Niall Ferguson on freedom

[Liam]

An excellent (if long-ish) write-up. Discusses Ferguson's new book, his general views on the colonial West, and provokes an overheated response in some (as the comments at the bottom of the page acknowledge):

Civilization: The West and the Rest

[Mirabell]

at the end of a bit of a shit day, yours and waalkwriter's post (in the pynchon thread) provided a good deal of much-needed levity. thank you, beautiful. I needed those laughs.

[Liam]

What does this have to do with Ferguson? Or are you being facetious, as always?

[Eric]

Have any of the people discussing these lofty matters spent any time outside of Western Europe or North America, i.e. the West?

Because it seems to me that too many people seem to take a negative attitude to Western values and cannot imagine that the imperialism of the 19th century brought the indigenous peoples of the world anything but misery and robbery under the tutelage of white-skinned control freaks who wanted to steal and dominate.

There is a very strong current in many non-literary discussions here on the WLF to automatically assume that there are comforting package solution involving human rights that the whole world should subscribe to. But no one dare suggest that you may have to force people to adopt parliamentary democracy. The default position is anti-globalisation, anti-right-wing, anti-colonialist, anti-Christian, and anyone not toeing the line is not regarded as a normal, civilised human being.

The momentous events occurring in the Maghreb, Yemen, Bahrain, etc., don't seem to make people realise that all these countries have simply deteriorated since the European colonial masters left. They have all become dictatorships, all have a screwed up demographic balance so that there are far too many young people. They are poor, the dictators do nothing to educate the people for fear that they, the rulers, will be overthrown.

A similar liberalisation happened when the Berlin Wall fell. The corrupt and hypocritical Communist system fell with the wall, but the rot was not as deep in the Russian colonies as it has become in the ex-British and French ones in North Africa. Eastern & Central Europe had what was left of a middle class.

Why are some people on these threads so rabid and downright insulting as to call everyone racist as soon as any sophisticated arguments are put that maybe colonialism wasn't such a bad thing, after all? Or they go all quiet and act like what a I call the scorpion behind the fridge, i.e. dash out to be hurtful and snide with one-liners, then scuttle back into their hiding places without taking any real part in the debate.

I am a member of two PEN clubs and I believe in open discussion. I believe that there are people towards the ultra-left of the political spectrum who are brainwashed into thinking that conservatives and indeed anyone to the right of Trotskyism, Maoism, Communism in general, are neo-fascists. And they simply want to shut you up if you disagree. Indeed, some immature types have told me to shut up on these very threads. That sort of behaviour is the behaviour of the rabble, the mob, not civilised university students or older people with a lot of life experience.

I find it appalling that we are unable to conduct a civilised discussion here about colonialism, but have to put up with sniping and bombing, in good old Gadhafi style, should we wish to question the views of the hardline politically correct brigade. People who worship WikiLeaks for openness cannot understand their own double standards when they want to shut people up here, people they disagree with.

Both the German Nazis and the Russian Communists censored everything they didn't agree with as soon as they came into power. Read your history books. This forum is run from Britain, a Western democracy, not a totalitarian state. So let us remain Western when we discuss Ferguson's arguments, one by one and like mature adults.

[Mirabell]

You realize that there's a difference between facts and opinion, right? Opinions can and should be subject to open discussions. Facts can and should not be subject to them. They are limited by the ensemble of facts of the world around us. I asked you to keep to known and knowable facts instead of lying.

(of course, we can discuss issues of undecidability and limits of knowledge, but it's a different issue.)

[Liam]

Opinions can and should be subject to open discussions. Facts can and should not be subject to them. They are limited by the ensemble of facts of the world around us.

Well, not really. I mean there's also the question of the presentation of those facts, having solely to do with opinion. Was Mao the greatest good or the greatest evil in Chinese history? I assume the existence of Chairman Mao is a well-established fact, but the historical "facts" accumulated around his existence are approached and taught differently, in Chinese, American, Russian and Australian schools. Facts can be manipulated to fit a person's political agenda. You can even twist science around, so you see, opinion is everything. Besides, nothing's written in stone. Facts exist in history books for people to learn, decades later, new information is discovered and new history books are written to update, repudiate or confirm the "facts" of the past.

[Mirabell]

Well, not really. I mean there's also the question of the presentation of those facts, having solely to do with opinion. Was Mao the greatest good or the greatest evil in Chinese history? I assume the existence of Chairman Mao is a well-established fact, but the historical "facts" accumulated around his existence are approached and taught differently, in Chinese, American, Russian and Australian schools. Facts can be manipulated to fit a person's political agenda. You can even twist science around, so you see, opinion is everything. Besides, nothing's written in stone. Facts exist in history books for people to learn, decades later, new information is discovered and new history books are written to update, repudiate or confirm the "facts" of the past.

Honey you are mixing up a lot of different things into one obfuscating pie. Nothing here, if you look at it (and at what I wrote) closely, really contradicts what I said.
Thanks for trying though.

[Stiffelio]

Have any of the people discussing these lofty matters spent any time outside of Western Europe or North America, i.e. the West?

Because it seems to me that too many people seem to take a negative attitude to Western values and cannot imagine that the imperialism of the 19th century brought the indigenous peoples of the world anything but misery and robbery under the tutelage of white-skinned control freaks who wanted to steal and dominate.

There is a very strong current in many non-literary discussions here on the WLF to automatically assume that there are comforting package solution involving human rights that the whole world should subscribe to. But no one dare suggest that you may have to force people to adopt parliamentary democracy. The default position is anti-globalisation, anti-right-wing, anti-colonialist, anti-Christian, and anyone not toeing the line is not regarded as a normal, civilised human being.

The momentous events occurring in the Maghreb, Yemen, Bahrain, etc., don't seem to make people realise that all these countries have simply deteriorated since the European colonial masters left. They have all become dictatorships, all have a screwed up demographic balance so that there are far too many young people. They are poor, the dictators do nothing to educate the people for fear that they, the rulers, will be overthrown.

A similar liberalisation happened when the Berlin Wall fell. The corrupt and hypocritical Communist system fell with the wall, but the rot was not as deep in the Russian colonies as it has become in the ex-British and French ones in North Africa. Eastern & Central Europe had what was left of a middle class.

Why are some people on these threads so rabid and downright insulting as to call everyone racist as soon as any sophisticated arguments are put that maybe colonialism wasn't such a bad thing, after all? Or they go all quiet and act like what a I call the scorpion behind the fridge, i.e. dash out to be hurtful and snide with one-liners, then scuttle back into their hiding places without taking any real part in the debate.

I am a member of two PEN clubs and I believe in open discussion. I believe that there are people towards the ultra-left of the political spectrum who are brainwashed into thinking that conservatives and indeed anyone to the right of Trotskyism, Maoism, Communism in general, are neo-fascists. And they simply want to shut you up if you disagree. Indeed, some immature types have told me to shut up on these very threads. That sort of behaviour is the behaviour of the rabble, the mob, not civilised university students or older people with a lot of life experience.

I find it appalling that we are unable to conduct a civilised discussion here about colonialism, but have to put up with sniping and bombing, in good old Gadhafi style, should we wish to question the views of the hardline politically correct brigade. People who worship WikiLeaks for openness cannot understand their own double standards when they want to shut people up here, people they disagree with.

Both the German Nazis and the Russian Communists censored everything they didn't agree with as soon as they came into power. Read your history books. This forum is run from Britain, a Western democracy, not a totalitarian state. So let us remain Western when we discuss Ferguson's arguments, one by one and like mature adults.

I agree with every word you wrote and I support your brave posture. Bravo, Eric!

[Liam]

...the brainwashing of individuals into consumerist lifestyles...

The only difference is, in America, you have a choice. No one's forcing you to be a consumerist. You can be a minimalist and live an ascetic lifestyle should you so wish. In countires where economies were/are highly regulated by government agencies, people had no choice in the matter. My mother witnessed (by virtue of standing in) long lines for basic essentials such as soap, medicine etc, in the Ukraine, in the late 70s/early 80s, which was recent. Nobody asked her if she wanted to be a consumerist or not.

As it happened, however, immigrating to New York, perhaps the heart and center of world capitalism (as well as Ayn Rand's favorite city) did not turn her head at all. If anything, she's continuing to live frugally, and she hates buying things she doesn't really need: there's nothing "extra" simply lying about at my parents' house. The only difference is, here she can have that choice. Back "home," she did not. Of course, now things have sort of changed, there are giant malls all over Odessa, Lviv, Kiev, etc, but there are still plenty of places in the world where capitalism is a much coveted dream, not the reality.

However, I agree with Paul in that there needs to be SOME regulation, not just of capitalism, but of everything else, including science and politics. The only sphere which should be left alone is the arts, since music and literature do not really produce disastrous financial crises or invent hydrogen bombs.

