On Imperialism - Latin America

The American hemisphere has for a long time had an 800 pound gorilla in it. The influence of the US has been massive and unfortunately often negative for the rest of the states in the Americas. Latin America in general has suffered from the beginning of European contact till very recently. Imperialism has not only shaped the region, it has caused much suffering in the process.

The brunt of Imperialism's excesses fell on the native American population from the very beginning. They were killed off in massive numbers through war and disease until by the start of the 20th century, their population was reduced to a remnant in most areas. In other areas, they were subject to massive discrimination. Foreign rule was mostly cast off throughout the Americas by the beginning of the 19th century. But then the Latin American countries swiftly fell under the aegis of a rising hegemon: the US. The primary concern of the USA was twofold - both classic Imperialist aims. First, effectively exclude other powers from the region. In this aim, it was somewhat successful in the 1800s. Its power was sufficient to prevent European powers from imposing direct rule over South America except for a few minor outposts. However, it was not strong enough to prevent the commercial interests of the other powers, particularly Britain, from penetrating the region. It was more successful in the 1900s as its power grew relative to other nations. Its second aim was to ensure that South America remained as a provider of raw material (including agricultural products) while providing a market for US manufactures. The most effective way of pursuing these aims was to suppress democratic forces and ensure the supremacy of reactionary dictatorships that would do as they were bid. The effective result was the same as in other parts of the world that suffered from colonialism. Domestic industrialization was largely prevented while their domestic markets remained wide open to international competition.

The system developed by the USA vis a vis Latin America had a beautiful aspect. Because the USA ruled through proxies and did not (mostly) impose direct rule, it could claim a moral high ground while still benefiting from the Imperial system. The real sufferers were the mass of the people living in these nations whose living standards declined pretty much constantly throughout the 19th and the 20th centuries while a tiny elite prospered from the status-quo. Here the answer to the question of whether Imperialism benefited the mass of the ruled is even clearer than in other regions. It has to be an unequivocal no.

Related articles

• Black in Latin America (fr33domhall.wordpress.com)

On Imperialism - China and the Far East

Pepper was the original driving force behind European's push towards the East. The substance was in great and increasing demand in Europe for its culinary and preservative properties. The trade was controlled by Muslim and Venetian middlemen with the consequence that its price was very high. So for the earliest Europeans to venture East, there were both commercial and religious considerations. They considered themselves to be doing God's work by bringing Christianity to the benighted souls of the East and getting rich in the process. Twin considerations that have been the source of much ill in the world.

There was however one drawback right at the beginning. The East simply was not interested in what the West had to offer except for silver. This was a severe problem which the Spaniards and the Portuguese resolved by essentially becoming robbers and extorting "protection" money. This largely set the tone for later arrivals. When the Dutch came to Far East, they were able to gain control of the Spice Islands and then used that as a leverage with which to eventually control all of what would later become Indonesia. Britain, not to be left out, gained control over Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Dutch rule in Indonesia was by no means enlightened. Indonesia was exploited to industrialize Holland. The colony became extremely profitable making the colonial rulers one of the most important colonial powers. The economic and social policies followed by the Dutch were designed to extract as much profit from its colony as possible without developing it. Like India, Indonesia provided raw materials for the ruling country while providing a market for the latter's manufactures. Only much later did the Dutch try to foster some sort of social development but this was a case of too little too late. It is no wonder that after World War II, Holland, having lost the colony to Japan, made a determined attempt to re-establish colonial control. Was colonial rule beneficial to Indonesia? Wikipedia's entry on the Dutch East Indies shows quite conclusively that the answer to that question is no.

The antics of the Dutch in the Far East were however a side show. The main game was over China and later Japan. In the beginning, the Chinese state proved to be powerful enough to be able to protect its interests. However, the advent of industrialization decisively tipped the balance of power in favor of the Western powers. This was demonstrated conclusively over the Opium Wars which are perhaps the only wars in history to be fought over an illicit drug. It is as though the Colombian drug cartels successfully fight the US into agreeing to allow import of unlimited quantities of heroin. The drug in question at that time was opium which was the solution to a balance of payment problem that the British had with China: the Chinese were simply not interested in any Western manufacture but the British had great demand for Chinese ones. The only payment acceptable to China was silver which meant a drain of the commodity from Britain until opium came along. The result of the Opium Wars were the Unequal Treaties which opened up the country on unfavorable commercial lines and granted special rights to Europeans. Other Asian states such as Japan and Korea also suffered from these treaties. Out of them, only Japan was able to successfully fend off the Western powers and even that was only by the wholesale adoption of Western forms and mores. Although China was never fully occupied by the Western powers, it was heavily influenced by the Unequal Treaties imposed on it and by Western ideas that represented a sharp break from traditional Chinese ones.

In all cases in the Far East, like in India and Africa, imposition of Western rule effectively ended local political, social and cultural development. Entire generations became divorced from their own history. Only much later was there an attempt made to recover what had been lost. This effort however was strongly colored by (sometimes rabidly) nationalist re-interpretations of the past. There were positive developments. A system of law and order and policing was generally imposed. Infrastructure projects wove the countries closer together. Colonialism re-arranged traditional trading and cultural links but it did put in new ones. All of these however were subservient to the needs of the colonial powers and not to the needs of the locals. Much of the time these developments were on a very small scale and did not affect the larger population which in any case counted for nothing in the eyes of the Imperial powers.

