Niall Ferguson claims to be a historian of some sort. Alas, so many things escape him.
It is very revealing that Niall Ferguson is considered to be a respectable intellectual, the mind-set and motives of those who support and promote him are interesting to contemplate. (Would someone trying to promote phlogiston theory get a hearing?) In a nutshell, the ideology being promoted is that the West need have no qualms about trying to dominate the world by force, that imperialism wasn't so bad.
And I've had comments directed at me, why not at Niall Ferguson, that he is promoting a romantic view of the Empire, a wish for a past that is not recoverable, that he is promoting jingoistic nationalism and anti-modernism (the Empire was good!) and considering that the US and Europe are still quite inclined to impose themselves with armies on other countries, isn't Niall Ferguson promoting war (the Empire was and will be good!)? Why the lectures only to me?
I'll just point out one thing - the result of the impoverishment and delayed industrial development of India is that the subcontinent now holds 1.5 billion people, instead of maybe a fifth that number had there been no empire, and India had developed normally and had a demographic transition paralleling that of the West. This fact, in light of the ongoing ecological crisis, is going to be consequential to everyone on this planet.
Even the Governor-General, William Bentinck, was forced to report that “...the misery hardly finds parallel in the history of commerce. The bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India.”Thereby improving the share of the villages in the Indian economy, and promoting equality.
It is very revealing that Niall Ferguson is considered to be a respectable intellectual, the mind-set and motives of those who support and promote him are interesting to contemplate. (Would someone trying to promote phlogiston theory get a hearing?) In a nutshell, the ideology being promoted is that the West need have no qualms about trying to dominate the world by force, that imperialism wasn't so bad.
And I've had comments directed at me, why not at Niall Ferguson, that he is promoting a romantic view of the Empire, a wish for a past that is not recoverable, that he is promoting jingoistic nationalism and anti-modernism (the Empire was good!) and considering that the US and Europe are still quite inclined to impose themselves with armies on other countries, isn't Niall Ferguson promoting war (the Empire was and will be good!)? Why the lectures only to me?
I'll just point out one thing - the result of the impoverishment and delayed industrial development of India is that the subcontinent now holds 1.5 billion people, instead of maybe a fifth that number had there been no empire, and India had developed normally and had a demographic transition paralleling that of the West. This fact, in light of the ongoing ecological crisis, is going to be consequential to everyone on this planet.
Logging you in...
sadhana · 636 weeks ago
CIP · 636 weeks ago
Blaming the British for the population of India is an original approach. The starved cotton weavers whose bones were observed were put out of business by the very industrialization that you now seem to be imagining would have made India richer.
The British did do a number of things that directly increased the Indian population: introducing modern agricultural practices, medicine and cleaner water, for example.
The British found India a collection of warring feudal nations, which is how they conquered it. If they hadn't, France or Russia likely would have. They introduced the institutions and laws that made it possible to industrialize India, as well as much of the early infrastructure. One might imagine that India could have done these things on its own, but that is purely speculative unless you can trace a plausible path it might have taken. The most plausible models for an independent industrialization of India would be Japan and China - neither of which made the demographic transition without societal convulsion, massive foreign intervention, and huge population densities. Both also had a critical advantage: national unity.
CIP · 636 weeks ago
I don't have the expertise to critique Ferguson - that's why I'm counting on you.
Also, Ferguson seems much more balanced, and points out a lot of the evils of empire as well as things he considers benefits. You, I gather, regard the empire as an unmitigated evil. Of course you might be right, but I keep prompting (or perhaps just annoying) you to make the case.