I've wondered aloud in recent discussions with friends, if historically the best places to be for the average person, was within an empire, after the main conquest phase, but before the decline. I don't have the historical knowledge, nor desire for research to defend this idea on the facts. It just seems to me with empire you remove the constant threat of the ethnic group next door deciding to ride in and take your stuff and rape your women. You get the benefits of secure trade with far flung lands. The central government has the time and finances to do public works projects.
The only downside I can think of is that it offends the primitive instinct to want to think of one's own group as being in charge. It isn't good for the self esteem to think some other group of winners better than you. Yet often the better people in your own group will get with the imperial program and enjoy the benefits.
I suppose the anti-colonial narrative would involve the empire stealing resources from the colonized. Does that outright happen often in history? I know that in some cases the colonized (India, America) say the empire sets up rules around manufacturing unfairly but I don't know how common this has been. I sense a lot of the more recent colonies wouldn't have done much exploiting of their natural resources without the Imperials.
Between the high water mark of the Western Roman Empire and its collapse, many tribes would actually not resist Roman attempts at conquest but instead would openly ask to join the empire, e.g. the Goths and the Vandals. Only really the Germans, the Huns, the Picts, and the Persians seemed to remain steadfastly committed to being independent from Rome.
Yup. At some point the barbarians who asked to join wanted protection from other barbarians. I think the Mongols maybe, when they were on their expansionist tear, would offer cities the option of joining the empire without a fight. Seems like it was probably a good deal
> "if historically the best places to be for the average person, was within an empire, after the main conquest phase, but before the decline."
Edward Gibbon agreed with you a couple of centuries ago. He anointed Rome in the second century as "the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous".
> "The only downside I can think of is that it offends the primitive instinct to want to think of one's own group as being in charge. It isn't good for the self esteem to think some other group of winners better than you."
One of the things about Rome—and other successful empires—is that after a generation or two, often your own people were in charge, and sometimes you didn't even have to wait that long, especially in the local region where you were most likely to encounter the authorities.
> "I suppose the anti-colonial narrative would involve the empire stealing resources from the colonized."
In the case of Singapore, that narrative isn't really available to the anti-colonialists because there was nothing on Singapore to steal; it was just a swampy island that occasionally hosted someone or other's modest trading entrepôt. There were no mines, mills, plantations or important resources of any kind. It was the British and then the Singaporeans who built it into a great trading port, manufacturing and financial center. Their capital really was from their CAPIT (head), rather than from the land itself. So the greater the head, the greater the capital.
Well, semi-unusual. Most countries' wealth is a mix of natural resources and human development (CAPIT) capital. Singapore is just all on the CAPIT side. But there are other countries like that. Taiwan and Japan both similarly have a relatively weak natural endowment but a very strong human endowment. Come to think of it, the WWII Axis countries could mostly be characterized this way (Japan, Germany, Italy, Finland). While the WWII Allied countries (US, British Empire, USSR) could be characterized as enjoying huge natural endowments (huge agricultural lands with vast surplus capacity, ~98% of global oil output, iron, coal, bauxite, etc. etc.) So it was a war of the natural resource havers versus the natural resource needers.
FWIW, the British really did leave a strong legacy of effective administration in their colonies. I've been watching a lot of Indian movies on Netflix and Amazon prime lately and the Indians seem openly to miss the British because they were a lot less corruptible than the current locals. There are no instances in historical movies about colonial rule where a British administrator was venal or corrupt, whereas instances of corruption by Indian officials and policemen arise on a daily basis in most movies about contemporary Indian life. It's a tribute to Singapore's success and self-confidence that they are willing to acknowledge that legacy openly.
I think one thing that gets left out of the conversations on assimilation (and I will hat-tip to the person on American Mind who wrote this if I can find the original article) is that, essentially, assimilation now means assimilating into the anti-white mainstream culture. Of course you can also use your identity to gain status in the elite circles that determine much of the culture, so you have an incentive to play it up.
There's a funny story you may remember about a (white) girl in the USA who decided to wear a cheongsam to prom because she thought it looked pretty. An angry Chinese-American dude accused her of using his culture as a costume, and started a Twitter pileon. Then Chinese people in China found out and chimed in to defend her--they didn't understand why it was a bad thing and found it flattering.
I had a Bengali friend in grad school who was anti colonialist. During this time, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe whose rule started out with massive pogroms against t he Ndebele. I suggested that if I was a 3rd worlder I we ould rather br ruled by a foreigners than my historic enemies. He said I was wrong. I was surprised but then realized that has presumed high ranking bureacrat being part of a colonial regime would limit how much he could steal. I told him that and he said my surmise was correct.
Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, could develop a rock into a successful country. It's amazing. A Vietnamese blogger (Linh Dinh), said something along the lines of look at the potable toilets, or access to running water, dirt poor Asia in 1970s had a higher percentage than Africa today. Can't remember the exact quote. Bet you're safer in Myanmar poverty than Namibia.
I've wondered aloud in recent discussions with friends, if historically the best places to be for the average person, was within an empire, after the main conquest phase, but before the decline. I don't have the historical knowledge, nor desire for research to defend this idea on the facts. It just seems to me with empire you remove the constant threat of the ethnic group next door deciding to ride in and take your stuff and rape your women. You get the benefits of secure trade with far flung lands. The central government has the time and finances to do public works projects.