Was the effect of colonialism favorable to the Far East? On balance no. Like Africa and India, traditional structures of power and customs were destroyed. This was often done deliberately so as to make exploitation of these areas easier. Sometime this was done accidentally or out of an attempt to "civilize" the natives. Throughout this period, there was a basic assumption that the social structures, philosophies and ideas of these areas were inherently inferior to those of the West. This of course makes it all the more ironic that their descendants are seeking solace in these very same philosophies and ideas.

Related articles

• 19th-century China: Clashing with the foreign devils (economist.com)
• Jan 20, 1841: Hong Kong Ceded to the British (censorshipinamerica.wordpress.com)

On Imperialism - The Scramble For Africa

Africa has had an unfortunate relationship with Europe. For centuries it was used as a source of slaves. Africa's greatest export till the 19th century was involuntary manpower export. To an extent that large areas near the slave trading regions were effectively depopulated. This trade suffered a shock when the British banned slavery and then used their naval power to try and suppress it. For a time it was sustained by US demand until the US civil war outlawed slavery over there and effectively ended this trade.

Africa's troubles were however just beginning. The last great frontier for Imperialism after 1850 was Africa. The continent was viewed as a blank canvas on which any picture could be drawn. That there were millions of people living there was not even a factor. Country after country grabbed whatever slice of the continent they could. The apogee of this process came when King Leopold of the tiny state of Belgium managed to grab Congo as his personal fief. In the carve up that occurred, arbitrary lines were drawn that split up tribes and lumped traditional enemies together. European rule in Africa was also not particularly enlightened either. Africa was viewed as a source of extracting raw material - a position that it still occupies.

The occupation and division of Africa has several consequences. It stored trouble for the future by lumping traditional enemies together and dividing tribes without regard for kinship and traditional ties. This was then compounded by the racism that administrators of that era exhibited. This was the time when scientific discoveries and theories were constantly popping up. The question of race was also being theorized about. Perhaps not surprisingly given that Imperialism was at its height, whites were deemed to be at the peak of humanity while black people were right at the bottom and only a little above the level of beasts. When this was the general attitude, local administrators, again not surprisingly, saw no value in local customs and lifestyles. The way was now clear for unbridled, full scale exploitation of African resources without regard for the local populace. Local institutions and customs were deliberately destroyed as they were impediments for the ongoing exploitation. But, and this is key, they were not replaced by anything else. A vacuum was left that was exploited by local strong men when the colonial administrators finally left. At the time of independence, most African states lacked the necessary trained manpower required to run their economies. There were also no effective checks left in place that could have prevented autocrats from seizing brutally exploiting power.

The devastating and toxic legacy of Imperialism came to fruition after the colonials left. For example, in Uganda, local power structures were dismantled just before it gained independence in an attempt to impose parliamentary democracy. Instead a vacuum was created into which a psychopath like Idi Amin could step in. In the Congo, no attempt was ever made to create an educated class that could run the country after independence. Indeed independence was not even on the cards as far as Belgium was concerned until its hand was forced. Then it scrambled out in unseemly haste leaving a power vacuum behind that was eventually filled by a kleptomaniac like Mobutu Sese Seko. The story is very similar in country after country. The arbitrary borders drawn by the Europeans also resulted in brutal civil wars many of which lingered on for decades. The roots of one of the greatest genocides in recent history can also be traced to colonialism's legacy. The colonial administrators in Rwanda lumped two peoples together arbitrarily and then favored one over the other. This generated tensions that lasted for decades and culminated in the massacre of the Tutsis by the Hutus in that country.

What about after independence? Imperialism did not disappear after formal rule was abandoned. Instead it transmuted into new and in many cases even more virulent forms. The effects of this new form is still being felt across the continent. The new imperialism however depends on the co-operation of local elites. Colonialism can be blamed to the extent that it failed to foster a vibrant local civil society. In some cases, most particularly Zimbabwe, local dictators can also be blamed. Robert Mugabe built up a middle class and is now in the process of destroying it in an attempt to hold power at all costs.

Was Imperialism beneficial? In Africa, most certainly not. It destroyed traditional structures without putting anything else in place. It started a large scale exploitation of the continent without regard for the local populace that is still continuing. It also encouraged and nurtured local dictators for this purpose. The locals were not able to put up effective resistance because civil structure had been strongly discouraged during the colonial period and brutally suppressed after independence.

Related articles

• The Causes of Poverty (17): Slavery (filipspagnoli.wordpress.com)
• The History and Facts About David Livingstone (socyberty.com)
• Slave Trade in Africa... (debunkingthemyths.wordpress.com)
• The new scramble for Africa | Omoyele Sowore (guardian.co.uk)
• Kenya must not submit to the scramble for Africa's land resources (agricultureafrica.wordpress.com)

On Imperialism - A Look at India

European colonialism resulted in a new form of empire. For the first time, a distinction was formed between the conquerors and the conquered. Unlike earlier kingdoms and empires, the rulers would come for a short period of time and were themselves answerable to superiors in the home country. Western empires were also a period of great triumphalism in that culture. This was reflected in the "civilizing" mission that these empires imagined for themselves.

Take India as an example. This was the crown jewel of the British Empire. The resources and manpower of India were crucial to the maintenance and reach of British might. Indian troops were  used in the various wars with Chinese and in both World Wars. India was critical as a supplier of raw materials and as a market for British manufactures. Originally coming as traders, the British had established themselves first as a major power and then as a dominant power before finally formally absorbing India into the British Empire.

