Re: poly: Civil empire

Damien R. Sullivan writes:
> On Apr 21, 2:52pm, "Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
> > Damien R. Sullivan writes:
>
> > I'm pretty much a purist when it comes to my anarchism -- I'm not a
>
> I'm a skeptic; I'll believe in it after I see it.

I'm a skeptic about the extraordinary claim that colonialism can ever
be of help.

> > The main result of the British occupations you speak so admiringly of
> > has been ethnic bloodshed (Hindus vs. Muslims, Catholics
> > vs. Protestants, Jews vs. Arabs, etc.), and horror of various
>
> The British weren't trying to be liberal in Ireland, AFAIK.

Or anywhere else, AFAIK.

> Israel can be thought of as a Jewish invasion of Palestine.

Pardon my french, but, bullshit.

My ancestors were there for at least centuries, and got along fine
with the other locals. Jews were always there -- many "never left". No
one had any trouble with anyone else -- the local Muslims (several
varieties), Christian Arabs, Armenians, Jews, etc., all pretty much
got along. Everyone hated the Turks, but that was another story. After
the Turks were kicked out, the Brits followed a "divide and conquer"
strategy just as they did everywhere else. They are largely
responsible for the problems you see today.

> I don't know if Hindu/Muslim violence became worse, or why, if so.

The Brits, largely.

> > others by force is just another version of the technocratic fantasy
> > that experts can calculate better than markets. Even a "benevolent"
> > dictatorship is still a dictatorship.
>
> The places originally talked about aren't known for their markets, but are
> known for malevolent dictatorships.

As I said, I think you have fallen prey to the technocratic hubris --
the notion that *I* could run a country better than someone else. The
truth is, *no one* can run a country, or should try.

Perry
Received on Wed Apr 22 13:58:22 1998