The narrative asserting the benefits of colonialism often overlooks the power of indigenous and alternative economic systems which emphasize community-based resource coordination and non-monetary exchanges. This is evident in the Commitment Pooling protocol inspired by traditional mutual service practices. These systems are designed to foster community well-being through collaborative and equitable resource exchange, countering the capitalist notion of accruing benefits primarily to those with amassed capital.
Bruce Gilley's perspective in The Case for Colonialism may highlight certain economic advancements under colonial rule, but it does not account for the sustainable, community-driven economic practices that were eroded by colonial structures. Systems like Commitment Pooling, detailed in the document from the Grassroots Economics Foundation, showcase viable economic alternatives that are inclusive, decentralized, and built on the ethos of mutual aid and cooperation rather than competition and profit maximization. These practices are actually the backbone that make anything good possible from capitalism.
So, while some may argue that colonialism brought progress (to some more than others), it's crucial to explore and recognize the value of ancestral economic protocols like #CommitmentPooling, which can lead to a more fair distribution of resources and support community resilience against economic uncertainties and predators. Colonialism like an effective parasite, by contrast, often disrupted these more harmonious and sustainable systems, demonstrating that other, more humane and equally effective, economic systems do exist and thrive.
I found your analysis of the book and the impact of Colonialism on the Caribbean very refreshing. I have always found historical and economic analysis of the Caribbean very one sided , Marxist and Keynesian. We need more people like you to take aim at these failed ideas and bring some sense to the politicians.
Have you read "Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning" by Nigel Biggar? It is very good . Some of his talks are also online.
A sharp and fascinating analysis as usual, @Rasheed Griffith.
Since it is impossible for me to pass up an opportunity to brag on my island home of Saba (the Unspoiled Queen), I just must note something with respect to this: "However, while gay activists in the Caribbean complain about the “legacies of colonialism” preventing the advance of gay rights in the independent countries, the actual territories that are still dependencies progressed with the push of the former Colonizer."
Saba indeed continues to be a "special municipality" of the Netherlands since October 10, 2010 and the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. It also had legalized same-sex marriage before all US states had--due in part to Dutch political power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Bonaire,_Sint_Eustatius_and_Saba) but also due to its underlyingly more liberal attitudes towards homosexuality compared to other Caribbean islands.
I have been wondering whether the Governor Generals/ Commanders-in-chief in the North American Colonies during the Seven Years War built the infrastructure necessary to unite the 13 colonies in the war effort of 1776. The connection being that it was only the British appointed governors that cared to overrule the local lack of interest in supply lines and infrastructure and create an interstate system of forts, roads, and portages for the sake of general security.
Is there any valid point of comparison between English and Spanish colonialism in this regard? At least that I know there is no territory still dependant on the Spanish crown in the Americas
We can indeed still make the comparison since colonial engagement has long-term effects. In a future post I plan to write about just that - comparing the outcomes of British Caribbean and Spanish Caribbean countries.
1. I think if you look at the classic anti-colonialist arguments, rule by planters really is the crucial variable leading to dependence. In this the Marxists look at lot like Acemoglu and Robinson, and even your comparison here - direct rule by the central government was more benevolent and pro-development than rule by planters. From a traditional anti-colonialist perspective I don't think many would claim that republican but still apartheid-era South Africa or Rhodesia were "less colonialist" in the relevant sense than their Commonwealth versions, even though this change involved political decentralization. An independent Confederate States of America today (even if slavery had been abolished at some point in the last century) almost certainly would have a lower GDP, more cotton monoculture economy, and so on than our own timeline's former Confederate states. That can be scored as a victory for *political centralization* under certain conditions but I don't know that I would call it a victory for colonialism.
2. The r of the GDP vs time colonized chart looks pretty well dominated by Pacific vs Atlantic isles. It seems plausible to me that both axes could be explained by, say, proximity to sea lanes. I don't know if there's a good dataset with a convenient proxy variable one might use here. (I'd be curious to see it cross-referenced against wheat/sugar ratios, since I'd expect those to be independent of traffic convenience, both to lead to longer colonial rule, and for them to impact GDP in contravening ways.)
All good, just 1 edit:
"core tenant of modern civil society" should read "core tenet of modern civil society."
The narrative asserting the benefits of colonialism often overlooks the power of indigenous and alternative economic systems which emphasize community-based resource coordination and non-monetary exchanges. This is evident in the Commitment Pooling protocol inspired by traditional mutual service practices. These systems are designed to foster community well-being through collaborative and equitable resource exchange, countering the capitalist notion of accruing benefits primarily to those with amassed capital.
