Okay, then, I suppose I’m concerned by two (maybe three) things.
First, the delinking of time periods. I’m not certain it’s really possible to consider the latter period of colonialization (which was switching to mandate form anyway) without consideration of the first couple centuries. It can be argued that the trusteeship model was only adopted after the European powers began to realize that their colonies were unsustainable. Weapons proliferation and military tactics made resistance more successful, the international climate was turning against it as countries increasingly became based on nation-state structures, and it was just so expensive. But tying into all of that was the history of violence and repression which really didn’t do much to endear the population to the colonialists’ cause, no matter how liberally conceived. The legacy of slavery in Africa, say, or the humiliation of the Ottoman empire or China, has still left an impression on international politics today. In what sense can we then delink the issue when considering colonialism?
Second, I’m worried that colonialism necessarily involves claims of racial, ethnic, or cultural superiority. While I know, IL, that you said that that doesn’t matter as much, at some point, I am concerned that colonialism lends itself to those excesses, whereas at least self-government holds out the prospect mitigating that (though not always of course). In colonialism, where are the institutional structures that restrict the colonists’ extreme behavior? What is to prevent economic or social exploitation in this situation? The goodwill of the colonists? In which case, this goes directly against what Marine has said.
And third, turning to Marine’s post, I am also concerned by the loose-ness of your definitions. To an extent, I think you’re right: if there is an unclaimed region in Africa and a country decides to claim it, fine. The concern of course is that “unclaimed” very rarely exists nowadays, and there are problems with, say, territorial integrity. If the Sudanese government can’t currently control a part of its territory, does that mean then that the territory is up for grabs? I doubt it. Similar to my second concern, there is often a tendency to sell the prospect of colonialism by either emphasizing its benefits to the host population, or to negate their existence entirely. A legitimate grievance of the Palestinians, for example, is that the early Zionists in some cases willfully denied that they were living in what became Israel. “A people for a land without a people, a nation for a people without a nation.” was the credo, and it was wrong. But it was also effective.
Beyond that, I think your conception of nationalism is a little…myopic. What about nationalism for people who live in the territory that is being claimed? Second, I do believe it is legitimate to question whether the moral jeopardy of colonies doesn’t itself cause greater harm to the nation than the benefits the colonies gain. For example, a reason that Egypt, Iran, and Iraq all went against the Western powers at various points was because of the legacy of colonialism, and don’t think that Beijing doesn’t have that in the back of their mind as well.
Okay, and a fourth concern :-) - nation-building is hard. To support a benevolent conception of colonialism, I would need examples of where it worked. And not just in the US, Canadian way, where the colonists killed 95 percent of the native population (check out Jared Diamond’s book for confirmation). That kind of negates the whole point of a benevolent colonialization. I mean where the influence of a colonial power, and the imposition of its administrative system on the native population, actually resulted a significant, sustainable improvement in their lives. It’s insufficient, in my mind, to say that colonies wanted to have it their way, threw off the yokes of the colonists, and then screwed things up. The native nationalism is a direct product of colonialism, and therefore, to an extent, the European powers should have expected and managed it. Indeed, they did, in switching from a colonial system in India and the Middle East, to the mandate system. But, I’ll leave off saying anymore, and I’m looking forward to your comments and defenses.
