the artificial borders imposed by colonialism. Some tribes like the Tutsi are spread across Rwanda, Burundi and Eastern Democratic of the Congo. Bring in the fact that most of these countries were governed by dictators largely supported by the former rulers and you'll see a cleaner picture of the situation.

Post Independence India did take some time to stabilize thanks in part to the partitioning of Pakistan. However, overall Indians have indeed had a better life since British left us. This whole notion of British rule was better than sovereignty is not true, especially for India.

You have no idea what you are speaking about. "serious decline in prosperity"? yeah right. If you can prove that you should get the next Nobel prize for economics.

No one in India wants the British back. While we have our problems, we are more prosperous , have less religious violence than when the British were here. (to be clear, we do have religious violence. I'd like data for "less", since you seem so confident). The British Raj was hardly some kind of genteel and benevolent rule. It was highly exploitative and highly repressive.

The Bengal Famine resulted in the deaths of 3 million people,largely due to British policy.

from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)

"During the British rule in India there were approximately 25 major famines spread through states such as Tamil Nadu in South India, Bihar in the north, and Bengal in the east; altogether, between 30 and 40 million Indians were the victims of famines in the latter half of the 19th century (Bhatia 1985).

Though malnutrition and hunger remain widespread in India, there have been no famines since the end of the British rule in 1947 and the establishment of a democratic government."

Decline in prosperity? You have no idea, you arrogant idiot.

If you are arguing that the Germans, say, would have been worse than the British, I agree, but that isn't what you were saying.

You make two points. one, that all former British colonies has inevitably declined when the British ruled it is laughable when applied to India (it might be true when applied to some African countries that have since fallen into anarchy).

We have our problems sure, but we are way better off than under British rule.

"resurgence of the caste system" my ass. The caste system while still present and still harmful is way less powerful than in the period under British rule. You have no idea what you are speaking about.

Anothe point is that unlike Egypt (say, or even Hong Kong) we didn't move from British rule to more autocracy, but toward more freedom. Indians are more free today then ever under British rule.

The other point is "If I was alive in the times of the British Empire, I'm pretty sure I'd want to be under British rule."

Sure, if you were British. An independence movement (like the Indian Independence movement) by definition consists of people who lived during british rule and didn't want to. But by your logic all of them would have wanted to live under British rule forever. Millions of Indians sacrificed a great deal to kick the british out. They most certainly did not want to live under British rule and for good reason.

No one In India today yearns for life under British rule. I can see how someone in say, Sierra Leone, might.

Unlike you poring across your maps, I actually live here. My grandfather(still alive, just) has many horror stories about British rule. The British Raj was highly repressive and hated. We are glad they are gone and if they ever come back, I (a gentle hacker type and hardly some kind of uber patriot) would be the first to pick up a gun and fight to throw them out.

No one in India wants the British back. No one believes we would be better off under British rule today . No one here that is. But then you with your maps know better what we would like ;-).

Not necessary. His intentions are good and I appreciate that lionhearted had the courage to bring up an uncommon point of view, even if it is misguided. He's honestly and openly asking questions and the implication of inferiority is not intentional.

Yeah? I thought he was just being inflammatory and arrogant.

"I appreciate that lionhearted had the courage to bring up an uncommon point of view, "

When you are ignorant you don't need courage. I can bring in all kinds of "uncommon views" (hey George Bush was the real planner of 9/11!! Really! Because I say so!) if I don't have to substantiate them. I find his claim that India has declined since Independence from the British ignorant, and yes, idiotic.

"He's honestly and openly asking questions and the implication of inferiority is not intentional."

No he wasn't. He was making bigoted and inflammatory claims.

My ancestors died in British jails. My paternal grandfather never recovered his health from British torture for participating in a peaceful rally asking for independence. It wasn't that far away.

I understand and appreciate you feel differently.

I'm arguing against his point of view as well, but name calling doesn't accomplish anything. Anger doesn't make the world a better place (even if it's well justified).

My ancestors died in British jails.

It's likely that some of mine did too (Irish), but honestly I don't think that makes me any more qualified to speak on this issue. I understand this topic is very emotional for a lot of people, but it's best to avoid bringing in stuff like this. I think it ruins objectivity.

For what it's worth, I agreed with a lot of your points in your original post. I just think you're undermining yourself with the name calling.

There's nothing inappropriate about his tone.

So easily demolish them. I'm here for discussion, if I made a mistake, let me know. I said I wanted to hear and address opposing points of view, and I'm clarifying and trying to answer all the questions and feedback I get.

Actually, I'll be honest - the format I'm getting responses in is difficult for me to keep up with. People write eight questions/counterpoints. I answer all eight. Then they nitpick two of them and ask for all sorts of data and proof from me. They don't say, "Hey, those six points you made? Those are good points, and I now agree." They just ignore the responses and pick a single sentence or two that they can quote out of context and nitpick with. But I'm trying to address and answer them all in good faith - if someone takes the time to write an intelligent response to me, I'll try take the time to cite clarifying and supporting information.

So if I'm making false claims, please do point them out and let's discuss. I've stated, I don't know, 30-70 historical facts in almost 10 replies. I've given my personal opinions on governance based on those. If you disagree, jump in, I've had some really good discussions in this thread, and I'm learning, and apparently some other people are learning because they're voting up my comments and the people I'm discussing with, which is good.