Bruce Gilley's perspective in The Case for Colonialism may highlight certain economic advancements under colonial rule, but it does not account for the sustainable, community-driven economic practices that were eroded by colonial structures. Systems like Commitment Pooling, detailed in the document from the Grassroots Economics Foundation, showcase viable economic alternatives that are inclusive, decentralized, and built on the ethos of mutual aid and cooperation rather than competition and profit maximization. These practices are actually the backbone that make anything good possible from capitalism.
So, while some may argue that colonialism brought progress (to some more than others), it's crucial to explore and recognize the value of ancestral economic protocols like #CommitmentPooling, which can lead to a more fair distribution of resources and support community resilience against economic uncertainties and predators. Colonialism like an effective parasite, by contrast, often disrupted these more harmonious and sustainable systems, demonstrating that other, more humane and equally effective, economic systems do exist and thrive.
I found your analysis of the book and the impact of Colonialism on the Caribbean very refreshing. I have always found historical and economic analysis of the Caribbean very one sided , Marxist and Keynesian. We need more people like you to take aim at these failed ideas and bring some sense to the politicians.
Have you read "Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning" by Nigel Biggar? It is very good . Some of his talks are also online.
Hi Rory, thank you!
Nigel Biggar was a guest on my podcast where we discussed his book with a particular focus on the Caribbean: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7m9e6gTPzzf6II5ZKCgu4b?si=aYGqQkINQGawTJ3m__cnIA
I didn't even know you had a podcast, thank you for the link.
A sharp and fascinating analysis as usual, @Rasheed Griffith.
Since it is impossible for me to pass up an opportunity to brag on my island home of Saba (the Unspoiled Queen), I just must note something with respect to this: "However, while gay activists in the Caribbean complain about the “legacies of colonialism” preventing the advance of gay rights in the independent countries, the actual territories that are still dependencies progressed with the push of the former Colonizer."
Saba indeed continues to be a "special municipality" of the Netherlands since October 10, 2010 and the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. It also had legalized same-sex marriage before all US states had--due in part to Dutch political power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Bonaire,_Sint_Eustatius_and_Saba) but also due to its underlyingly more liberal attitudes towards homosexuality compared to other Caribbean islands.
This was a fascinating article! The quotes below are absolutely mind blowing:
> each additional hundred years that an island country spent under colonial rule resulted in a 42% higher GDP per capita.
> World Bank statistics reveal that independent small states have performed considerably worse than their dependent territory counterparts.
I have been wondering whether the Governor Generals/ Commanders-in-chief in the North American Colonies during the Seven Years War built the infrastructure necessary to unite the 13 colonies in the war effort of 1776. The connection being that it was only the British appointed governors that cared to overrule the local lack of interest in supply lines and infrastructure and create an interstate system of forts, roads, and portages for the sake of general security.
Is there any valid point of comparison between English and Spanish colonialism in this regard? At least that I know there is no territory still dependant on the Spanish crown in the Americas
We can indeed still make the comparison since colonial engagement has long-term effects. In a future post I plan to write about just that - comparing the outcomes of British Caribbean and Spanish Caribbean countries.
1. I think if you look at the classic anti-colonialist arguments, rule by planters really is the crucial variable leading to dependence. In this the Marxists look at lot like Acemoglu and Robinson, and even your comparison here - direct rule by the central government was more benevolent and pro-development than rule by planters. From a traditional anti-colonialist perspective I don't think many would claim that republican but still apartheid-era South Africa or Rhodesia were "less colonialist" in the relevant sense than their Commonwealth versions, even though this change involved political decentralization. An independent Confederate States of America today (even if slavery had been abolished at some point in the last century) almost certainly would have a lower GDP, more cotton monoculture economy, and so on than our own timeline's former Confederate states. That can be scored as a victory for *political centralization* under certain conditions but I don't know that I would call it a victory for colonialism.
2. The r of the GDP vs time colonized chart looks pretty well dominated by Pacific vs Atlantic isles. It seems plausible to me that both axes could be explained by, say, proximity to sea lanes. I don't know if there's a good dataset with a convenient proxy variable one might use here. (I'd be curious to see it cross-referenced against wheat/sugar ratios, since I'd expect those to be independent of traffic convenience, both to lead to longer colonial rule, and for them to impact GDP in contravening ways.)