What was the impact of British rule on India? Uniting India into a political unit had always imposed the problem of distance and the twin problem of communication. The territory to be governed is so large that pre-industrial empires could not maintain effective control over regions remote from the political and administrative center for very long. Industrialization, more specifically the development of trains and telegraph resolved this problem. Over the course of the 19th century, the British extended and cemented their hold over the country. There were many positive developments as a result. The spread of trains and telegraph and later roads and telephone helped to weave the country into a single market. Political control gave stability after a long period of unrest as the once mighty Mughal Empire slowly decayed. This gave a fillip to economic activity. There was a slow gradual spread of education. There was a slow but steady process of industrialization. Practices like thuggee and sati were eliminated. Law and order was imposed and overseen by a bureaucracy that was generally viewed as impartial and non-corrupt. Perhaps the best legacy viewed was the transplantation of parliamentary democracy. Viewed like this, British rule over India does not sound bad at all. But this presents only part of the picture.

To see an alternate view, look at what happened to Bengal under British rule. Prior to British rule, Bengal was the wealthiest and most prosperous region in India. The British started ruling this area after defeating its rule in the Battle of Plassey. The immediate aftermath was a massive plunder of the province. This was compounded by misguided efforts to introduce a market based land system. The net result was the impoverishment of Bengal to such an extent that it has not recovered its former prosperity till this point.

India's industrial output fell from approximately 25 percent of the world's output in 1750 (the effective start of British rule in India) to 2% in 1900. By any measure, this was a massive decline. The worst affected was the Indian textile industry which was essentially wiped out during this period. This was a result of deliberate British policy which imposed tariffs on Indian exports to Britain but did not do so for British exports to India. India was deindustrialized first and then a process of slow, reluctant industrialization was allowed. The industrialization process mentioned above was despite the British not because of it. Strong efforts were made to impose a market based land system in India without regard for local conditions and history. In the process, traditional structures were dismantled without anything similar being put in place. Laissez faire policies were pursued to an extent that on occasion famines would occur.

Another point to keep in mind is that apart from these negative aspects of British rule, there was also a change in British attitudes as their hold consolidated and solidified. Arrivals in the 18th century had not viewed themselves as being inherently superior. 100 years later, there was a strong conviction of inherent superiority. By the early 20th century, a hierarchy in which the British were at the top was firmly established. This attitude reflected in their attitudes towards the local culture and local institutions. The spread of Western education was encouraged with a two fold purpose. One was to introduce a class of people who looked to the British for inspiration. The second was to use this class for clerical administrative requirements. The end result was a class of people who were alienated from their local culture and history but who were also not accepted by the ruling class. On top of everything, the British also imposed "home charges" over India which effectively meant that Indians were paying the British for the privilege of being ruled by them. These home charges were carefully calibrated to ensure a profitable British rule.

What about the political front? Surely the British imposed stable political structures over India. Again, the record here is spotty. The British were directly responsible for creating what is today the single biggest flash point between India and Pakistan: Kashmir. After annexing Punjab, the British handed over Kashmir to one Gulab Singh for the then princely sum of Rs. 7.5 million. This imposed a non-Muslim ruler over a Muslim population. Fast forward 100 years. At the time of the partition of India, the so-called Princely States were given the option of joining India or Pakistan or becoming independent. The last option was basically not practical so essentially there were only two choices. India annexed the princely state of Junagadh and Manavadar (which had a Muslim ruler) on the basis that the population was not Muslim. Yet this principle was not followed over Kashmir and that set the stage for one of the most dangerous rivalries in the world.

Was Imperialism beneficial for India? It was responsible for short circuiting India's local political, economic and social development. It did provide some benefits but these came at a cost. British actions were influenced by their desire to preserve their rule in India. These actions resulted in some benefits but also set the stage for future conflict. Having said this, I will also say that nothing has prevented India and Pakistan from negotiating towards a decrease of hostilities. But we have to recognize that the seeds of conflict were set during Imperial rule.

Related articles

• The 'Un' British rule in India (guptasudhir.wordpress.com)
• What the British empire did to Kolkata (vmohanty.com)
• India's De industrialization Under British Rule

On Imperialism - I

The other day, I read an article on the benefits of European imperialism. This article was talking about the colonial period when West European powers (primarily) carved up the world amongst themselves. The most successful of these by far was Britain which at one point ruled an empire about whom it could be said literally that the sun never set on it. I have also earlier read a book by Mr. Niall Ferguson about how the world we live in today was shaped in a major way by the British empire.

Empires have obviously existed since the dawn of history and in fact successive empires have ruled over larger areas than their predecessors. The apogee of this process was reached in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. European imperialism was in many ways unique. All earlier empires ruled over contiguous territories. They did not have the capability to effectively control overseas possessions. Europeans powers did have that capability. Earlier empires also did not make a distinction between a "mother" country and colonial possessions. The colonial powers did. Most earlier empires lacked long term stability. A primary reason for this was that they failed to convince their peoples that they belonged to a community. The two great exceptions to this were Rome and China both of whom endured for very long periods in some form. The European powers developed nationalism which proved to be a very strong force for binding their people together in the "mother" country. At the same time, they were able to resolve the succession problem. This gave the Europeans long term unity and political stability. Almost constant warfare in Europe over 1000 years honed European military industry and military techniques to a much higher degree than other regions of the world. All of this was coupled with the advantages accruing from industrialization and it is no surprise that the rest of the world was unable to mount an effective response to the European challenge.