> before retreating behind Well, gee, don't you think the British meant well in conquering and occupying your country?

Mate, it's called having a discussion. Someone has a drastically different opinion than me, and instead of just putting my fingers in my ears and saying "la la la I'm right la la la" I ask what their personal feelings are. The snark doesn't add much, but if you feel I'm mistaken, then go ahead and weigh in, point it out. If I'm mistaken on facts, I want to be corrected, and a couple people have pointed out other facts for me to consider and linked to them. If you don't agree with my opinions, do feel welcome to share your own, and perhaps I can evolve my opinions if you make a good case. Don't just say, "slew of easily-demolished false claims" without pointing out what they are - go ahead and demolish them. It doesn't hurt my feelings, and we all can learn from it.

1. Pakistan was British governed. 2. Almost all neighbours of India were British governed

> So was it serfdom under the British Empire? Was it bad? You tell me - would you rather be under British governed Burma, or Burmese governed Burma? British Egypt or Egyptian Egypt? British Hong Kong or PRC Hong Kong? British India or Indian India?

To compare British and Indian India, some points which I also added to Pinkplonk's comment.

Literacy changed from 12% to 66 % from 1947 to 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India

Life expectancy changed from 32 years to 65 years (47 to 07) http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1GPCK_enIN371IN372&...

Gdp changed from 93 Bil to 1.22 Trillion http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enIN371... (1950-2007)

In fact I am willing to wager that there is not only no indicator of progress where India made significant progress post independence, but also that on all it made progress at a rate fater than the worldwide average.

> They just ignore the responses and pick a single sentence or two that they can quote out of context and nitpick with. But I'm trying to address and answer them all in good faith - if someone takes the time to write an intelligent response to me, I'll try take the time to cite clarifying and supporting information.

Since I am from India, and only know its history post independence, I can only provide data from that context.

Already done, quite effectively, by other people.

1. India was one of the greatest cultural and intellectual centers of the world before interference from foreign western nations. I don't remember who it was -- it might've been Robert Cowley? -- but one of the historians I read recently made the point that if a culture develops a certain level of sophistication, it will tend to try to return to at least that level again in the future. That is, civilizations have a "cultural memory", and India in particular would have strongly benefited from this effect.

2. Post-colonial Indian government is modeled in significant portions on parliamentary structures, especially British ones. I think it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the influence of British government in India.

3. Mahatma Gandhi. India was fortunate to have a cultural leader of his magnitude; he was an amazing individual, and I don't think it's hard to imagine a very different modern India without him.

4. You might want to edit some portions of the Wikipedia article on India; it tries to give the impression that there has been more violence and trouble since the end of colonial rule. I don't know enough Indian history to cite it one way or the other, but if you think the opposite is the case -- and you can support it -- then it would be nice for WP to get updated.

This is the WIkipedia link on post Independence India. http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_India

Which part gives you the idea that there was more violence in India than under British rule? There was massive violence just after Partition (partly during British rule and partly after Independence). The resulting hostility with Pakistan has given us three wars and a couple of insurgencies. As the world is beginning to find out these days, Pakistan is a haven for all kinds of interesting people and ideologies.

Sure there was and is violence (of all kinds) in India after Independence.

No one claims that all parts of India were or are oases of peace and calm all the time. But they weren't under British rule either! India is a very diverse and unevenly developed country. When violence happens the government (like all governments elsewhere) tamps it down.

Also I am not dismissing the influence of British institutions like Parliament. I am disputing the idea that we are worse off today than we were under British rule (as lionhearted tried to claim, based on some poring over maps or whatever). This is a completely laughable claim, to anyone who lives here.

If India is a "special case" for whatever reasons, say so. Don't make ridiculous claims (like lionhearted did) that we "declined" since independence. You have no idea. Ask someone who lives in India what they think of this idea.

Every country has problems after independence. Or any given moment in its history for that matter. That is how history moves forward. It isn't as if Independence brings eternal peace and calm forever.

Let us take America. After independence from the British, all kinds of problems "arose". They continued enslaving people who had done them no harm, fought a murderous civil war over that issue, took over parts of Mexico, fought wars with the British, Mexicans, Spaniards, Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis and the Afghans. They had race riots in plenty. Asassinations of presidents and peaceful demonstrators. Terrorist attacks. Now they have a failing state on the southern border and drug wars spilling over.

Yadda Yadda. None of which shows that independence from the British was a bad idea or that America has "declined" since then.

Why are you trying so goddamned hard to argue with me? All I've -- politely -- asked, for fuck's sake, is if you would mind contributing to a Wikipedia article on the subject! I'm not even disagreeing with you! And I cannot, if my life depended on it, fathom why you would write some counter-examples as a reply to my one sentence clarifying the article in question and my request.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You said this paragraph from wikipedia seemed to imply that problems "arose after independence" and asked me to edit it.

Let us see what the paragraph says

"Since independence, India has faced challenges from religious violence, casteism, naxalism, terrorism and regional separatist insurgencies, especially in Jammu and Kashmir and Northeast India. Since the 1990s terrorist attacks have affected many Indian cities. India has unresolved territorial disputes with the People's Republic of China, which in 1962 escalated into the Sino-Indian War, and with Pakistan, which resulted in wars in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999. India is a founding member of the United Nations (as British India) and the Non-Aligned Movement. In 1974, India conducted an underground nuclear test[38] and five more tests in 1998, making India a nuclear state.[38] Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms[39] have transformed India into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, increasing its global clout.[20]"

Why should I edit this? Because it lists problems India faced after Independence?

I replied that such "problems arise" in every country after independence (implying that I don't feel the need to edit the paragraph) and I provided a example of how in another country "problems arose" after independence.

You didn't like that? Too bad.

To your original point about wikipedia I pointed you to a far more detailed wikipedia article (linked from the article you pointed to btw but then you didn't notice that) which detailed the history of India after Independence.

I don't see a need to "contribute" because you couldn't be bothered to read it.

(you aren't the only one with a short supply of patience and if you feel the compulsion to indulge in obscenity laden "outbursts" here, feel free)

Literacy changed from 12% to 66 % from 1947 to 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India

Life expectancy changed from 32 years to 65 years (47 to 07) http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1GPCK_enIN371IN372&...

Gdp changed from 93 Bil to 1.22 Trillion http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GPCK_enIN371... (1950-2007)

Do you really think Indian Independence was the only factor over a 60 year period responsible for that 33 year life expectancy increase? It's what you comment appears to say.

I'd still believe your (implied) argument considering that it was likely that after Indian Independence the people were more able to get access to modern medicine and distribute it effectively, but without including some comparative estimate those data points are particularly biased and misleading.

> Yeah? I thought he was just being inflammatory and arrogant.

> When you are ignorant you don't need courage. I can bring in all kinds of "uncommon views" (hey George Bush was the real planner of 9/11!! Really! Because I say so!) if I don't have to substantiate them. I find his claim that India has declined since Independence from the British ignorant, and yes, idiotic.

> No he wasn't. He was making bigoted and inflammatory claims.

Look, this sort of thing is unnecessary. I don't mean any disrespect to you and your ancestors, I'm a student of history, and many brilliant scientists, artisans, traders, and statesmen have come out of India. I'm not sure how you feel about Shah Jahan since he was of mixed Mughal descent, but I'm a huge admirer of his, his military campaigns, his statesmanship, his warriorship, his relationship with Mumtaz Mahal, his childrearing, his artistry, and of course the building of the Taj Mahal. One of the people I look up to. I like to think through things and analyze governance and history, but you ought to know I have a deep respect and admiration for a number of great thinkers and doers in Indian history. Perhaps I'm inflammatory (not intentionally), but I'm certainly not being bigoted. Onwards -

> You have no idea what you are speaking about. "serious decline in properity"? yeah right. If you can prove that you'll get the Nobel prize for economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India

"India was under social democratic-based policies from 1947 to 1991. The economy was characterised by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow growth.[12][13][14][15] Since 1991, continuing economic liberalisation has moved the economy towards a market-based system."

I didn't know what year it ended until I saw that piece (1991), but I did know some of Indian economic history from the withdrawl of the British to the late 1970's, because I studied it in contrast to the Japanese. India had a larger population, more capital, more natural resources, and Japan became a world power from ruins while India languished. Why is that? It was because of modern mercantalism and protectionism. Modern machinery and industrial techniques were actually banned to protect traditional industry - thus the Japanese output-per-worker was 30 times higher in some industries. Yes, 30 times higher. The Indian government also severely restricted foreign investment.

This started changing in the 1990's. What India's done over the last 20 years is amazing, and a great thing. I've got Indian friends who live in Goa and Khajuraho, and I worked with a fellow from Mumbai. I also had a lovely girlfriend from Northern India a couple years ago. I've talked a lot with them. India's on the rise and incredibly prosperous these days. But the economy, infrastructure, and management of India from 1950-1990 was pretty poor.

> Decline in prosperity? You have no idea, you arrogant idiot.

Mate, I'm not attacking you personally. I'm talking governance and economics. Seriously, I'm happy to have a discussion with you, but can you not flame when you disagree? You did this last time you disagreed with me when I wrote about my thoughts on beauty standards in response to the Okcupid message response rates by photo. You seem like a smart, technically inclined, good person - I'm not your enemy. Or hell, maybe I am, but you're not my enemy. I respect you. We can have a civil discussion without insults.

> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943)

Yes, that's true. The Japanese absolutely savaged the British Army in Singapore, Burma, and parts of India. And there was a drought. The British severely mismanaged it, but they were previously importing 15% of Bengal's food from Burma. And a drought hit. Bad timing. People were on starvation rations in England itself, and Bengal got hit hard. It was a terrible tragedy. I'm not sure I'd chock it up to England's fault, except to say that their commanders weren't competent enough to defeat the superiorly armed, superiorly supplied, greatly outnumbering Imperial Japanese Army.

> one, that all former British colonies has inevitably declined when the British ruled it is laughable when applied to India

Well, I didn't say all British colonies declined, but yes, India did decline in economy, safety, sanitation, and infrastructure after British withdrawal, only starting to turn it around in the 1980's. Nowdays there's been rapid growth and India's coming onto the world stage as a potential imperial power under good governance, with a rapidly getting educated large labor force. India is in good and improving shape these days yes.

> "resurgence of the caste system" my ass. The caste system while still present and still harmful is way less powerful than in the period under British rule. You have no idea what you are speaking about.

> No one In India today yearns for life under British rule. I can see how someone in say, Sierra Leone, might.

Now? Yes. In 1950? Maybe, maybe not. Life improved for the elite of India, life got a hell of a lot worse for the lower castes. One million died in religious fighting in the two years after the British pulled out, millions more were turned into refugees. Before that, people of any caste were eligible to join Indian regimes of the British Armed Forces and join the civil service. Economic mobility was much higher under British rule than post-British rule for the next 50 years.

> An independence movement (like the Indian Independence movement) by definition consists of people who lived during british rule and didn't want to. But by your logic all of them would have wanted to live under British rule forever.

Some people in India didn't want to live under British rule. Some did. The home rule side won, and Indian independence happened. Nowdays, people will be taught that everyone hated the British except some bastard corrupt loyalists, just like we're taught in America. I've read a little bit of primary source 1940's and 1950's Indian history, including quotes from people friendly to the British and the various debates, but I've read a lot more early American history. American was by no means all pro-revolution. Maybe it was 50-50. Maybe. Or more like 20% revolution, 20% loyalist, 60% neutral/confused. The revolutionaries won, so history books now record everyone as pro-revolution anti-Britain. It certainly wasn't the case in the United States, and it wasn't the case in India. Not everyone wanted the British to leave. Many did. That side won.

Nowdays India is doing great, so you could say it worked out, but there were some downsides. There was a decline when the skilled British personnel went home, law enforcement was understaffed, there was rioting and violence, sanitation declined, city planning declined, infrastructure declined, the government adopted some really awful command-based economic policies that were really shoddy, and quality of life did decline for many people. It's water under the bridge as India is now greatly on the rise. And none the less, this is not a critique of Indian people - the Indian people I know are by and large superb people with excellent ethics, a hard work ethic, who place a strong premium on family ties, loyalty, and industry. I'm an admirer. Actually, by coincidence I had dinner tonight in Hong Kong with an Indian acquaintence. I had chicken tikka masala on rice. It was delicious. But I digress, when I critique the policy of India from 1950-1990, it's a critique of a shoddy government of bureaucrats, not a critique of the Indian people, nor you personally or any of your friends or family, all of whom I have the best wishes towards.

I didn't know what year it ended until I saw that piece (1991), but I did know some of Indian economic history from the withdrawl of the British to the late 1970's, because I studied it in contrast to the Japanese. India had a larger population, more capital, more natural resources, and Japan became a world power from ruins while India languished. Why is that? It was because of modern mercantalism and protectionism. Modern machinery and industrial techniques were actually banned to protect traditional industry - thus the Japanese output-per-worker was 30 times higher. Yes, 30 times higher. India also severely restricted foreign investment."

A couple of subtle errors here.

(1) India didn't do well compared to the Japanese in the period 1947 to 1990. This doesn't prove that India didn't improve from its colonial days. If you have any evidence for India's econmoy declining from its colonial days till the 90's (vs not growing as sharply as the Japanese economy), let us see it.

(2) Let us look at the first five year plan initiated just after independence.

(From wikipedia)

"First plan (1951-1956)

The first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru presented the first five-year plan to the Parliament of India on December 8, 1951. The first plan sought to get the country's economy out of the cycle of poverty. The plan addressed, mainly, the agrarian sector, including investments in dams and irrigation. The agricultural sector was hit hardest by partition and needed urgent attention.[1] The total plan budget of 206.8 billion INR (23.6 billion USD in the 1950 exchange rate) was allocated to seven broad areas: irrigation and energy (27.2 percent), agriculture and community development (17.4 percent), transport and communications (24 percent), industry (8.4 percent), social services (16.64 percent), land rehabilitation (4.1 percent), and other (2.5 percent).[2]

The target growth rate was 2.1 percent annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth; the achieved growth rate was 3.6 percent. During the first five-year plan the net domestic product went up by 15 percent. The monsoon was good and there were relatively high crop yields, boosting exchange reserves and the per capita income, which increased by 8 percent. National income increased more than the per capita income due to rapid population growth. Many irrigation projects were initiated during this period, including the Bhakra Dam and Hirakud Dam. The World Health Organization, with the Indian government, addressed children's health and reduced infant mortality, indirectly contributing to population growth.

At the end of the plan period in 1956, five Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) were started as major technical institutions. University Grant Commission was set up to take care of funding and take measures to strengthen the higher education in the country.[3]"

Does any of that spell "decline" to you ? This was just 9 years after Independence. Did India not progress as fast as the japanese? of course she didn't.

But did India do better than under British rule? Of course she did.

More errors.

" Before that, people of any caste were eligible to join Indian regimes of the British Armed Forces and join the civil service."

This is completely wrong. The British targeted specific warrior castes and upper castes (besides muslims) and did not have an "anybody can join the army" policy (except in WW1 where massive losses on the Western Front made them grateful for any warm body willing to join).

Pre independence, the Civil Service did have a (very very) few exceptional lower caste people(like Ambedkar) but by and large was almost completely upper caste during colonial rule.

It is after independence that people of any caste could join (though there was unoffical discrimination). A policy of reservations was brought in and since then we have had lower caste Indians at the highest levels. More importantly and the situation is getting better every day and was so well before 1990 .

How is any of this "decline from the days of colonialization"?

"Economic mobility was much higher under British rule than post-British rule for the next 50 years."

Rubbish. Show me a few lower caste industrialists/statesmen/diplomats from the British days. I can show you dozens post independence. Economic mobility increased post independence(again relative to colonial rule, not relative to teh japanese!).

You are saying this

"Well, I didn't say all British colonies declined, but yes, India did decline in economy, safety, sanitation, and infrastructure after British withdrawal, only starting to turn it around in the 1980's. "

This is completely incorrect. All the evidence you have is that India didn't progress as fast as the Japanese. This is a very different proposition from India declining from pre colonial levels.

There was a massive increase in economy, safety , health, sanitation and infrastructure from the British days (though growth was MUCH slower than Japan certainly).

"But I digress, when I critique the policy of India from 1950-1990, it's a critique of a shoddy government of bureaucrats"

That still doesn't explain the fact that while the bureaucrats did slow down Idnia's growth relative to other nations, they were much better than British colonizers. If you are caliming that their polciies stopped India from growing as fast as it could have, sure that is valid. But to claim that they drove prosperity below pre independence days is flatly untrue. and that was the point I opposed.

PS: I apologize for calling you an idiot. It isn't so much that I am some kind of defender of all thinsg Indian (I am fairly critical of my country) but I get irritated when people pontiicate about what they know very little about. Bad trait and it is totally my fault not yours. If you ever happen to cme to Bangalore, beer is on me.

PPS: My favorite Mughal emperor is Akbar, not Shah Jahan. I think SJ was a bit of a wuss.

Take education:

Wikipedia:

"Between 1867 and 1941 the British increased the percentage of the population in Primary and Secondary Education from around 0.6% of the population in 1867 to over 3.5% of the population in 1941. However this was much lower than the equivalent figures for Europe where in 1911 between 8 and 18% of the population were in Primary and Secondary education.[18] Additionally literacy was also improved. In 1901 the literacy rate in India was only about 5% though by Independence it was nearly 20%.[19]"

So things improved, but slower than Europe. India also de-industrialized through British rule, but then, the Industrial Revolution in England absolutely wrecked all pre-Industrial workforces everywhere, not just India.

It looks to me like there was an initial surge of chaos after the British pulling out, but that can be explained by inadequate police, safety, and emergency response personnel which the Indian government did try to remedy quickly.

Nehruvian Socialism looks like it was a disaster - per capita GDP looks like it shrunk from 1950 to 1995:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Per_capita_GDP_of_South_As...

But I'd just chalk that up to socialism, no? Socialism historically has slow rates of growth, more poverty, quality of life lagging.

Since the free market liberalization, India's growth rates have been crazy fast. From '99 to '07 the lowest per capita GDP growth rate was 7%, the average somewhere around 12%. Which is fantastic.

Beyond that - what's your take if you have a free minute? I don't want to be ignorant on global affairs and you're obviously quite studied in Indian history. What's your take on the British, the socialism afterwards, and the liberalization? My previous thinking was that the British were trying, but upon reflection the improvements they made did lag the rest of the world. Mixed socialism was probably the worst thing India could've jumped into after that (me: not a fan of socialism at all...) but the liberalization in the 90's was really good.

But what's your take, and can you recommend anything to read? I try to overcome my ignorance when it's there.

And yeah - I'll wind up in India for some reason sooner or later, and I'll look you up. I'd say do likewise if you're in the same place as me, but I'm not sure where that's going to be! I'm in Kowloon, Hong Kong if you're here in the next week or two, most likely Beijing after that. I'll do some more reading on Akbar - I'm familiar with the name but haven't spent so much time checking him out. Thanks for the recommendation, and thanks for the discussion.

Let me ask, since you seem quite knowledgeable - do you think the British meant well in India, or not? It's fashionable these days to bash colonialism, but my understanding is that the British generally tried to do right by the people they governed.

Chaudhuri's take is pretty interesting. He found most administrators to be generally capable and well meaning. The ex-patriots living in India he found to be quite patronizing and racist. They may have been well meaning, but in that "Bauno cares about Africa" sort of way.

GDP stats are created in a political sausage factory, you cannot take claims of "12% growth" or of shrinking GDP at anything like face value.

It's not fair to compare India to Japan, because Japan had a lot of human and cultural capital that India did not have. Japan's low GDP in 1945 was a result of war time destruction, before the war it was an industrialized country that already was way ahead of India.

But it's also not fair to compare present India to colonial India, and claim that the current government is better because certain indicators are better now. Life expectancy went up because of medical advances in other nations (penicillin, etc) that India imported. We have no definitive way of knowing how a 2010 British ruled India would compare to the actual India. But we do know that the change in government produced immediate political change that generally resulted in policies that slowed growth.

Huh? If indicators are used to prove life is worse off now in Africa say, then of course indicators can be used to prove life is better now in India. Besides, I used "indicators" for life 9 years after the British left. Penicillin doesn't account for dams and roads and schools and hospitals and no more famines (for example).

Besides, I was explicitly countering lionhearted's (original) claim that India had devolved from colonial rule, an assertion for which there was (and can be) zero evidence provided, but a lot of people here accepted and voted it up. So it seems "colonialism was a good thing" is a popular idea among people who were never colonized. Sometimes HN surprises me.

On a lighter note, when I was living in America, a co worker wanted to know if we still used elephants for transport, like they used cars! Well I preferrd the flying carpets but we had a spare elephant or two in the stables for when it rained :-P

Ok now I am done with all this historical discussion. Back to hacking!

But technology in general has been improving, so things should be better, all other things being equal. Things may even be better if government is somewhat worse.

But if things have gotten worse, you're really screwing up, so much that technology can't make up for it.

I have no idea how this applies to India, just making a general point.

This is one of those meaningless questions imo. I'll just say that the British were probably better than the other colonizing powers. (The french had a presence in some parts of India for a while and were no worse than the British, but Germans or Belgians would have been worse I guess. So in that very narrow sense we got lucky).

As for books, Try "The Lotus Throne" By Abraham Eraly for the Mughal period and "India After Nehru" for Indian hiatory from 1965 or so.

No, but I don't want the British back either. The Americans don't, the Irish don't, the Chinese don't. That's a major chunk of humanity right there.

"Before the British most of India was ruled by arabs, I'm sure you can cede sovereignty to Iran if that seems like a golden age."

You still don't get it. I am opposing the point that India after Independence is worse off than under British rule. I didn't claim that the British were worse than the Mughals (The last Mughal emperor was a figurehead leader of the ragged coalition that fought the British in the Mutiny of 1857, but the armies facing the British were hardly "mughal" I could claim that but that is a separate discussion.

And since you bring it up, the Mughals weren't "arabs" (they were muslims which is somewhat different, but I am sure your historical knowledge shows otherwise ;-) ). and the British didn't fight or overthrow the Mughals. Their toughest opponents were the Marathas and the Sikhs.

So, yeah most of India was not "ruled by arabs" and finally Iranians aren't "arabs".

It is this kind of historical illiteracy and idiocy I am trying to counter.

Please, oh please tell someone from Iran that he's an Arab. Don't forget to upload pictures of your face afterwards...

The First Opium War directly contributed to the destabilization of the Qing government that led to the cascade of power vacuums for the next hundred years. Before the war, China, while stagnant, was quite stable and was one of the wealthiest nations in the world.

You'd have to go over centuries of history to really see if European interference was a net improvement for Africa at all. I can't speak to that particular question, but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that most of the Amerindians were better off before Columbus than afterwards. "I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian."

http://spacecollective.org/nagash/5282/1491

discussed here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934117

And what atrocities went unreported under the British Empire? It wasn't until Gandhi came along and somehow got the British press to pay attention that the British public was aghast and shamed by what they saw. What was there to be so ashamed about if things were so hunky dory? Colonialism died when the rulers couldn't stand the actions taken in their name to maintain their rule.

What's happening in Africa has happened all over the world, at times even in the U.S. It happens whenever access to certain resources brings in so much money that the government is overwhelmed. It's happening in parts of Mexico right on the U.S. border today, and it's spilling over into the U.S, with the resource being drugs.

In your mind, colonialism[1] has had little to do with the situation we face today? Or its "downsides" are outweighed by whatever good was done?

[1] You know, arbitrary borders against traditional ethnic/cultural separations, slavery, stealing the natives' capital and resources, on one hand stunting the natural evolution of their societies and on the other accelerating it with technology, delaying developing their own good governance over time by installing colonial authorities, etc., etc.

What does that mean? What was pre-colonial Africa evolving towards? And what is your evidence?

It is unknowable. By way of proof of difference I offer the assertion that it is unlikely that a society would be unlikely to arrange itself as a colonial subordinate on its own.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr...

Many things people of countries that were colonies expriences are because of colonialism.

Its like when doctor goes to the patient with chronic pain, gives him a painkiller and breaks his leg. While doctor is there patient feels no pain, after the doctors went away painkiller stops working, and the situation is even worse.

If they are coming for good, why do they kill the resistance and the local armies? If you are going to offer free services that benefit us, why do you need armed soldiers? You Don't! If you want to make use of our resources for our benefit, so that won't really be a matter for 99% of the population, they'll be happy. Point two: Resistance didn't exist before colonialism, it appeared after and it was a result of colonialism.

Question: British contributed in the Iraq War. What was the result? Roads, schools, hospitals? No, but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army, more violence than ever and a corrupt political system.

The result has been the only free country in the Arab world, the recent election of a secular leader, and a dramatically higher standard of living.

but hundred of thousands of deaths under the US and British army,

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths from ALL sources, including things like grudges, etc. This is vastly lower than what Saddam did, and unlike him, the Brits and Americans were trying to kill innocent people. Odd how all the people who claim to be so concerned about the deaths of innocents never set up body count websites before the war, when there were far more bodies.

What's your definition of freedom? Please cite source of "dramatically higher standard of living". According to wolframalpha, the GDP per capita is $780 in iraq (rank: 198 in the world).

_http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ estimates about 100,000 civilian deaths from ALL sources_

From the IBC website: "it should be noted that many deaths will probably go unreported or unrecorded by officials and media."

The Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll estimates the deaths to more than a million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). The IBC has got the lower estimates. I'm more confident to the ORB and even estimate more deaths.

> We English have had hundreds of years of experience on how to treat the Natives. Socialism is all right back home, but out here, you have to be the master.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812973364/

Is obviously factually incorrect to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge. I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you're ignorant and not a bald face lier.

It's going to swing one way or the other. It's both exciting and incredibly scary.

I am definitely not qualified to comment about the rest of Africa. I did, however, watch an insane documentary about Liberia on Vice TV. (And if this documentary is any indication of what is happening in the rest of Africa, that's scary.)