[Eric]

I'm not sure where my reply got to where I pointed out that reply number #5 (my own) was one of my most coherent, but technical cock-ups happen. I'm glad that Stiffelio praised it in #16.

We cannot afford censorship on fraught issues, although there is none here, merely evasiveness. There is a reluctance among some to engage in debate. But if the moderator removes something, it is courteous to tell the perpertrator of the crime of unacceptability.

English is the language of this forum. Non-native-speakers of English are expected to do their best, but no one will criticise a slightly wrong sentence. Even we illustrious native-speakers make a mess of our syntax on occasions.

The use of capital letters is an imperative aid to elegant communication. Even though German has a lot of capitals, I would rather see them in the right places in English too, rather than having to read the latterday works of e e cummings.

Who the hell is this Mr ******? Some American poet?

I don't particularly like rude words, but if you debate using oodles of irony, sarcasm, etc., as I have embedded in this reply, and the hints are not taken, then I will gladly resort to words like "fuck" to get my point across.

I do hope that this posting doesn't disappear like the last one of mine might have done. Otherwise I will ask Stewart to investigate.

[Mirabell]

was one of my most coherent

that's probably true (and says little about the quality of its content).

There is a reluctance among some to engage in debate.

There is a reluctance among some to make use of known and accepted facts when they are in conflict with their bigoted views.

[Eric]

Pray do not mention Polly Toynbee; I was referring to Arnold J.

I too remember the TV performances of Dr Bronowski and especially Kenneth Clark. Nowadays they have Jonathan Ross and Johnny Vegas instead. Plus the pompous, if wacky, genius Stephen Fry. But the BBC has lowered the whole tone.

As for the ever-dreadful Simon Smarma...

Is that Bettany Hughes the same Frauenzimmer who is leading the laddish ladies into Orangedom, like Joan of Arc, by reading 130 books far too rapidly, and boasting about it? Or is that another Bettany?

[hdw]

Hughes is actually OK, if a bit inclined - like all of them - to exaggerate the importance and interest of what she's trying to show us.

http://www.bettanyhughes.co.uk/welcome.htm

Harry

[Eric]

A nostalgia for imperialism. An interesting concept.

The default position for empire is "Empire Bad, Liberation Good". Alas, in, for instance, Africa, a rather large continent, the locals are still blaming the Brits for drawing straight lines on maps and ignoríng tribal borders. If the tribes weren't at each others' throats all the time, surely leaving a few Hutus or Tutsis on the wrong side of the border would not occasion genocide. We have reduced tribalism in Europe to the celebration of manageable rituals. Would that would happen in Africa.

Without going back to the condescending Whites in pith helmets and shorts scenario, we could nonetheless ask ourselves why, now that the imperialist-colonialists have backed out of Africa, it appears to be in an even bigger mess that when the Europeans held sway.

Why are the Egyptians so useless that they rage against the USA but have an army more or less entirely bought for them by the Yanks? Is Obama going to use this fact as leverage to get the Egyptians to play ball, now that the old crowd-murderer Mubarak will soon be gone and Egypt will be so-called "liberated" by chaotic groups of mutually-hating people?

And why did the 1970s liberation hero Mugabe become such a nasty piece of work in his old age? Did he really need to persecute the White farmers and pretend this was not racist?

Why are they introducing sneaky agricultural refoms in South Africa as well to alter the pattern of farming there and make it look as if the White settlers were all robbers and racists?

Many countries in Africa are in turmoil: the whole Maghreb, plus Egypt and the Horn of Africa, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, with rumblings in Congo and Rwanda. And the neighbouring Middle East is in a similar mess. Africans are killing Africans without any help from Europeans.

Can we say that, half a century after imperialism ended, the majority of African countries have worked their way out of poverty and anarchy and have become better places to live than when the imperialists bossed them around? This is a very important question for Africa and the world. It cannot be swept under the carpet forever.

(This is my personal opinion, and as a member of the Swedish and English PEN clubs, not known for recruiting fascists and lunatics, I hope that I will be able to express it freely here on the WLF without hints that I've said it before and should shut up. We are not living under the equivalent of Chinese, North Korean, Iranian or Syrian censorship over here in Western Europe.)

[Eric]

To get down to brass tacks, looking at the Guardian article, Ferguson appears to be somewhat trendy with his schoolkid terminology but he does raise the right questions:

To what extent was the slave trade the driving force of colonialism?

