The Paradox of Development

Human history has been a story of connections. Over the entire course of history, people have forged connections with others. Initially starting with immediate neighbors and then moving on further and further afield. Sometimes the connections made were peaceful, sometimes not. The unequal distribution of resources in the world led to the development of trade which in turn led to further and deeper connections being made. These ever closer connections are an important aspect of development. This process of forging connections was slow but over the very long term steady despite setbacks like collapse of empires (the Roman Empire being a prominent example) and the occasional appearance of devastating diseases like the Black Plague. Industrialization vastly accelerated this process. It is as though the accelerator has been jammed down hard.

Industrialization enabled two very important developments. It lowered transportation cost for all sorts of products (including people) and it lowered communication cost between different regions of the world. Furthermore, it did this while vastly accelerating both processes at the same time. So goods could be transported further and faster and at the same time communication between different regions became more and more in real time.

Today we are all linked together in a vast network spanning the globe. All kinds of goods are routinely ordered from around the world for sale or consumption elsewhere. Families which used to be clustered in a village are now scattered all across. No one is surprised if say a brother is living in one country while a sister may be married and settled in another and the parents live in a third. Again we call this development. Opportunities used to be local. Now they are global. The biggest beneficiaries are corporations. The process of development has resulted in a globalization in which corporations now straddle the world. Unlike most previous entities, these giants have operations in different parts of the world. For example design may be done in the USA, while manufacturing is handled by China, market research may be done from India while the supply chain may be coordinated from the UK. The world of today is a complex interlocking structure which can smoothly transfer goods and services in different stages to different parts of the world at ever lower costs. This is a sophisticated, complicated structure with a unique elegance and beauty. All of this being accomplished without the aid of any central agency.

However, there is a paradox embedded in the heart of this structure. As this structure has become more global and more closely linked (which is an ongoing process), it has also become more fragile. As we have become more dependent on this system of connections, we have also become more vulnerable. The interesting thing is that the more dependent we are on this system, the more vulnerable we are. A shock administered to one part is felt in other parts and other areas of the system. Take Japan. A massive earthquake is followed by a massive tsunami. Large areas are devastated. There is major property damage and unfortunately also major loss of life. A terrible tragedy for the Japanese people. But the fallout from this event is felt in other parts of the world. Suddenly there is a recognition that Japan needs to rebuild. For that it will need money and is very likely to liquidate assets held abroad in order to finance reconstruction. Japan is also a major holder of US treasury bonds. What will happen to the US economy and the value of the US dollar if it starts selling large quantities of these? Many American companies, specially electronics ones, source material from Japan. Now these are heavily affected. Are there alternate suppliers with enough spare capacity to take up this lost production? If they do, how quickly can they gear up production? Fragility. An event in one part of the world is shaking other parts. Another example: Libya. Inspired by the events of Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyans launch their own protest against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. Unlike the other countries, Gaddafi strikes back hard and the country descends into a civil war. Libya however is a large oil producer. All of a sudden this capacity goes offline as far as the rest of the world is concerned. What happens next? Oil prices spike up. Again an event in one part of the world starts shaking up other areas. Fragility.

On a smaller scale, the fragility of the modern world can be seen in our cities. Modern cities are miracles of organization mostly unplanned. Our cities contain huge number of people living cheek by jowl. Vast quantities of different kinds of food and water need to be shipped in daily and distributed efficiently. Equally vast quantities of waste material need to be disposed of again on a daily basis. Cities are major centers of production and provide services essential for the smooth functioning of a modern economy. As an example, America's economic growth would be severely impaired if cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco were to become dysfunctional. Cities are a sophisticated and thus a fragile system. What would happen if say a major earthquake were to cut off road and rail links and render airports unusable so that food supplies into the city are severely curtailed? People living in modern, developed cities are dependent on the smooth and timely functioning of the overall system. If it gets disrupted in a major way, starvation is a distinct possibility. Hungry people are not quiet people and so a breakdown of law and order would be very much on the cards. Again, more sophisticated the system, more fragile it is.

If developed countries with their highly sophisticated systems are so fragile, then developing countries should be like a house of cards. Interestingly enough, this is not necessarily so. Developed country systems are tightly linked together and are dependent on all parts functioning smoothly. Developing country systems are not so tightly linked together. People living in these systems are more used to fending for themselves simply because the system in which they live is usually dysfunctional to a greater or lesser degree. This also means that in times of need, local communities will rally together simply because they are more attuned to doing so. These systems are thus more robust because they are more primitive. That in a nutshell is the paradox of development: the greater the development, the more tightly linked different parts of the system are, the more fragile the overall system becomes.

On Development

We are all part of a global society that is obsessed with development. On all media, in all forums and frequently in private conversations, this is an underlying theme. However, development is an abstract concept and people are usually not very good with abstractions. We prefer to deal with more concrete ideas. So the problem is how to visualize development. The route normally taken is to equate development with growth but this only pushes the problem down another level. Growth itself is an abstract concept and so how do we visualize growth?

Development and growth, being abstract concepts, have many dimensions. The solution to the problem of visualizing development and growth is to focus on one or a few of the dimensions. The primary dimension along which development and growth are visualized is material well-being and this is itself visualized by our ease of access to the material things we need to exist. Some of these material things are necessary for us to live. So one measure of development is do we have access to water, food and shelter. These are then refined further. In the case of water, do we draw water from a well? A community tap? Water piped directly into our homes? In the case of food, in what quantity, then quality and then variety? Other material things are not necessary for survival but we deem them to be necessary in order to function effectively in a modern economy. Cases in point: cell phones and electricity in our homes and businesses. Still others are adornments that we decorate our houses and bodies with.

In a sense, this emphasis on materialism is not very surprising. In order to merely survive, we need access to a minimum quantity of resources - material things. In order to function effectively in our economy, we need access to a variety of material resources. The exact composition of the things changes over time. These changes are considered development. So development has essentially boiled down to a numbers game. How many things of different variety do we own irrespective of whether we actually have a use for them or not. There is a heavy, almost exclusive emphasis on materialism. All the measures that we use to monitor development and growth are based on material aspects. Whether we are measuring GDP or productivity or something else, we are seeing how much and hoe quickly can we produce things. Of course what is produced also needs to be consumed and so development is also increasing consumption of these things. Humans are thus reduced to producing and consuming automatons fascinated with shiny baubles and trinkets. In many respects, materialism makes us behave like the proverbial native Americans who gave up Manhattan island for a few cheap, shiny baubles.

Is there any harm in this? This emphasis on materialism has produced wonders for us. A large number of people today live in a style and comfort that even kings of bygone eras could not have dreamed of. Even the poorest of us have access to a level of goods and services that at one time would have been considered luxurious. By these measures, materialism has been good. So there's no problem there right? Not quite. To a considerable extent, we are what we measure. In other words, we become the dimensions of our existence that we emphasize. Materialism is merely one aspect of development. There are many other dimensions. How are we developing as individuals? How are we developing as a community? What kind of a culture or legacy are we bequeathing to later generations? Will we be remembered for our strange fascination with baubles and trinkets or will we be remembered for our music, our words that we leave behind, the social structures that we evolve? What about our spiritual side? What about our emotional side? Many of us are mental and emotional wrecks. These are symptoms brought about by the stresses of modern life. How do these stresses arise? Through an emphasis on materialism. Has material development made us happier, more mature, more fulfilled? Is our global culture producing enduring cultural and literary works? Or are we producing works that will barely be remembered a generation hence. What measures are truly important to focus on when we say development?

Propaganda And Society

Propaganda has become so ubiquitous in the public discourse that it has effectively disappeared into the background. This has been a remarkable transformation. Earlier attempts at spreading ideas through propaganda were crude, obnoxious and obvious. These attempts generated a resistance amongst the people whose views were sought to be manipulated. But then several previously separate strands of business and research came together over the course of the 20th century. Firstly there was considerable development in the art of Public Relations. This research was pushed by corporations seeking to positively influence public opinion in their favor or in the favor of their products without it seeming as advertising. At the same time, there were major advances in the study of the human brain and mind. Rapid advances in psychology shed new light on how people absorb new ideas and get motivated. These strands were then brought together by governments during the Cold War. The result was major advances in how propaganda can be used to influence public opinion. These strand have been continuously refined since then until the result is as I have mentioned above: propaganda so ubiquitous that it has become part of the background noise.

How do we as individuals make sense of the events happening around us? The various events that we read or hear about in the media form part of an ongoing historical narrative. This is part of how we make sense of the world us. A large part of being mentally mature is our ability to do this. Most of us, no matter where we live, are convinced that the mental picture of the world that we thus form is reasonably accurate and true. But is it? How can we be sure that we are not being manipulated by the same media on whom we are dependent for our information and analysis of the world around us? This problem is most acute in developed countries whose inhabitants are convinced that all the media that they encounter is neutral and impartial.

The fact of the matter is that most media outlets in nearly all countries are not neutral. Most of them are beholden to or part of major corporations which always try to manipulate us for their perceived benefit. Today there are both individuals and corporations who control major media outlets and who are not shy of using these as instruments with which to control how we think and thus how we react and behave. Climate change is an excellent example of this. The vast majority of scientific opinion is strongly of the view that global temperatures are rising; they are rising as a result of human behavior; the effects of this rise are unknown but are highly likely to be extremely negative with a major rise in natural calamities and the very strong possibility of major crop failures. There is very strong evidence to back up these assertions. By rights, there should be no controversy about climate change. But there is. Why? Major propaganda efforts by corporations, think tanks and individuals to obfuscate the issue. The end result sought is to control the historical narrative and through that influence public opinion that there is no need to worry about climate change and business as usual can go on.

Propaganda is an incredibly useful tool in the hands of corporations and individuals to channel public view of events along particular lines. The basic aim is to manipulate the many for the benefit of the few in such a manner that the former do not become disillusioned down the road. Society's view of itself is influenced by its remembered history - its historical narrative. Influence that in the present by the effective use of propaganda and not only will the past be remembered through a particular lens but the course of the future itself can be influenced more easily.

Related articles

• What are the negative use of propaganda in world war 1 (wiki.answers.com)
• Army of Fake Social Media Friends to Promote Propaganda (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
• What Is Propaganda? (time.com)
• "Wayseer Manifesto" - Selling Freedom or Selling Psychopathy? (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
• Learn how to call out propaganda techniques by name, learn about bullies, and read biographies of bully pundits (iflizwerequeen.com)

Fear of Change

Change is disruptive. This is key to understanding our reaction to it. People value stability. Change breaks that stability and forces on us a scramble to find a new stable point around which to base our lives. This process can be painful and protracted but at the same time exhilarating. Changes can come for any variety of reasons and from a variety of causes. Often, the cause is external. Economic conditions, political conditions, social conditions - these are all sources of external change. You think you've got a stable job. You've been working in your organization for over 10 years. You have had great reviews every year. Management has heaped praises and awards on you. Then one day, you are fired. No explanations given. Half an hour to pack your things and get out. This is unexpected, unanticipated change that causes a major disruption. Carefully laid plans for the future are suddenly knocked out of kilter. Consider another scenario. You come home after a hard day's work and your better half wants a divorce. You had missed all signs of dissatisfaction or disaffection. Again, unexpected, unanticipated change that causes a major disruption. Yet another scenario. You discover that you have won the lottery. Suddenly there are over a million dollars in your account. Again unexpected, unanticipated change that will cause a major disruption.

Why do we have nostalgia for the past? Why do we yearn for a past that now seems simpler and more innocent. The time period in question dies not matter. Whether it is the 1970s or the 1980s or the 1990s or some earlier period, the passage of time has lent an aura of innocence and simplicity that we did not appreciate when we were actually experiencing that era. A major reason for this effect is that change brings positive and negative effects in its wake. On the positive side, we have different and usually better, faster ways of communicating, working and socializing. It is now possible to maintain far flung relationships. Life in many respects is easier than previously. But these changes come at a cost of added complexity. There are now much more options to keep track of and figure out. The new and improved ways of communicating, working and socializing also mean that we need to learn new habits and unlearn old ones - an incredibly hard task to do. In addition, the direction of the change is often not clear. Alternate new paths lie open before us. One has to be chosen but there is no guide map. A leap in the dark needs to be undertaken and that is a truly terrifying prospect. And there is no let up. Not only change is occurring, but the rate of change is accelerating. Adjustments need to be made ever faster. By contrast, the past seems definitive, simpler, innocent.

What is true of individuals is also true of nations. Why is there a rising tide of anti-immigration sentiment throughout the world. All the evidence indicates that immigrants have a positive effect on host societies. Most immigrants are by nature more enterprising and hard working than their peers in their native countries. They have to be. It is not easy to leave everything you are familiar with and seek work in a new country with a strange language and strange customs. Most immigrants contribute more to their host societies that they take out. There is an inter-mingling of cultures, customs, styles and modes of expression which result in new modes of expression and new, different goods and services being made available. Countries which experience immigration grow faster than those which do not. Yet immigrants are treated with suspicion and hostility. They are viewed as stealing jobs from the natives even if the jobs are of the type that no native would want to do. Immigrant lifestyles and mores are viewed as threats to native lifestyles and mores. Why? What is happening here? Immigrants bring change in their wake. The people who are hostile seek to hold on to what is familiar. A fear of change provokes a visceral reaction.

As I have written before, change can be viewed through different prisms. However it is viewed, it is the one great constant in our lives. Change occurs on and around us all the time. Why then are we often afraid of change? Why do we not celebrate and embrace change all the time? It is precisely because of its disruptive effects.

Related articles

• The Right Vs Free Markets: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• How to Survive in 2011: Think Like an Immigrant (blogs.forbes.com)
• What is the Key to Survival in a Constantly Changing Environment? (businessinsider.com)

Change

What is change? A different way of doing things? A different way of thinking? How about a different way of living? The dictionary gives more than 30 different definitions of the word. We all tend to agree that the only constant in our lives is change. This is usually viewed as good especially in the popular media which celebrates and endorses change. For something that plays such an important role in our lives, there is a fair amount of confusion regarding change.

Change can be viewed as physical growth. Over the course of a lifetime, the human body undergoes myriad changes. An old man walking slowly down the street (perhaps with the help of a cane) was once a strapping young lad who could undertake great physical exertions without considering it a big deal. Similarly an old lady quietly sitting in a corner was once a vivacious beauty with the confidence to hold her own in any company. These are physical changes that all of us will undergo as we age. These are however definitely not the most important changes that occur during our lifetimes.

Alternatively, change can be viewed as difference in forms of living. Modern lifestyles are very different from those of a generation ago. The lifestyles of our children will in turn be very different from our own. Most of these lifestyle changes occur because of the exponential nature of technological change. Until industrialization, technology changed in a fairly predictable, linear fashion. The rate of change was such that lifestyles changed over the course of centuries. Industrialization was a major discontinuity in this regard. The rate of change of technology became exponential regardless of the kind of technology and regardless of political and economic conditions. The nature of an exponential graph is such that it starts slowly and rapidly builds up and this is exactly what we are seeing today. Computing is a prime example whereby computing devices have become smaller and more powerful at an exponential rate. There is also no indication that this trend is going to change to the extent that even mainstream media is now starting to talk about Singularity - the idea that these changes will become so massive that we will have no basis of comparison in the past. As I have mentioned above, these changes in turn engender changes in the way we live and behave. I am talking about radical changes here. The kind of changes that are simply unimaginable to most of us today. The video below is an attempt to look at what our lifestyles may be like in just a few short years from now. And this vision is almost certainly not bold enough to reflect what we will (probably) actually encounter.

Change can also be viewed as a different way of thinking. This is the most important change of all. One of the great effects of technological (specially communications) advances has been that we are now exposed to different lifestyles, philosophies and ways of thinking. This has done two things. It has made us aware that our particular way of thinking or particular philosophy is not the only one. There are other, valid alternatives. The other effect is that this exposure has enriched our own thinking. Why are major metropolitan areas called cosmopolitan? It is because their inhabitants are exposed to these alternate points of view. This mixing of different viewpoints results in the evolution of everyone's thinking. It results in change and that in turn results in growth in understanding and maturity. These are the marks of a growth in wisdom.

Related articles

• Mind-blowing, world-changing technology by the numbers (radar.oreilly.com)
• Big Idea: Technology Grows Exponentially (bigthink.com)
• 4 reasons why an increased pace of change means greater unpredictability (rossdawsonblog.com)
• Are you afraid of change? (lakeshawomack.com)

Modern Imperialism

Does imperialism exist today? Most people think not. The dismantling of the European empires was the major story of the mid 20th century. Starting from 1947, country after country gained independence. Some were voluntarily relinquished, the prime example being India which got partitioned into two states. Others gained independence after major battles. Prime examples here were Algeria, Malaya, Indonesia and Kenya. What was startling about the process was the sheer speed with which these empires were dismantled. A major reason for this was that after World War II, Europe was essentially bankrupt both financially and resource wise. A second major reason was US pressure. Americans have traditionally been hostile to formal empires. At the end of the Second World War, they were by far the dominant power and hence in a position to "persuade" Europeans to relinquish their overseas territories.

So a happy ending right? Imperialism got successfully dismantled. The former colonies were now finally free to follow their own particular developments free from oversight of Imperial overlords who considered that they knew better than the natives. Not quite. Formal imperialism did get dismantled at an astonishing pace. However, the framework of imperialism was not dismantled. The new states found themselves enmeshed in a web of treaties and agreements that preserved the old global power structures. These had originally evolved to meet the needs of the imperial overlords. They continued to serve the same purpose from a distance. New financial structures also evolved which further enmeshed the new countries in an endless cycle of debt. At the same time, offshore banking arose from small beginnings to the massive structure that it is today. Debt and offshore banking served to suck much needed capital out of the new states into the economies of the developed world. The old ways in which the colonies had served as providers of raw materials while being buyers of finished manufactures continued largely unabated.

All of the above served to dampen the development of the new states. Some countries did develop, most notably the Far Eastern ones. However, they could do so within the framework established by the West. Their development was not smooth. It was marked by repression and a savage suppression of local aspirations. Most of them suffered for long periods of time under dictatorships which were only too ready to the bidding of the former masters.

Even now, the basic relationship between the developed and the developing (the new politically correct terms for the former conquerors and conquered) is an unequal one. Conditions have been imposed on the latter that the former did not have to face. These conditions are designed to protect the interests of Western bankers and investors. The interests of the local populations are of secondary concern at best. The aim at all times is to maintain the unimpeded flow of raw materials to the industries of the West. The primary consideration at all times has been the perpetual chase of ever increasing profitability. This chase has now started to shift industry away from the developed countries to the developing ones. The irony is that the structures that were designed to perpetuate the advantages and interests of the developed countries are slowly starting to work in favor of the developing ones.

Related articles

• The Euro-US War on Libya: Official Lies and Misconceptions of Critics by James Petras and Robin E. Abaya (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
• NATO: America's Imperial Tool (tipggita32.wordpress.com)

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)