Post post-colonialist studies

High Culture, Religion, Philosophy and Esoterica.
Jim the Moron
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Post post-colonialist studies

Post by Jim the Moron » Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:24 pm

Yes, the British were adept at "trimming their sails," to the tune of transporting "3.1 million Africans (of whom 2.7 million arrived) to the British colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America and to other countries."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/slav ... -trade.pdf

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 804
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Singapore's unusual early colonial experience

Post by cassowary » Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:38 pm

neverfail wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:42 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:54 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:58 pm
But I suspect that a lot depends on the capability of the people the British and other European encountered. The British wanted to trade. If the people they met were capable of peaceful commerce and both grew wealthy in the exchange, the British were quite happy to leave you alone to make your own arrangements. There was no need for harsh treatment of their subjects.
Unless you didn't want to be subjugated, in which case they would kill you. Let's not pretend that colonialism was some sort of era of sweetness and light.
Cass is right Steve. As empire builders the British were quite flexible in "trimming their sails to suit the prevailing wind".

Unlike some of their Continental European peers they did not operate according to an inflexible master-plan template.
Hi Steve and Neverfail,

In the case of Singapore, they did not bother to try to subjugate the Chinese. There was no need to. That's what I was trying to say in my earlier posts. As late as 1875, a dispatch from the British colonial office to London remarked that the majority of Chinese did not even know that the British government was there. And here is a quote from Rudyard Kipling when he visited Singapore:

"England is by the uninformed supposed to own the island." Page 107 of the book, "A history of Modern Singapore."

There was no need to subjugate the Chinese in Singapore to make a profit. The Chinese were capable, through their merchant princes (or Kapitan China) of maintaining order and prosperity for their own community and trade peacefully with the British. More importantly, the Chinese had valuable goods and services to trade with. They were the early pioneers in the frontier lands of Singapore first and later Malaya as tin miners.

Only when the British encountered people who waged "jihad" on their merchant ships did they have the need to subjugate them. It is not for nothing that Singapore's founder, Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles called Islam a "robber religion." They were the ones who needed subjugating and not peaceful people capable of producing goods and services for trade.

A British-centric history book would see Singapore as a colony since its founding in 1819 by Raffles. But in reality, it was also a Chinese colony. Chinese immigrants flooded in after its founding. The British and Chinese were equal partners in the colonization of Singapore as well as Malaya in the 19th century.

It was the British and Chinese commercial interests in Singapore that pressed a reluctant London to expand imperial power into the Malayan hinterland. The Malay Sultans were incapable of having a legal system where property rights were ensured. Thus the tin mining areas were scenes of warfare between rival groups of Chinese miners. Had these Muslim sultans a better idea of property rights, there would be no need for British colonial control. Remember what Churchill said about insecurity of property in lands where Islam held sway?

While the British and Chinese were equal partners in the colonization project of Singapore and Malaya in the 19th century, the British gained the upper hand in the 20th century and Singapore became wholly a British colony. But Singapore got its independence from the British. So Chinese colonization won in the end.

This is my revisionist history, but it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. Better to stick with the British-centric version of Singapore's history. Otherwise, our Muslim-Malay minority will grow resentful if they come to the realization that the Chinese were also colonialists at the beginning. They might become like the Maoris who still bear a grudge against the Pakehas in New Zealand. Unlike Maoris, they have jihad in the mix.

Jim the Moron
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Post post-colonialist studies

Post by Jim the Moron » Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:25 pm

Singapore's neighbors have "jihad in the mix."

"Government Schools in 'Moderate' Malaysia Teaching Jihad"

http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/schools ... ysia.html/

neverfail
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Post post-colonialist studies

Post by neverfail » Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:33 pm

Hi Cassowary,

I know that there had been a Chinese "presence" in the Malacca Strait region for centuries - even before European man first put in his appearance. But in Singapore?

To my understanding, when Stamford Raffles first laid eyes on Singapore, it was a mangrove fringed, marshy place that sustained but two small villages of Malay fishermen. There were no Chinese there until after the British occupation began - making it safe and relatively easy for Chinese immigrants to settle there.

Indeed, probably because it had been such an obscure, unappealing place until Raffles saw its potential to serve the interests of British maritime commerce and trade (most notably that of the East India company - his employer) history had bi-passed Singapore. For centuries the entrepots of maritime trade along that waterway had been Malacca and Penang further to the north.