It is a truism that history is written by the victors. The triumphs of the Western powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries engendered a strong sense of superiority. A feeling that European rule was predestined. Much has been written about the benefits of European rule. However, what about the point of view of the conquered peoples? What was their story like? I come from a former British possession - specifically Pakistan which came into existence as a result of the partition of India. The British story in India can be viewed through multiple angles. The British have a particular view of their history in India. The same events when viewed from the other side can be interpreted in a different fashion. This is true of other parts of the world and of other European possessions. Mr. Ferguson is correct in stating that the British Empire played a major role in forming the world we live in today. However, this did not exist in a vacuum. It affected and was affected by other European and later non-European empires. While Mr. Ferguson talks about the positive impact in his book, there were also negative impacts. The roots of much of the problems of the world today can be traced to the decisions and actions taken by colonial rulers. Also, it should not be imagined that imperialism ended with de-colonization. In important ways, it morphed into new forms and continues to affect the world today. These are areas that are often neglected in histories. In order to truly understand the world we are living in today, we need to take a longer perspective and try and work out what impact decisions taken in the past had on subsequent events and what has been the fallout of those events. These are important and interesting points that I will be exploring in a series of articles on Imperialism and its impact - both positive and negative and how these truly helped to shape the world we are living in today.

Propaganda

A remarkable feat has been achieved by governments over the last 100 years or so. The tools of propaganda have been constantly refined and at the same time, a large mass of the population in country after country has been convinced that they are not being subject to the same.

What is propaganda? It is the dissemination of a particular doctrine or point of view. Alternately it is also the spread of information (which can be misleading or even false) that is harmful to a group of people or another nation. The use of propaganda has increased with the spread of literacy and the development of mass communication media. Propaganda as a tool was first used extensively during World War 1. By today's standards, that propaganda is laughably crude but it served its purpose then. The Nazi's  and the Allies refined it further and used the new medium of cinema to great effect during World War 2. The Cold War gave a further impetus to the development of new methods of spreading propaganda. This coincided with the rise of TV and the concomitant spread of television news. At the same time, extensive research was conducted into the science of the mind. The ultimate purpose was to refine the way propaganda was carried out. Propaganda today is not overtly carried out by the government. It is done via movies, songs, TV and now even the Internet.

What is the point of doing all this? The one word answer is control. Propaganda has always had a dual purpose. One purpose is to convince the population that their current circumstances are the best possible ones because they are living in the best country. Americans in particular are a victim of this. The other purpose is to make the population be afraid of and hate "the other". The other can be defined in many different ways. During World War 1, the other was the Kaiser. During World War 2, it was the Nazis. During the Cold War, it was the Russians. After 9/11, it became the Muslims. A nation that is convinced that it is living the best possible life and that is also afraid of some "other" who are out to harm or destroy that way of life will be willing to make great compromises and suffer great pain. All in the name of God and country.

Related articles

• Learn how to call out propaganda techniques by name, learn about bullies, and read biographies of bully pundits (iflizwerequeen.com)

Controlling The Historical Narrative II

Continuing on an earlier post on this topic, consider the foundational myths of countries. Take Serbia as an example. Under the rabidly nationalist rule of Slobodan Milosevic, the country precipitated the breakup of Yugoslavia and later fought a bitter and genocidal war in Bosnia. Throughout this period, the Serbs were the aggressors and generally had the upper hand. Foreign intervention eventually ended the war. Yet the Serbs consistently viewed themselves as victims throughout. Why? The answer goes back to their history and the way they interpreted it. Much of Serbian history over the last last 600 years or so was spent in battling the Ottoman Empire. These were battles they generally lost. The defining event of their historical narrative was the Battle of Kosovo which technically ended in a draw but practically left the Serbs with too few men to resist Ottoman aggression. Out of this history of loss arose a narrative of the Serb as a hapless victim of outside aggression. During the breakup of Yugoslavia, when the Serbs themselves were the aggressors, this history was used as a justification.

The US provides another example. The Founding Fathers are viewed as wise, farsighted men who rejected the monarchical, class bound ways of Europe and instead embarked on a bold, continuing experiment of democracy under which all peoples would be treated as equals. The basis for this was the constitution they developed which is viewed as a remarkably farsighted, almost sacrosanct document. This is the foundational myth. The truth is a little more complicated. The men who wrote the US constitution disagreed on major issues which at many points threatened to derail the whole project. Many of these men owned slaves. When they talked about the rights of men, they generally had white men (not even white women) in mind. Far from embracing democracy, they were suspicious of it. To limit the effects of a popular vote, they instituted the electoral college system. The result is that the President of the United States is actually chosen by the electoral college which theoretically can (and in the past sometimes did) choose against the popular vote.

As another example, consider the 1947 partition of India into two independent domains. How is this event to be viewed? The history taught in Pakistan actively seeks to link Middle Eastern Islamic history with Pakistan. The colonial period is depicted as one of repression and strong Muslim subjugation. The creation of Pakistan is viewed as the end result of a historical process that started almost 100 years earlier. Yet the man who effectively led the Muslim movement, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a strong proponent of Hindu - Muslim unity in his early career. As late as 1946, just one year before partition, he was willing to agree to a compromise that would have prevented partition. Since then, the historical narrative in Pakistan has been that India is constantly seeking to reverse partition.

If we are all products of our personal and national history, then anyone who can control our historical narrative has great power over us. Before blindly accepting conventional narrative, that perhaps is an important point to ponder on.

Controlling The Historical Narrative

As I have mentioned previously, history is a very important subject that is vastly underrated by the majority of people. Our sense of who we are and why our present situation is the way it is derives from our understanding and reading of history. This is why the historical narrative is so carefully controlled. History is a vast area composed of many different overlapping layers. To understand ourselves, we need to understand or know of these different layers. Most of history that we read is the history of states. We are taught about the interactions of different states with each other. However, most of history is composed of what happens inside the state. How did the various groups and classes of people interact with each other? How did the particular economic system of a nation evolve? How did these interactions affect the political development of a nation? What were the causes of major events like industrialization? These are just some of the questions that need to be understood for a proper understanding of ourselves.

And this is precisely why persistent attempts are made to carefully control the historical narrative in every nation and at a global level. Various tools are used in this regard. The most effective of these is the classroom. Early indoctrination (and much of the history taught in schools is basically indoctrination) is extremely hard to overcome. This is supplemented by cultural tools. In the past, these were primarily books but now they also include movies, television and songs. An active attempt is made to convince the mass of people that the current state of affairs in all respects is inevitable and immutable. All other historical narratives are false or misleading or shallow. Convince people about this and they will willingly endure great inequality convinced that there is no alternate.

Related articles

• Friday March 4, 2011: The Value of Global History for Modern Political Economy (delong.typepad.com)
• A History That Doesn't Aid Us (gatheringinlight.com)
• Editorial: Leave history to historians (commercialappeal.com)

On Dogmatism

Our lives are surrounded and defined by dogmas. These come in many different forms - religious, political, scientific, social, professional etc. In a world where change is not only a constant but the rate of change is also ever increasing, dogmas serve to anchor our lives. Given the importance that they have for most of us, dogmas generally get a pretty bad rap. They are blamed for a large variety of ills that afflict society. If only we were free of dogmas goes the cry, we would have happier, more fulfilling lives. But would we?

A dogma, according to the dictionary, is a system of principles or tenets. For most of us, our lives will become chaotic if we were to completely do away with dogmas. Instead of being happier and more fulfilled, we would almost certainly be more miserable as most people are unable to function properly under chaotic conditions whether personal or otherwise. The problem is not due to dogmas per se. The problem lies in dogmatism. Dogmatic people will subscribe rigidly to their particular point of view and will not be willing to listen to alternative points of view. Not only that, dogmatic people tend to try and force others into their particular belief systems. Even if the other party comes with an open mind, a dogmatic person's mind will be closed. Essentially, there will be two people talking past each other. Another characteristic of a dogmatic person is that they will ignore facts that contradict their points of view. In other words, they will subscribe to a reality that conforms to their preconceived notions.

We usually tend to associate dogmatism exclusively with religion but it afflicts all areas of life. Science is a prime example of this. Scientists pride themselves on their objectivity but they have very strong dogmatic blinders. Scientists are unfortunately only too willing to dismiss many areas of potential research. Does ESP exist? I don't know. Should it be researched? Undoubtedly. Is evolution the only explanation for life's existence and diversity? Perhaps but if alternate explanations are put forward, should they not also be investigated instead of being dismissed? There is also an element of double standards at play here. Some phenomena are dismissed out of hand and usually ridiculed. But is absence of proof necessarily proof of absence? If so, then why not dismiss Higg's Boson?

Economics is another area where dogmatism reigns riot. Market fundamentalism is a tenet of faith for large number of economists. Others dispute this view but the faithful (and they can only be described as such) ignore the arguments put forward by their skeptical peers. Again we have two sets of people talking past each other. As an example, are stock exchanges efficient? A lot of economists believe so. An efficient stock exchange should not experience bubbles. Stock exchanges regularly experience them. Have economists changed or at the very least modified their belief that stock exchanges are efficient? For most, the answer is no. This is an example of economic dogmatism that can result in sets of policies that are painful to large number of people.

Nationalism is yet another area where dogmatism is the norm. This is usually manifested in the conviction that my country or way of life is the best in every respect. Every nation suffers from this particular dogmatism to a greater or lesser extent. This is often accompanied by a belief that all other peoples should adopt that lifestyle or belief system. National dogmatism can be aggressive and can result in discriminatory policies and sometimes even wars.

People who talk disparagingly about dogmas are often engaged in lazy thinking. They usually have religion in mind and are only too willing to lay blame there. The real problem lies in dogmatism. Medieval church did not reject scientific findings because of Christian dogma. They did so because they were dogmatic. Scientists today refuse to research some areas because of dogmatism. Such examples can be given in any area that we examine. Dogmatics tend to believe that other people are automatons who can be programmed into their particular belief system. Not so. What is the remedy? A dose of skepticism whenever someone takes a dogmatic position. All of us have a brain. If only most of us were to use them.

Related articles

• Word #4 (amusedbrit.wordpress.com)
• Clarifying The Relationships Between Dogmatism, Skepticism, And Properly Proportioned Belief (camelswithhammers.com)
• Consumer Dogmatism (learnandshop.org)
• Deriving "ought from is" scientifically? (openparachute.wordpress.com)

The Paradox of Technology

Image via Wikipedia

Rapid technological development confers great advantages. It makes possible new methodologies, inspires new kinds of thinking and gives us access to new kinds of tools. These translate into political, economic and social advantages that put entities like companies and nations ahead of others. Early advantages tend to accrue and build a solid lead. But herein lies the paradox of technology.

The problem with technology is that while it confers great advantages, it is useless unless it is used. The US has developed highly advanced military technology that put it far ahead of other nations. All of that hardware and its associated software are essentially pieces of junk unless they are used. Similarly, new types of battery technologies are under development to power all the portable networked devices that are being used and will be used in the future. The first company that develops a long life portable battery will attain a large commercial advantage; an advantage that will be useless until the technology is introduced. Countless other similar arguments can be given.

However, as soon as a particular technology is used, it can be copied. Take cloning as an example. As soon as Dolly the sheep was cloned, a number of other animals were also cloned. The first child to be born through IVF treatment was a miracle. Today it is routine. This is the paradox. Technology development confers great advantages which are unrealized and therefore useless until said technology is used whereupon it can be copied. The lead time of the advantage obtained has progressively shortened over time. Only too frequently, companies are realizing, the full gains of the technology development do not accrue to the pioneer but to a competitor who comes along later. Increasingly this competitor is coming from an industry traditionally viewed as unrelated.

This is another strand in the paradox of technology. After a long period of time during which there was separate development in various technological areas, a great convergence is taking place. Industries traditionally viewed as separate are being joined together. Suddenly old competencies are not only useless, they are hindrances. This is true at all levels whether personal, corporate, institutional or national. All of us without exception are in a race where we are not only continuously running, we are running at an ever increasing pace. The ultimate paradox is that technology both liberates us and at the same time enslaves us.

The Purpose of Education

Image via Wikipedia

What is the point of education? What purpose does it serve to an individual, to the community and to the state?

In its barest essence, education is the ability to read and write in a particular language. By this narrow definition, I am literate in English but a total illiterate in virtually all other languages. Whenever there is talk about the importance of education and statistics are being bandied around regarding literacy levels, it is this narrow definition that most people have in mind. I believe this is unfortunate since education is or should be a much richer picture on a much larger canvas.

At an individual level, education does more than give someone just the ability to read and write. It gives them the ability to think for themselves and not be influenced by the opinion of others. It also teaches how to interact with others socially without causing harm or stress. When viewed like this, education elevates a person to someone who can think things through on their own and in addition gives them analytical tools and abilities. The classic liberal arts education sought to do just this: develop analytical skills while also honing social ones. It is however this characteristic of education that makes it dangerous for elite interests.

A modern economy requires an educated populace. As development proceeds apace and new ways of socializing and working become possible, this requirement only increases. An educated populace is also required to provide a pool of people who can do the R&D that further development of the economy requires. But an educated population is a dangerous one specially if it is also young. Since education gives an individual analytical skills, it also enables them to start questioning the status-quo. Educated people demand a greater say in the ordering of their affairs. Such people are not passive; neither are they likely to be lulled by promises of a better future at the cost of a painful present. If left unchecked, these expectations and passions come out into the open and then become difficult to control. So here is the conundrum. The demands of a modern economy requires an educated population but an educated population demands a greater say in its affairs. Often, elite interests in an economy want the former without the latter. As the events of the last 30 years have shown, elite interests are often different from popular interests.

The solution that seems to have worked so far is to re-define education on a technocratic basis. Emphasize technical aspects while de-emphasizing broader goals. The result is a populace that is largely technically literate but functionally illiterate. Such people can fulfill the demands of the economy while remaining boxed in. At the same time make the box gilded. They beauty of the system is that by and large people will not even realize that they are essentially in a golden cage.

Related articles

• Education (wtbednarz.wordpress.com)
• Purpos/ed: What's the purpose of education (alchemi.co.uk)
• After 12 Years They're Still Illiterate? (lewrockwell.com)
• How College Degree vs. Career Choice Colliding? (socyberty.com)

Do Ideas Matter?

Ideas are generally speaking vastly underrated. Yet they have been of extreme importance throughout history and their importance has increased dramatically with the rise of the digital economy. As children, we are usually not taught the history of ideas. Instead we are taught the history of physical things. We study in depth all about emperors and kings, empires and kingdoms, their political interactions, their rise and fall. Rarely if ever, do we get the opportunity or have the inclination to study the ideas that motivated these historical people and events. Events are exciting to read and visualize. Ideas? Not so much. But it is ideas that outlast political structures and people that in the long run are essentially ephemeral. Our history is often unintelligible without an understanding of the underlying ideas that motivated the exciting events and people that we read about.

As an example, take the Crusades. For Western Europe and the consequent development of Western culture and civilization and thus that of the West, this was a watershed event. The question is why? simply reading about the battles as the tide of war ebbed back and forth over time tells us very little. There have been many battles between similar adversaries in the past and there would be many more in the future. What was so different about the Crusades? The difference was in the ideas that the Crusaders encountered when they first arrived in the region. After all the dust had settled down in the aftermath of the First Crusade, the newcomers found themselves embedded in a highly developed, cosmopolitan environment. They were exposed to new concepts and ways of doing things; ideas that were radical for them and that had a major impact back home. Eventually these ideas (among other influences) resulted in the culture that today is called the West.

Another excellent example of the importance of ideas is the American Revolution. There have been many times in history when a people have detached themselves from a parent country. In this regard, the American Revolution is no different from countless other revolts. What was the difference? The ideas that helped to generate the US constitution and the institutions that it spawned that Americans today revere so much. It can be argued that the impact of the ideas of the American Revolution were not confined to the new state. These ideas spread back to Europe where they germinated and commingled with other trends and eventually resulted in imposing limits on monarch and helped to expand the spread of various forms of democratic governance.

Similarly, the importance of the Russian Revolution lies not so much in the fact of the revolt itself but rather in the idea that powered the revolt.  The idea of Communism and the reordering of society that it imagined was what distinguished the Russian Revolution just as the idea of democratic governance was what had distinguished the American revolution from other such revolts. Also similar to the American Revolution, the impact of the Russian Revolution was not confined to Russia. The basic ideas that underlay Communism (or rather fear of those basic ideas) prompted Western capitalist nations to start introducing middle class and to a smaller extent lower class inducements and entitlements.

The impact of colonialism was not so much in the fact of foreign rule. Nearly every empire has involved forcible occupation of a land and the subjugation of the people living on it. colonialism's impact is that it imposed and spread Western ideas of governance and social conduct amongst the subject peoples. Colonialism's greatest triumph did not lie in successfully occupying foreign territories. It lay in inducing native peoples to not only adopt and adapt Western notions of political and social conduct and customs but to turn their backs on traditional notions of the same.

The impact of ideas is not confined to the political realm alone. Ideas on the economy for example have had major impact on our daily lives. These ideas have caused major upheavals but also caused strong economic growth. The Great Depression of the 1930s was caused mainly by the particular economic ideas that were then in vogue. It was countered most effectively by radical ideas espoused by John Maynard Keynes. Those ideas in turn were countered by still other notions advanced most prominently by Milton Friedman. The implementation of all these ideas over time has had important consequences for people all over the world.

Scientific ideas have enormously enriched our lives and endangered them as well. These ideas have resulted in technologies that have made our lives easier and more productive in our various tasks. At the same time, many of those same ideas have made it easier for us to be killed in new, novel and spectacularly gruesome fashion. Scientific ideas are also important because these eventually filter down to the primary school level where they are absorbed by us and in the end affect our world view.

A major part of the reason behind the continued dominance of the Western paradigm even after decolonization has been the cultural ideas that have emanated from the West and been transmitted around the world by its enormously successful cultural industries.

Ideas on religion have not only played a major role in history, they continue to do so. The Crusades mentioned above were themselves motivated by religious ideas regarding heathens and how to deal with them and also by ideas regarding the proper role of the Church in European lives. Questions regarding the proper Islamic response to colonization and later the decolonization process spurred Islamic religious thought which in turn has helped large numbers of ordinary Muslims understand their religion better. Ideas on religion have also been behind violent acts in many different parts of the world - both Muslim and non-Muslim.

So ideas are of crucial importance. They have been the moving force behind much of history. Each part of the world is distinctively what it is because of ideas. And different kinds of ideas continue to exert a strong influence on us both as individuals and as the collective that is called a nation. Failing to understand the basic ideas behind what we observe today means that we are failing to understand not only our past but also our present which in turn means that we will fail to understand our future.

Related articles

• Revolutions (socyberty.com)
• Niall Ferguson: why the West is now in decline (telegraph.co.uk)

Hypocrisy Redux

Hypocrisy - everyone purports to hate it. Yet we all engage in it to some extent at some point(s) in our lives. This is a character trait which is almost always seen as a major flaw -- in others. We are always being hypocritical to the extent that we hide our true feelings and state of mind from others. In some cases, this can actually be positive. Small temporary acts of hypocrisy may well be necessary for the smooth flow of our relationships. The alternative is radical honesty which is fine in theory and may well work out in practice for a lot of people but it could lead to breakdown in relationships that may well not have occurred otherwise. The major problem with hypocrisy is not temporary acts of the same. The problem occurs when this mode of behavior becomes a permanent or a major facet of our personality. Hypocritical acts are acts of omission and lies. These can be big or small, but they add up over time and eventually result in a double life.

Hypocrisy comes in many forms and flavors. Perhaps most common is racial hypocrisy; condemning a particular people due to the perceived inferiority of their race based on specious physical characteristics while at the same time often secretly fraternizing with them. Another very common form of hypocrisy comes in loudly and volubly advocating the importance of family while at the same time pursuing actions that undermine family life. Public figures and people who achieve prominence seem to suffer from this disproportionately. Religion is another avenue where people pursue hypocritical actions. This typically comes in the form of insisting on others following the tenets of one's particular religious faith while not observing the same at the same time. For example, nearly every religion condemns financial corruption. Countless people do the same on religious grounds while at the same time being financially corrupt. Needless to say, such actions give ammunition to opponents of religion. Yet another form of hypocrisy comes when we demand greater morality from prominent figures than what we ourselves practice.

Does it matter even if various form(s) of hypocrisy are widespread in a society? Generally speaking the answer is yes it matters but in come cases, the answer can be an equivocal depends. Some forms of behavior are best not publicized. Sexual promiscuity is a prime example of this. If I think that people in my society are not sexually adventurous and this is also generally condemned, then that will act as an impediment on behavior that is considered unacceptable. If however I feel that others are also doing the same kinds of action, then I will be more brazen in my behavior. On the other hand, hypocritical behavior on crime, specially financial crime, is a bad idea as the negative impact of such actions affects a far larger number of people.

Hypocrisy that affects the smooth functioning of larger society needs to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Hypocrisy that affects an individual also needs to be condemned but in a counseling manner; the primary aim being to reform the individual's behavior.

Related articles

• Honesty and Hypocrisy (abdulmuneer.wordpress.com)
• Hypocrites, please stand up (saladinasteakhouse.wordpress.com)
• How does one define hypocrisy? (mojoey.blogspot.com)
• Hypocrisy in Indian Society (guptasudhir.wordpress.com)
• You too: Seven rules for honest hypocrisy management (psychologytoday.com)
• The origins of the specious: How hypocrisy happens (psychologytoday.com)

A Thought on Language and Discourse

Why has the general level of discourse specially in public fora declined so much over the last 30 years or so? Over time, not only do we seem to have become more intolerant of other people's views (which is a topic for another day), we also are more likely to use language that would have been unacceptable only a generation ago. This is increasingly reflected in speeches given by public representatives in country after country. More importantly, it is being reflected in electronic media like movies, songs and video games; I say more importantly because movies and music in general tend to have a large impact on the public consciousness. These are one of the primary mechanisms through which culture now evolves both globally and locally.

Language is a reflection of our thoughts. Lacking telepathy, the only way in which we can express our views is via language whether spoken or written. When coarse language becomes acceptable in our writings and our speech, this reflects a coarsening of our thoughts. Thoughts in turn are important because they ultimately translate into actions. Coarse thoughts lead to a greater likelihood of socially inappropriate or unacceptable actions. This has happened sufficiently gradually that we have adjusted to this reality without truly realizing what has happened. This does not mean that we do not appreciate fine language. Most of us enjoy watching older movies or listening to older songs because they use a level of language that has largely disappeared from our daily lives. Graceful language is a joy to hear. It is a thing of beauty that can move people emotionally. Perhaps by degrading the level of our discourse, we are without realizing it stunting ourselves emotionally.

Related articles

• verbal flow (lpstribling.wordpress.com)

Dependence on Technology

Technological development is a wonderful thing. We now routinely use products that would have seemed almost magical just a few years ago. The Net has proved (and is still proving) to be a great paradigm changer. New kinds of products and services are sprouting like weeds in a garden. Yet, I cannot help feeling that as all this technology weaves itself into the fabric of our existence, we are coming to depend on it like crutches. Technology is having the paradoxical effect of empowering us and at the same time impoverishing us.

Since the Industrial Revolution started, there has been an ever increasing explosion of new technology rapidly coming into our lives. Each new wave has taken a shorter period of time to become an integral part of our lives and the pace is picking up. But as we plunge into this brave new world of increasing technological dependence, perhaps we are giving up a kind of freedom without even realizing it. Each gadget/toy/tool that we use puts certain demands on us. It is rarely the case that technology adapts itself to our current way of doing things. In practice, there is a period of mutual adaptation as we figure out how best to use our latest shiny new toy. In the process, how we do something changes often without our realization. On the occasions when we do realize this, we justify it as better way of doing things. The problem is that soon we are dependent on this new technology and if it gets taken away for whatever reason, we are suddenly left helpless. There are many examples of this phenomenon. If we lose our cell phones, not only do we feel helpless and out of touch, we also lose our contact list. Previously, most of us could remember approximately 10 of our most commonly used numbers. Now that we have transferred our contact list to our mobiles, we can barely remember one or two. Another example: we increasingly use computers for personal and work reasons. If something happens to our machine, our work is at the very least severely impacted. Similarly we are slowly giving up face to face contacts in favor of a more impersonal form of communication proffered by mobiles and the Net.

We are right now in the middle of a grand social experiment. Until fairly recently, the introduction of new technology (while being increasingly fast paced) was sufficiently slow that we could adapt to it in some fashion. Since 2000 however a kind of a tipping point seems to have been reached. New technologies are being introduced at an ever increasing pace. With them come new ways of work, social and personal interactions. However, these new forms are also increasing our dependence on the technological tools that enable them. While this increasing dependence can be exhilarating and invigorating, it also exposes us to difficult to recognize dangers. The release of the stuxnet virus is an illustration of this. An extremely sophisticated form of computer malware, it deliberately targeted systems being used by Iranian nuclear facilities. In many respects, this virus is a watershed event. It has shown that sophisticated attacks on vital infrastructure can be done remotely. It is only a matter of time. On a more personal level, large number of people have already experienced identity thefts. Since a large portion of our lives is now online, it has become easier to impersonate thereby causing financial and possibly physical harm.

What will be the end result of this ever increasing dependence on technology? It is hard to say. What can be said is that while we gain from our technological dependence, it is not a free lunch. There is a price to pay. Exactly what that price will be will become clear gradually. The crucial question by then will be was it worth it?

Related articles

• 4 reasons why an increased pace of change means greater unpredictability (rossdawsonblog.com)
• Eric Logan: What the Luddites Really Fought Against - Smithsonian Magazine (smithsonianmag.com)

When Disaster Strikes

Japan's recent earthquake and tsunami has shown the awesome power of nature and our essential helplessness before these titanic forces. When an advanced country like Japan is laid low in a few seconds, how can less advanced countries hope to cope?

We live in a age which aims to not only reduce risk to a minimum but preferably eliminate it altogether. It does not matter which country we live in or what our income/economic/education/whatever background is. Natural disasters particularly are often viewed as a affront to our vaunted technological achievements. However, when a natural disaster does come, it frequently demonstrates the limitations of our technology.

Natural disasters often also serve to highlight national characteristics. All the footage that I have seen of the survivors shows that there has been no panic in the aftermath. Yes, thousands of people are missing. Yes, those who have lived through this trauma are desperately searching for their loved ones. But there has been no looting, no rioting, not even a show of anger as far as I can tell. Something fairly similar was also seen in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake. Unfortunately this is often not the case in third world disasters.

Why is this so? I believe that the reaction of the survivors in an earthquake is conditioned by their economic, political and especially social circumstances before the event. A kleptomaniac government will necessarily encourage distrust amongst its citizenry in order to facilitate its stealing. This distrust will tend to carry through into the aftermath of a natural disaster which then means that every person will tend to look out for their self and their immediate family. The citizenry of a government which does not encourage such distrust will tend to stick together and help each other out even if the government cannot. So in Japan, we have political and social circumstances which tend to encourage people to trust each other and the government. Since people expect each other to behave in a proper fashion no matter what the conditions, we don't see rowdy, violent, desperate behavior. I think the dignified manner in which the survivors of this catastrophe are behaving should serve as an object lesson to all of us everywhere.

Related articles

• Japan Disaster Commentary and Resources (blogs.securiteam.com)
• Catastrophe in Japan (jkvc.wordpress.com)
• When Disaster Strikes (A Response to the Events in Japan) (doingthewritething.wordpress.com)
• The Trickle Effect of World Disasters on Business (pantheos.wordpress.com)