| I am sympathetic to the idea that contemporary views on imperialism are overly-focused on its downsides and blind to its upsides. "What did the Romans ever do for us?" etc. But I find these arguments a bit tired. I'm not familiar with Sati but I know the Indian subcontinent has been civilized, if not united, for thousands of years. The British brought different values and culture, for sure, and a plethora of benefits. But I can't agree that they had a "civilizing effect" on a people who already lived in a civilization. > Empires can have a beneficial and civilizing effect on peoples You can't trot out Kipling's "white man's burden" without at least acknowledging the historical and racial context around it. And in my opinion, justifying imperialism because it's civilizing a lesser people is a sure route to the cruelest forms of domination via chauvinism and white supremacism. I think it would be better justified as a sort of corporate merger: Your company organization sucks and we think we can get better outcomes for both companies if we put your company under our management. > The British Empire was a huge force in halting the slave trade. This is true. At the dawn of the industrial age, those pioneers of industry outlawed their chief competition in the most noble, high-minded, and selfless act of compassion in human memory. > The Spanish—allied with surrounding tribes—put an end to the murderous and psychotic Aztec elite Also true. Of course, they then proceeded immediately to set about extorting and exploiting the locals. |