Entry 2317, on 2024-01-20 at 20:39:24 (Rating 5, Politics)
I visited a "highly intelligent" expert's office recently (I can't say who or where this was), and noticed a pile of books about the "evils of colonisation" littering their desk. I generally just let this stuff go and act professionally, instead of getting into intense political discussions, but for some reason the subject of colonialism came up (maybe they saw me examining the books, I can't remember).
I do have a somewhat nuanced opinion on this subject, although I do tend to be somewhat flippantly dismissive of ideas like decolonisation, so I discussed it in fairly moderate terms, although what I was thinking was a bit more extreme. So today I might briefly recount what I remember saying, along with what I might have been (and was) thinking...
I commented that the books only seemed to cover one aspect of colonisation, that is the negative consequences on the indigenous culture which was colonised, and I wondered whether that meant they could provide a biased perspective.
What I was really thinking was something like this though: yeah, you're a delusional, left wing, woke muppet, who has already decided what you want the answer to be before you even start reading about the subject.
I then commented that the native culture was repressed by the colonisers for sure, but at the same time they gained a lot as well, such as these: technology; medicine, which leads to a much longer life expectancy; a proper democratic political system, although women only got the vote a bit later; and various other social conventions such as the elimination of cannibalism, inter-tribal warfare, and slavery.
I concede, some land was unfairly confiscated; some native traditions, such as the language, were repressed; and there was an element of racism present too, which we should acknowledge as problematic, but the good could easily be seen as outweighing the bad, if the situation is examined fairly.
So what was I thinking in this case? Well, that Maori (because that was the indigenous culture under discussion) in some ways were damn lucky to have been colonised, because until then they were almost constantly at war with each other, indulged in cannibalism, and had eliminated some of their major food sources (such as the moa).
So they had, contrary to politically correct opinion, destroyed significant parts of the environment. In fact, in New Zealand, more species have been destroyed by Maori (mostly after they introduced the Pacific rat) than by European settlers. And more land was cleared of native bush prior to colonisation than after.
Finally, we discussed where Maori might be if New Zealand had not been colonised by the British. First, I said that the British were the "best of a bad bunch" and that many other colonial powers would have been far worse. Of course, that isn't a good defence for colonisation in general, but it is a point worth considering.
Also, where would the indigenous people have been without all those benefits that colonisation brought them? The person I was debating said maybe Maori would have advanced to the point where they gained all those benefits by themselves, and I (remember I was trying to be conciliatory here) said that was theoretically possible.
But, of course, what I was thinking was "yeah, right". Maori literally lived in the stone age. They had no written language, and in many ways were at the same point as "Western civilisation" was about 3000 years ago. It seems far more likely they would be extinct than living in a peaceful democracy, with equal rights for all, and driving around in their cars with their smartphones.
Was I being a white supremacist? Was I being derogatory about native societies? Was I being a racist? Well, according to many people's definitions, yes I was, but who cares? I'm fairly confident everything I was thinking was true, and I do think Western culture is superior to traditional Maori culture, and every other culture in the world for that matter.
I don't despise Maori, although I do despise a lot of Maori activists, especially the Maori Party. I think Maori did suffer some disadvantages from being colonised, but overall I think being colonised by the British was the best thing that ever happened to them. No doubt the "highly intellectual thinker" I was debating with would disagree and would recommend decolonisation (whatever than is, exactly). Decolonise Aotearoa? Yeah, right!
Comment 1 (7555) by EK on 2024-01-21 at 10:10:15:
No disagreement from me. I have argued for years against the postcolonial dogma of idealising so-called indigenous people – e.g., as the first environmentalists and conservationists from whom we should learn. Respecting them – yes; learning from them – perhaps in small doses in some respects. I have left a trail of probably unread and certainly unappreciated publications of this sort behind. It certainly did my career no good either.
Having said this, you are forgetting that which culture a person wants to live in or with is highly subjective and so many emotions and considerations come into play, quite different from your priorities, sensibilities and preferences. Some people would prefer to live under the kibosh of a cannibalising, war-mongering scoundrel of a rangatira rather than in the nicest democracy. Realise it, your reasoning has only limited appeal. Man is innately capable of reason, but chooses to use it only sparingly.
Comment 2 (7556) by OJB on 2024-01-21 at 13:30:10:
Yes, you could make a case to say that living in a Stone Age, violent, cannibalistic society is only worse than a modern, peaceful one according to individual preference. I don’t believe in objective morality, but I also reject cultural relativism. I think some ways of living are just better than others according to any fair and honest assessment by a socially normal person. Clearly psychopaths would disagree,
But I think the vast majority of people would prefer to live in peace rather war, avoid cannibalism, have longer lives, have modern technology, etc. by this measure, modern Western society really is the best, not objectively, but by the agreement of the majority.
Comment 3 (7557) by Ken Spall on 2024-01-22 at 09:57:00:
It would be reasonable to accept that the first step in colonisation was when the treaty was signed and accepted by Māori. So is it not reasonable to suggest that decolonisation is a return to a way of life for Māori prior to 1840? It’s obviously a nonsensical suggestion. I have yet to see an explanation of decolonisation that work and would be accepted by a democratic majority.
Comment 4 (7558) by OJB on 2024-01-22 at 15:59:38:
Exactly. That's why I added "whatever than is, exactly" in my post when mentioning decolonisation. I think what most advocates for decolonisation want are the benefits of colonisation (technology, peace, democracy, equality) while pretending it never happened and claiming indigenous people are in charge and own everything. They are both intensely dishonest and totally delusional.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE