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-gu...

Given the tenders worth millions for roads that get washed away, Malema's calls for mines to be nationalised (revenge for being excluded from a deal in which other poltically connected parties benefited), and attempts by his organisation to intimidate journalists who report on him, his brazen abuse of power is shocking.Coupled with his open calls for white people to be murdered, which are defended by the ruling party, Malema seems to be the sort of African leader described by the article, right down to his lack of educational sophistication and his exploitation of young people. South Africa is not a failed state (yet), so Malema's methods are not as as violent, but, there is no doubt that his intent is.

Malema is a symptom of a deeper problem: South Africa's emergent kleptocracy, in which the ruling party patronage and corruption are expanding, and the deep seated ignorance of the masses (a direct legacy of apartheid policy) are a dangerous combination. With a black township erupting in flames every other week over the lack of service delivery, and the xenophobic attacks of 2008 (largely directed against African immigrants), I am quite pessimistic, however, if opposition parties strengthen their support bases, and the ruling party can disentangle itself from the state, South Africa may be able to save itself.

The U.S. mandate for its incursion into Iraq, and the justification for the predictably subsequent civil war, was to end human rights atrocities in a foreign country. While there were human rights problems in Iraq, there are many more countries in Africa where the abuses have taken on truly astounding proportions.

And, more maddeningly: a mission to the Congo or Sudan would have been simple, or at least far simpler than Iraq. The predators in those countries are not very well armed; they are not well educated, most of them. There would not had to have been a great loss of life. Merely installing a peacekeeping force, and then concentrating on the reconstruction of those countries -- the building of schools and hospitals, and other infrastructure -- would have stabilised the regions.

Those would have been actions that would have lessened my distaste for my taxes.

But, instead of spending the resources on stabilising a region, far greater resources were spent to destablise a different one. It's very, a very disappointing incrimination of human tendencies.

There are states and leaders that the entire world wants gone. Saddam was one of them. Kim Jong Il is another. The problem is that the world fails to realize solving political bankruptcy is just as important as solving financial bankruptcy.

Thomas Barnett is the man to listen to on this stuff: http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_.... Your view is a common misconception that should be corrected.

How so? You state this concretely as though it's a fact, but you don't go on to support it with any evidence at all. I asserted that it would be simpler due to the relative resources of the hostile forces in the countries, and I still stand by that assertion.

I would also cite the article that started this thread; as it said, murdering a single violent leader in these areas of Africa seems to do a pretty good job of taking the wind out of the "rebels'" sails. (I'm using the term "rebel" there somewhat loosely; they really aren't rebelling against anything other than peace.)

Whereas in Iraq, the murder of a single violent leader has caused a bloody and violent civil war and furthered racial tensions. Also, this was predictable: I researched the situation in Iraq before our tanks even rolled into the country, years ago, and came to the conclusion that our usual tactics there would cause this sort of conflict. It's hard for me to imagine that actual scholars wouldn't have been able to do a better job of predicting the outcome there.

And, the whole point of an armed incursion would be to dispel the current political climate (or lack thereof) and create a new, more peaceful, social climate.

> I'm willing to assert strongly that a mission to an African nation would be far harder.

Then do so! :-)

> There are states and leaders that the entire world wants gone. Saddam was one of them.

I question your sense of "the entire world" then. As I recall, there was quite a lot of protest around the world over the U.S. actions in Iraq.

As I said, the invasion is the trivial part, but you keep focusing on it. I did provide proof by the way. My proof is in the video. Please watch it. Thomas Barnett's whole point is that your way of thinking is outdated. The invasion doesn't matter. There isn't any country the US can't invade. Barnett knows a helluva lot more than you or I and I think you should listen and consider what he's saying.

I question your sense of "the entire world" then. As I recall, there was quite a lot of protest around the world over the U.S. actions in Iraq.

That has nothing to do whether the world wanted Saddam gone or not. In general, it's safe to assume that (if given the option) the world would like to take mass murders out of power. Disagreeing with the means does not imply disagreeing with the ends in any logic system I know of.

EDIT:

And, the whole point of an armed incursion would be to dispel the current political climate (or lack thereof) and create a new, more peaceful, social climate.

This is exactly right, but Barnett's point is that we don't know how to do that. That's why a mission to Africa is harder; there's less of a foundation to build on in Africa than in Iraq. The fact that we're able to build an Iraqi army and police force of any size is impressive. At the moment such a task would be impossible in Africa. Think about Iraq pre-invasion. They had a uniformed army, police, and some semblance of government. These things do not exist in many African nations.

But, I just finished watching it. It's great! I was disappointed at the audience's awkward laughter to points that I don't think he was joking about, but he makes a very compelling point, and he makes it clearly.

That said, I don't disagree with him or you on this, and I wasn't actually just focusing on the initial invasion, though I can see how my statements could be interpreted that way.

I'll try to do a better job this time:

I think some parts of Africa, like Sudan, would be easier to both develop an initial presence in, and maintain a mostly peaceful presence in, than Iraq. Although you're right to point out that Iraq has more social infrastructure to begin with, that social infrastructure provides resources to "the other side" as well as "our side".

In other words, I think that there being less of a foundation to build on in Africa is actually beneficial -- even after considering Barnett's point, and agreeing with it. I think it's beneficial because it allows us to more easily provide resources to impoverished people without having to fight them for it. Think about it: there are no schools to blow up in some of these areas, so we can build them from scratch and introduce education to a population that hasn't had it.

I [EDIT: don't] think it's right to say "we don't know how to do that"; though Barnett may say the same thing, I think it's more of a statement that "we don't do that". Certainly Barnett has some good ideas about doing that, as do some aspects of the U.N. and organizations like the Peace Corps.

To underline my point: Iraq did indeed have a uniformed army, police, and some government -- and it is the remnants of those things which we are still fighting in that country to this day, and that's why Africa would be easier to administrate.

I seem to recall something about weapons of mass destruction as the main reason going around when we invaded Iraq. Did I just hallucinate that whole thing? Because the human rights thing sounds like a huge retcon.

WMD were indeed the initial justification; however, when various U.N. investigations failed to find much in the way of evidence for WMD development -- other than a possible mobile chemical lab which may or may not have been used for WMD development IIRC -- the WMD justification came under heavy criticism by those who were following the progress.

The WMD reasoning in fact came under international criticism before we officially breached the Iraqi border. I distinctly recall this because this situation was what prompted my research and essay at the time. The U.S. had mounted large forces on Iraq borders and other points in the area, and I guessed that there was no way the U.S. administration would then simply recall of those forces. They were there, so they had to do something.

So, to counter the weakening of the WMD case, the case for human rights protection started making the rounds in mainstream media and talk radio. Suddenly the case wasn't that Saddam might be able to harm the U.S., it was that Saddam was a bad guy and we were going in there to do good things for the population that he was oppressing.

And that worked long enough to roll the troops in, destroy some cities, topple a statue, and find the guy hiding in a hole.

Also, Saddam did at one point have WMDs, he used chemical weapons to kill over 5000 Kurds.

In neither case was the peacekeeping mission itself particularly successful. MONUC in the DRC stood impressive but ineffectual for over a decade as the violence continued raging around them and civilians continued dying and being terrorised. The violence has arguably died down only because President Kabila has proven to be fairly tenacious and the government army has managed to restore some level control in certain areas, thanks in part to training by Belgian and South African military advisors. UNAMID in Sudan did not seem to achieve much, though their reporting was valuable, with much of the progress in that country seemingly being due to the ongoing strengthening of the South Sudanese rebel movements and the severe international pressure that worked for once. In retrospect, we may be able to claim that both missions were ultimately successful, but it's clear that if it's a rapid end to violence and an improvement in basic human security you want then look elsewhere.

These conflicts are usually just too much of an intractable problem for peacekeeping to be of any real effect. For one, peacekeeping by its very nature tends to preserve the status quo, by slowing the conflict down and preventing either side from gaining a swift advantage, but this is what allows these conflicts to drag on for decades without any real winner. For another, peacekeeping forces are seldom capable of performing offensive missions to wipe out rebel forces and their leaders or groups of bandits, not only because they're not funded for it but because that would require deciding from the outset who to support and who to destroy and the UN, in order not to adversely effect possible negotiations, usually tries to avoid that. After all, what if you make the wrong choice? Finally, how do you build a state up without any kind of central authority around which to hang the authority, monopoly of force and institutions needed to ensure human security? This by the way was a large part of the problem in Iraq, where the US had to create a central authority from scratch and found it to be a whole lot harder than initially thought.

If you are willing to make a snap judgement about who is 'good or bad' in a conflict though, there are solutions that will result in short-term stabilisation. One of these is the use of mercenaries, who have proven in the past (see Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone and their proposed intervention plan for Rwanda) to be effective in this sort of scenario. However, the use of mercenaries is undoubtedly subject to abuses and it's a short-term solution in most cases, as the core civil and social dysfunction that permitted the breakdown in order in the first place remains present. However, they also only work best in cases where they're able to piggy-back off some sort of central authority and where they have a clear mandate and a clear distinction of who the good and bad guys are. And when they leave, as when Executive Outcomes left Sierra Leone to be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force, the violence can start up all over again.

In the end I think the sad fact of the matter is that this is not a simple problem to solve, despite surface impressions. Conflict, crime, poverty and sexual abuse in many African countries is all part of the same issue, of states and civil institutions that are either totally dysfunctional or entirely non-existent, a concurrent tendency for regions to produce warlords rather than self-sufficient federalist enclaves and the immense difficulty both the people living in the country and those from outside face in trying to build a viable and secure system of governance in a place that has little or nothing on which to build. So unfortunately, I think we're going to be living with this problem for a long time to come.

"Even if you could coax these men out of their jungle lairs and get them to the negotiating table, there is very little to offer them. They don't want ministries or tracts of land to govern. Their armies are often traumatized children, with experience and skills (if you can call them that) totally unsuited for civilian life. All they want is cash, guns, and a license to rampage. And they've already got all three. How do you negotiate with that?

The short answer is you don't. The only way to stop today's rebels for real is to capture or kill their leaders."

I agree completely and fully!

"From child warriors to fanatics who revel in slaughter, man's future is written in man's past."

Europe and Asia are perhaps more stable today than they have ever been in most centuries. Could the reason be that a particular economic system that enables the creation of wealth has decreased the desire to invade other nations to acquire it?

Maybe imposing capitalism and the rule of law on those that lost the last world war instead of imposing burdensome reparations on them actually decreased the chances that they would turn to war again.