The only downside I can think of is that it offends the primitive instinct to want to think of one's own group as being in charge. It isn't good for the self esteem to think some other group of winners better than you. Yet often the better people in your own group will get with the imperial program and enjoy the benefits.
I suppose the anti-colonial narrative would involve the empire stealing resources from the colonized. Does that outright happen often in history? I know that in some cases the colonized (India, America) say the empire sets up rules around manufacturing unfairly but I don't know how common this has been. I sense a lot of the more recent colonies wouldn't have done much exploiting of their natural resources without the Imperials.
Between the high water mark of the Western Roman Empire and its collapse, many tribes would actually not resist Roman attempts at conquest but instead would openly ask to join the empire, e.g. the Goths and the Vandals. Only really the Germans, the Huns, the Picts, and the Persians seemed to remain steadfastly committed to being independent from Rome.
Yup. At some point the barbarians who asked to join wanted protection from other barbarians. I think the Mongols maybe, when they were on their expansionist tear, would offer cities the option of joining the empire without a fight. Seems like it was probably a good deal
> "if historically the best places to be for the average person, was within an empire, after the main conquest phase, but before the decline."
Edward Gibbon agreed with you a couple of centuries ago. He anointed Rome in the second century as "the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous".
> "The only downside I can think of is that it offends the primitive instinct to want to think of one's own group as being in charge. It isn't good for the self esteem to think some other group of winners better than you."
One of the things about Rome—and other successful empires—is that after a generation or two, often your own people were in charge, and sometimes you didn't even have to wait that long, especially in the local region where you were most likely to encounter the authorities.
> "I suppose the anti-colonial narrative would involve the empire stealing resources from the colonized."
In the case of Singapore, that narrative isn't really available to the anti-colonialists because there was nothing on Singapore to steal; it was just a swampy island that occasionally hosted someone or other's modest trading entrepôt. There were no mines, mills, plantations or important resources of any kind. It was the British and then the Singaporeans who built it into a great trading port, manufacturing and financial center. Their capital really was from their CAPIT (head), rather than from the land itself. So the greater the head, the greater the capital.
So in that, Singapore is again, an unusual case
Well, semi-unusual. Most countries' wealth is a mix of natural resources and human development (CAPIT) capital. Singapore is just all on the CAPIT side. But there are other countries like that. Taiwan and Japan both similarly have a relatively weak natural endowment but a very strong human endowment. Come to think of it, the WWII Axis countries could mostly be characterized this way (Japan, Germany, Italy, Finland). While the WWII Allied countries (US, British Empire, USSR) could be characterized as enjoying huge natural endowments (huge agricultural lands with vast surplus capacity, ~98% of global oil output, iron, coal, bauxite, etc. etc.) So it was a war of the natural resource havers versus the natural resource needers.
It's like Divide and Conquer only works on people already divided....
FWIW, the British really did leave a strong legacy of effective administration in their colonies. I've been watching a lot of Indian movies on Netflix and Amazon prime lately and the Indians seem openly to miss the British because they were a lot less corruptible than the current locals. There are no instances in historical movies about colonial rule where a British administrator was venal or corrupt, whereas instances of corruption by Indian officials and policemen arise on a daily basis in most movies about contemporary Indian life. It's a tribute to Singapore's success and self-confidence that they are willing to acknowledge that legacy openly.
I don’t wish to claim causality here but observationally former British colonies are on average richer than former French and Spanish ones.
Are Asian-Americans more anti-white than Asians in Asia?
My experience is that it correlates to how many years of American education (especially higher) they have been exposed to.
Mind viral load, i suppose.
Yup.
I think one thing that gets left out of the conversations on assimilation (and I will hat-tip to the person on American Mind who wrote this if I can find the original article) is that, essentially, assimilation now means assimilating into the anti-white mainstream culture. Of course you can also use your identity to gain status in the elite circles that determine much of the culture, so you have an incentive to play it up.
There's a funny story you may remember about a (white) girl in the USA who decided to wear a cheongsam to prom because she thought it looked pretty. An angry Chinese-American dude accused her of using his culture as a costume, and started a Twitter pileon. Then Chinese people in China found out and chimed in to defend her--they didn't understand why it was a bad thing and found it flattering.
If Brit settler-colonialism ended up as "Crazy Rich Asians" what's not to like?
I had a Bengali friend in grad school who was anti colonialist. During this time, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe whose rule started out with massive pogroms against t he Ndebele. I suggested that if I was a 3rd worlder I we ould rather br ruled by a foreigners than my historic enemies. He said I was wrong. I was surprised but then realized that has presumed high ranking bureacrat being part of a colonial regime would limit how much he could steal. I told him that and he said my surmise was correct.
Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, could develop a rock into a successful country. It's amazing. A Vietnamese blogger (Linh Dinh), said something along the lines of look at the potable toilets, or access to running water, dirt poor Asia in 1970s had a higher percentage than Africa today. Can't remember the exact quote. Bet you're safer in Myanmar poverty than Namibia.