We hear a lot about ‘decolonisation’ these days, even though practically all countries that were colonised by the European powers gained their independence decades ago. In contemporary parlance, ‘decolonisation’ means adding non-white authors to university reading lists and ensuring that ‘indigenous ways of knowing’ are reflected in the curriculum.
What’s more, there’s a whole academic field called ‘post-colonial studies’, which seeks to critically analyse Western colonialism. And while there’s nothing wrong with this in principle (we should analyse Western colonialism from a critical standpoint), many post-colonial scholars are less impartial critics than anti-Western activists.
They refuse to accept there was anything positive about Western colonialism. And when dissidents like Bruce Gilley or Nigel Biggar point out that there were positive aspects, those dissidents find themselves on the receiving end of censorious petitions signed by hundreds of their colleagues.
Such activism stifles intellectual debate and gives the false impression that Western colonialism was “a litany of racism, exploitation and massively murderous violence” – to quote Biggar.
One indication that the legacy of colonialism is far more mixed than most post-colonial scholars will admit comes from a recent study published in the British Journal of Political Science.
Andy Baker and David Cupery combined data from several cross-national surveys in which respondents in different countries were asked for their opinion about certain named foreign countries. The exact question varied from survey to survey. In one case, respondents were asked for their opinion “with zero expressing a very unfavorable opinion” and “100 expressing a very favorable opinion”. In another case, they were asked if they have a “have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion”. Baker and Cuprey combined the various surveys using a technique called factor analysis.
They were then able to calculate, for each country in their dataset that was a former colony, the average favourability toward that country’s coloniser minus the average favourability toward all other countries respondents were asked about. They call this quantity the ‘former-coloniser gap’.
Interestingly, they found that this gap was positive for a large majority of the former colonies in their dataset (47 out of 64). In other words, most former colonies have a more favourable opinion of their coloniser than they have of other countries. Results are shown in the chart below.
Looking at the left-hand side of the chart, we can see that Poles have an unfavourable view of Russia, Greeks have an unfavourable view of Turkey, and Iraqis have an unfavourable view of Britain. None of which is particularly surprising. What is surprising, though, is that these are exceptions. Most former colonies have a favourable view of their coloniser.
Further analysis revealed that the tendency for ‘former-coloniser gaps’ to be positive, rather than negative, could be explained by three main factors: colonisers tend to be democratic; they tend to have large economies; and they tend to trade more with their former colonies.
The authors interpret their findings in line with an ‘admiration hypothesis’, whereby former colonies’ views of their colonisers are characterised more by admiration than by animosity and resentment.
Add this study to all the post-colonial reading lists.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Decolonisation” is just a fancy code-word for anti-white racism and the desire to destroy white European civilisation, and a way for grifters of all kinds to seize, retain and increase their power to tell other people what to do.
Which is why 5 billion people non-Whites want to move to the decaying, confused, criminally corrupt, undemocratic ‘West’. They have illusions of our previous grandeur.
“They have illusions of our previous grandeur.”
Brilliant – that should go on a t-shirt.
I always thought a grifter or grafter was a hard working type? How times change!
A grifter is a swindler, dishonest gambler, trickster – there is a TV series called Grifters.
Graft (has a number of meanings) but can mean getting money or some advantage by unfair, dishonest, illegal means – often by abusing one’s position in business and politics.
Graft: is also British slang for work.
The change in times is the dismal teaching of the English language and how to use a dictionary.
…grifter..
personwho engages in petty or small-scale swindling.
“I saw him as a grifter who preys upon people”
Grafter:
British Slang. a worker, especially a particularly industrious or dedicated worker:
To succeed in this job you also need to be a real grafter, someone eager for a chance to work hard in an ever-growing company.
You mean such as the “Biden Crime Family “?
“Yes but apart from the sanitation, the fresh water, the aqueduct, education, irrigation, medicine, roads and public baths, what have the British ever done for us?”
Apologies to ‘Life of Brian.’
Not to mention the judicial system, the railways, buildings, trade…. There’s no doubt there are arguments on both sides but without the infrastructure of an advanced economy, some of the colonised countries would probably have floundered. Can you imagine India without railways or good sanitation etc? Of course we will never know how they might have fared if we hadn’t colonised them. There were certainly aspects of colonisation that were cruel and brutal. You only have to look at Belgian Congo for an extreme example. However, colonisation also brought benefits. To now have this ridiculous situation where reparations are being sought is just another version of wokery in action. The major slave trade by far was done by muslim states and caliphates to Africa. A paler version continues with cheap workers being brought over from Bangladesh and Pakistan among others to build cities like Dubai. But of course we never talk about that, do we?
Ending of slavery.
Manufacturing.
Literacy.
Technology.
Railroads.
Eye glasses.
Pants.
Shoes.
Art and Literature (still searching for the Congolese Shakespeare and the Musulman Caravaggio).
“…decolonisation…”
I’m all for it. I think the wokeratti, the self-serving political class should have their large bowels extracted through their nostrils.
What did the Romans ever do for us?
For a close to home view of the failures of decolonisation we only have to look at Scotland and Wales.
The thing that bothers me the most about all of this is the ‘decolonisation’ movement and the more ludicrous branches of that such as decolonising the dictionary or food or fiction or farming or whatever it is. THAT, to me, is absurd and I guess the point of it is to destabilise and undermine our own culture and traditions and introduce new ones that have absolutely bloody nothing to do with this country. It makes me want to learn Morris dancing!!
All part of the reset Aethelred.
In over 2000 years, the indigenous black people on the continent of Africa never built or launched a single seaworthy boat to allow them to escape Africa. There was not a single two storey building built, just basic huts made with wood straw or stones. Not a single statue was erected to an influential black person. It was only when the dreaded white man arrived did that change. They don’t act or think or create as white people do. That statement was made by a black priest.
With zero knowledge on the history of Africa…
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-df61c14aacbd22b5307a265da759c17c-lq
Ahem…The great mosque at Timbuktu, built in the 1320’s
I had the fortune of visiting Kenya,for business and pleasure in the 1970s/80’s. By the mid 80s the infrastructure had noticeably declined since the time of Kenyatta. So much so that an editorial in ‘The Nation’, the locally controlled national newspaper, called for a return of the British saying that under their colonial control Kenya and a number of other African countries were better run.