Can you justify removing leaders by force, or forcing a political system onto another country?

Where is Ayaan Hirsi Ali right, where wrong?

My problem with this article in the Guardian is that, as often with journalists in prestigious publications, it is far too long and rambling. The use of the term neo-con should be avoided, as the left react like Pavlov's dog to it. Also, Skidelsky is a little sickly when he starts implying that Ferguson goes all woozy when her hears Ayaan's name. But in general she's given a good airing. In the main, the article does at least leave room for debate. It is not one of those closed Guardianista articles where everything discussed leads towards a foregone conclusion.

I don't know enough about the ex-Glaswegian to know whether he's a serious scholar or yet another opportunist who has written a book. But the debate is absolutely crucial now that the West (i.e. Europe) is likely to be faced with a very large number of North African refugees. This will inevitably lead to a rise of people identifying with the ultra-right. What are Western governments going to do - I mean the civilised parties not the fascists? In my opinion, it would benefit both Europe and the countries themselves if they were not encouraged to come over to Europe permanently as the easy option, because it would be absurd if countries in Africa fell to bits one by one, and everyone there looked to Europe for salvation.

[Eric]

As I was saying to Colonel Gadhafi in his marquee in Strasbourg only this afternoon, as he waved his umbrella at the crowds and threaten to become sane, there is indeed a difference between opinion and fact, just as there is a difference between Hitlerism and Stalinism.

Using bold type is like hectoring, but when one is standing on one's soap box at Hyde Park Corner, one has to hector, otherwise the crowds won't hear you.

Let us use an example:

"Eric is a racist".

It doesn't matter whether the Eric is Blair or Partridge, Clapton or Mesterton. But what does matter is whether this is a fact or an opinion.

In the case of this Eric with his Gombrowiczian avatar, the person uttering this charming and utterly amicable phrase would be on the horns of dilemma:

1) If it is a fact, the accuser would have to trawl through every message that Gombro-Eric has posted on the WLF, a tedious chore if ever there was one. Then it would have to be patently obvious that Gombro-Eric had stated racist things that no normal and un-Madafified soul could misinterpret as a fact.

2) If however the accuser chooses to regard Eric's opinions as opinions, he will have to, by his own logic, debate the matter. According to some, only opinions can be debated, not facts. Such even-handed debates are made difficult if one or both of the parties have a censored press, so that, as with Russians viewing the Katyn Massacre, they were kept in the dark for decades by their slavemasters.

Let us debate in a climate of non-honey-tongued sobriety and with a sense of humour that befits a citizen of Europe.

This posting has been censored to avoid all relevancy and humour under the European Union "Anti-Humour and Relevance Act, 2011" which was signed in Strasbourg by the new Minister for Censorship and Backbiting, His Loveliness, Great Ranter of Tripolitania and Cyranaeca, Colonel Muammar Gadhafi, the Lord of the Dressing Gown.

[Mirabell]

Strictly speaking, facts can be debated, but that's on a different level of discourse and should be marked as such. Liam is right, what we regard as facts are conventions. As I said, we can discuss limits of knowledge etc., no problem (although I suspect I can't be fucked), but that's a different discussion. To supplant the accepted set of facts with another asks for proof of a different sort and quality than the act of presenting a different opinion would. Some don't bother with proof in either case, but then they have become kind of (in)famous for doing so, and why change a winning team, eh?

[Liam]

I suspect I can't be fucked

Um. You mean, like, literally?

[Eric]

One of the key phrases in that article that Paul has referred us to is "with or without solicitation of bids". That is a con trick by the power-hungry whether these are Republicans or Democrats.

Over the time that I have been a literary translator I have learnt how to read contracts. The nasties can slip some key clause into the contract where you are not looking for it. Both translating a book and running a state are part of that real life where the books must balance.

I have a rather odd standpoint for a right-winger perhaps, but I maintain that while competition between for instance food shops and supermarkets is fair enough, you privatise public utilities at your peril. Britain suffers from high rail charges, leaking water supply pipes and so on, when privatised utilities try to increase profits.

It would be sad if the cronyism that held sway in Iraq were to be applied in Libya, with companies, instead of sovereign natilons, carving up the oil interests among themselves.

Watchdogs and the press should remain watchful.

[hdw]

(although I suspect I can't be fucked)

Far be it from me to correct your English, but don't you mean you can't be arsed?

Harry