Founded just over 3 decades after my home town, I find Singapore a bit of a curiosity this way: a New World type of society located in a part of the world that most would probably mistake for being part of "old world" Asia.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Singapore's unusual early colonial experience

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:16 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:42 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:54 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:58 pm
But I suspect that a lot depends on the capability of the people the British and other European encountered. The British wanted to trade. If the people they met were capable of peaceful commerce and both grew wealthy in the exchange, the British were quite happy to leave you alone to make your own arrangements. There was no need for harsh treatment of their subjects.
Unless you didn't want to be subjugated, in which case they would kill you. Let's not pretend that colonialism was some sort of era of sweetness and light.
Cass is right Steve. As empire builders the British were quite flexible in "trimming their sails to suit the prevailing wind".

Unlike some of their Continental European peers they did not operate according to an inflexible master-plan template.
Tell that to the Zulus.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Singapore's unusual early colonial experience

Post by neverfail » Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:37 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:16 am


Cass is right Steve. As empire builders the British were quite flexible in "trimming their sails to suit the prevailing wind".

Unlike some of their Continental European peers they did not operate according to an inflexible master-plan template.
Tell that to the Zulus.
[/quote]

I would not dream of doing so Steve! Would you? :lol:

Jim the Moron
Posts: 388
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Post post-colonialist studies

Post by Jim the Moron » Mon May 01, 2017 5:37 am

It gets tiresome to read various opinions of how much better off people in former European colonies were during colonial days, as opposed to conditions today. It's typical of the attitudes of many who believe European culture is the Alpha and Omega of the civilized world.

But those attitudes may be changing. The Dutch were no less savage than other European powers during the colonial years, but on a smaller scale. For example, they transported only about a fifth of the approx. 3,000,000 African slaves that the English dispatched to the New World, but did so no less brutally. The Dutch, however, seem to be rejecting their attitudes of the past:

"Digging up the Dutch colonial past"
http://www.newmandala.org/digging-dutch-colonial-past/

Regarding Indonesia, the Dutch government is apologising for its behavior there after WWII. Would that other European nations desist in their justifications for past behavior in their colonies.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 804
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Post post-colonialist studies

Post by cassowary » Fri May 19, 2017 8:57 pm

neverfail wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:33 pm
Hi Cassowary,

I know that there had been a Chinese "presence" in the Malacca Strait region for centuries - even before European man first put in his appearance. But in Singapore?

To my understanding, when Stamford Raffles first laid eyes on Singapore, it was a mangrove fringed, marshy place that sustained but two small villages of Malay fishermen. There were no Chinese there until after the British occupation began - making it safe and relatively easy for Chinese immigrants to settle there.

Indeed, probably because it had been such an obscure, unappealing place until Raffles saw its potential to serve the interests of British maritime commerce and trade (most notably that of the East India company - his employer) history had bi-passed Singapore. For centuries the entrepots of maritime trade along that waterway had been Malacca and Penang further to the north.

Founded just over 3 decades after my home town, I find Singapore a bit of a curiosity this way: a New World type of society located in a part of the world that most would probably mistake for being part of "old world" Asia.
There were already Chinese living there and had been for centuries before Raffles set foot there. They came as traders whose stay was usually temporary but a few stayed. Archaeological diggings at Ft Canning revealed Ming coins and pottery dating from the 14th century.

Singapore's history is one of booms and bust. Each bust was caused by invasions from larger neighbors. Prosperity has been and still is on a knife edge.

It is true that Raffles establishment of a trading post led to massive Chinese immigration. The British were not picky. They were color blind. Arabs, Indians and Malays also came. But the Chinese formed the largest group.

In my revisionist history, I contend that there were parallel colonializations taking place - the British and the Chinese. In fact, the first Chinese migrants did not know that the British were supposed to be in charge. They were not aware of the British presence, so few were their numbers and so untouched were their lives by the British.

The British used the "kapitan" system, which was already in place in SE Asia for centuries. I know the Thais used it.

Excerpt:
Kapitan Cina or Kapitan China (English: Captain of the Chinese; Chinese: 華人甲必丹; Dutch: Kapitein der Chinezen) was a high-ranking government position in the civil administration of colonial Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Office holders exercised varying degrees of power and influence: from near-sovereign political and legal jurisdiction over local Chinese communities, to ceremonial precedence for community leaders.
I prefer to call them "merchant princes," for the Chinese leaders were also merchants. Raffles was an employee of the East India Company and so can be considered as a merchant price too, except that he was not as wealthy as his Chinese counterpart. In fact, he died poor.

The Chinese were initially ruled by fellow Chinese. They were equal partners of the British in the colonialization of a nearly unihabited island. Later, Chinese pioneers from Singapore ventured into the Malaya, then ruled by the Sultans. These pioneers formed different groups that fought for control of the tin mines in Malaya.

Yap Ah Loy was a merchant prince who came up on top. He even had an army. He established Kuala Lumpur, as Malaya's most important city and today it is the capital of Malaysia. The British "appointed" him as Captain China - formally giving him power over the Chinese in Malaya, which he already had by right of conquest.

But by the end of the 19th century, the British gained the upper hand and the merchant princes declined in power.
This bit of history must be forgotten or it will inflame Malay grievance against the Chinese. So shh.

neverfail
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: all may be not what it seems in New Zealand.

Post by neverfail » Sun May 21, 2017 4:42 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:38 pm
They might become like the Maoris who still bear a grudge against the Pakehas in New Zealand. .
Do they still bear a grudge cassowary? Please tell me more.

User avatar
Apollonius
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:20 am

Re: Post post-colonialist studies

Post by Apollonius » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:08 am

Boring Canadians - Fergus Downie, New English Review, August 2017
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpag ... _id=188978

Navigating the minefield of potential faux pas with sensitive Canadians is a grueling business at the best of times. In British universities, where their most sensitive exports herd in considerable numbers, many nurse their wounded armour propre with an imperial humourlessness rarely matched even by the Germans. Doubtless, like most global problems, they can be laid at the door of Americans. When you think your provincial cosmopolis is the Athens of the North, it must be a wounding sleight to be asked if it has any good trout holes. But, even this insult paled beside the etiquette blunder I made at my first test; I missed the tell-tale funny pronunciations and asked whereabout in the Great Satan my short-lived friend was from. From then on, not a lot to be done apart from break off and move on to the next person I would never say hello to by the second week. These are perhaps small trials in the great combat of life but suffering is not a competition and I felt badly enough to exercise more care.

Weeks passed—I did just fine—and then the annis horriblis with a 28 year old PhD student from Toronto whose dissertation thesis was "First Nation Culture in an age of Cultural Imperialism." I said Eskimo—she said lots more. After that, I just lay down with the inner bigot and stopped trying. I doubtless had a bad run, and I have never allowed my class prejudices to colour my judgement of the country. Of stupid Canadians, Ice hockey fights and Mark Steyn, I cannot speak highly enough but, of their lumpenintelligentsia and all its bovine subMarxist trendiness, it is impossible to be too offensive about and, lest it be overlooked, there are plenty of them. C.B Macpherson, Marshal McLuhan, James Endicott, Gerald Cohen—these are no walk-on extras. If some were too orthodoxly Marxist to be trendy (the revolting Christian communist Endicott reproached the Tianneman square protestors for 'plotting a capitalist restoration’), later products such as Michael Ignatieff and Naomi Klein have risen to the challenge with élan. Nations which nudge up against a colossus are particularly prone to exaggerate them and it is the misfortune of Canadians that America set a good standard to deviate from. In the US E Pluribus Unum, standards have been losing traction for a while; in Canada it has been fascism for decades and this pronounced aversion to Western exceptionalism feeds off a very Canadian neurosis.

[...]

Postscript

... On the slightly graver question of how milleting minority cultures actually improves the life chances of their members, I would refer readers to the brilliant but, sadly, deceased anthropologist Roger Sandall, whose critique of New Age primitivism, The Culture Cult is the best last word on the subject. As Sandall noted, most of the grim social pathologies that afflict the Australian aborigines are of recent vintage, and he was not slow to identify the culprit.

If your traditional way of life has no alphabet, no writing, no books, and no libraries, and yet you are continually told that you have a culture which is “rich,” “complex,” and “sophisticated,” how can you realistically see your place in the scheme of things? If all such hyperbole were true, who would need books or writing? Why not hang up a “Gone Fishing” sign and head for the beach? I might do that myself. In Australia, policies inspired by the Culture Cult have brought the illiterization of thousands of Aborigines whose grandparents could read and write.

This is hardly a tribute to the benefits of multiculturalism and, if the case is an extreme one, the lessons to be learned have a wider currency. The most humane policy would have been to fully integrate Aborigines into Australian society for the simple reason that stone age societies can only survive in the 21st century through acts of charity and, whatever slum missionary anthropologists might imagine, this is always received with servile dependence and burning resentment.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests