We must reclaim our language and history from the left. A timely and courageous essay.

You talk about being humble. Everybody here is humble, except you

Another point about Sykes-Picot that few people are aware of. Have a look at the map of the Middle East as it existed just before the Crusades. You will see that the state borders that existed then are more or less the same as Sykes-Picot. There is already a proto-Egypt, a proto-Syria, a proto-Iraq, a proto-Jordan and a proto-Lebanon. We can go back even further, to the Hellenistic period immediately before the foundation of the Roman Empire and see a very similar picture. This is because the region's borders reflect the geographic realities of deserts, rivers, seas and mountain ranges - there are a small number of very densely populated urbanised fertile areas surrounded by areas suitable for only light pastoral economies, or for nomadic economies or completely hostile to human existence.

Another thing. Contemporary China and Russia are never referred to as "colonial" or "imperial" states, yet they very obviously are. Crimea, very much in the news lately, only became part of what is now Russia as recently as 1783.

Excellent article. This is the crux of all the problems in the Middle East today. Muslims sadly have an extremely distorted perception of history. They not only fail to acknowledge their own 1500 year history of relentless aggression and conquest against others, but they fail to even comprehend the wrongs committed against them in the context of human history. Considering the tragedies that peoples have endured, in the grand scheme of history, the thought of Muslims being victims is an insulting joke. Hearing Muslims discuss the past, you might get the impression that some really bad stuff has happened to them. To the contrary, Muslims are probably the least oppressed people throughout history and the biggest oppressors.

A wonderful, quick, bit of corrective history.

Sadly, even at a university level, (perhaps especially at a university level), the logic of colonialism or imperialism and the long run history of peoples invading, displacing and subjugating other people is taught as if only white Christians had ever thought of the thing. Islam, Persia, China, Japan, black African peoples and North and South American aboriginals all engaged in that behaviour again and again. But you would have to read a little past the course list of "Oppression Studies 101" to have a clue.

The difference between the subjugation traditional societies practiced and white Christians is that traditional societies were connected to nature, the universe and other human beings. White Christians believed they were superior to, and blessed with the authority to, control nature as well as other human beings. It is that false narrative that enabled white Christians, whose beliefs stemmed from the Stoics, to be so cut-throat in their subjugation and colonization of other cultures.

Your value system places you and your kind on top whereas those of us who hold the values of traditional societies understand everything is One. As Chief Seattle declared in his letter to white men, "As we are part of the land, you too are part of the land. This earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you. One thing we know - there is only one God. No man, be he Red man or White man, can be apart. We ARE all brothers after all." And as a summation of African spirituality, the belief "that human nature is neither good nor evil, but capable of error; that humans should adapt to nature and the universe, rather than seek to alter it; that property is to be shared." White people moved away from these concepts of community and the interconnectedness of all things the second one of you planted a seed and called it labor.

What a load of crap haha.
Interconnectedness and community?
You mean tribalism of small groups where different groups come into conflict with and subjugate each other over land and resources in exactly the same manner as the West, just on a smaller scale with less technology.

All of the non European civilizations engaged in exactly the same colonial behavior in the past killing and taking from their neighbors in an endless cycle of death since the beginning of humanity as a species where we killed and wiped out other varieties of ancient proto-human species to achieve dominance.

To talk about pre-colonial civilizations as if they were peaceful and never killed others for the gain of their own group is a blatant falsehood.
Nothing but a lie to support the anti western narrative and gloss over the reality of the past.

Non western countries literally did all the same stuff but the europeans were just better at it and had bigger guns.

To solely attack the west for doing exactly what everybody else was also doing for millennia simply because they were the ones that won the game in the end is rather pathetic and the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

Everybody who is now complaining are the typical “rules for thee but not for me” sore losers butthurt that their ancestors weren’t as good at killing.

Funny how in the minds of these people, the historical notion of war, death and colonialism just magically started with the west and nothing that happened before matters enough to be mentioned.

If I may: I agree that most tribes/clans across the globe had been fighting between themselves. That was the norm and to some extent still is. As is usually the case, these issues are multi-dimensional. India, for eg, had similar princely states with tons of internal battles. However, there was never this deep desire among Indians or their rules to 'conquer the world' or 'spread their faith' or 'Civilize the world' etc. India was deeply rooted in spirituality, faith, and yes - the states fought amongst themselves, but most rulers fought with the intention for more resources (ofcourse) but more importantly a unified India. That element of harmony with nature, not having any grand ambitions for world domination is common across various native communities, pre-colonization. Europeans colonizers DID want to access more resources, wanted to expand, control trade routes and seemed on a mission to 'civilize' the world. Not to mention, the psychological destruction based on 'white superiority' - manufactured based on color of the skin and supposed 'civilized west' [When you'd find that most cultures had tremendous contributions and advancements in science, naturopathic ways, science etc]. Did you know Indian civilization was vastly advanced in math, astronomy, medicine, urban planning, yoga, spirituality, and didnt feel the need to conquer the world. There were deeper principles on 'All guest on our land are embodiments of god', 'Our land belongs to all' -- these are literally embedded in ancient spiritual sanskrit texts in India. That kind of world view is heart warming. Yes, they had their challenges and internal conflicts - no one is a saint here but hopefully you got the point.

So, while many wanted to colonize the dominate, various indigenous groups had no such grand ambitions and its wrong to label them as having such ambitions across all tribes. India was the land of so much gold and diamonds, natural resources that it was called Britain's crown jewel and even 'Golden Bird' by the crown. In today's terms, Britain took away $46T in resources from India for itself. That's just one country. Even when Brits were leaving, divide and conquer policies were implemented that caused so much wreckage during India's partition to ensure India remained weak and never attacked Britain back,

Again, I am no absolving internal conflicts and state challenges, but colonization played a significant role in how things have shaped up - the effects (financial, psychological, ecological) of which are being felt to date. It's a sad fact and something we should acknowledge. This is not to be confused with a victim's mindset - there's plenty those nations could have and can still do if they address their internal challenges - and yes, there are many!

Here is the quintessential victor's mentality. We the victims know what colonialism is all about. It is simply as Walter Rodney puts it, a one-armed bandit.

wow all these learned people commenting and going tit for tat (lesser of the two evils) so impressive and BIAS! DUH the west also created terrorism and we owe so much of that to colonialism and destabilizing countries around the world! We are doing it now in Venezuela (learn the history on that not propaganda) yes keep glossing over the fact that Europeans destroyed ecosystems around the world, destroyed people with their idea of progress. Discount all the lives of indigenous people around the world who lost not only their lives, but their history/culture for what?? a bible ? I don't care how much formal education you have but you are in denial. we have destroyed economies and for exchange of the Abrahamic violent religions. You cannot refute that. We are founding out more and more about the real history , not what's taught from a bias perspective. I am first generation American and I see history for what is , there is no evolution, we are devolving and going further away from nature. Being sick is now part of the GNP thanks to progress, lol. Thanks to "white progress" we have destroyed the environment. So you can try to reclaim your WHITENESS lol and how superior you are and how you did so much good in the world , its not going to bury the truth.
For centuries indigenous people have been destroyed but see now with the help of Science /technology , the white people in Murica (including myself) are going to find out what it was like for dark skinned people. The collapse here is imminent and with the 4th stage of the industrial revolution guess what?? no jobs for white people either. Technology will be all of mans downfall. Man in general is not the superior species , on the contrary , they thinking killing and destroying is the way to advancement , its just a way of wiping out ourselves. We have been here before oh great educator , pseudo intellectual JOKE. Oh and I am not a leftist , I am not in any extreme divide and rule box , nor the third illusory category, independent. I am an observer who has no bias, you on the other hand have bias and have a political agenda going on as usual. Religion and two party divide go hand in hand, two systems to keep indoctrinated and divided so the wealthy (WHITE) get richer and the poor get poorer....

Mr. Thornton is to be commended for this insightful and enlightening essay, which dispels claims that Western colonialism is the source of the Middle East's current woes. Ignorance of world and regional history is at the root of too many fallacious beliefs among today's "educated" class.

One of the changes that will come about as a result of the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ will be Civil Action against people who spout anti-white racist lies under the heading of "anti-colonialism", "anti-imperialism" and "anti-racism". For example Africa was better off under European rule in the following ways.
1. better infrastructure: roads, railroads, canals
2. better energy supply and distribution systems
3. better food production
4. less corrupt government
5. better and more egalitarian economic conditions.

rewriting history and pretending doesn't make the truth go away. Truth cannot be buried just because you feel the need to keep your superiority alive.

I have no idea about this site. I just randomnly clicked on it. I read some of the article. Went down and saw your comments. I immediately made an account just to express my astonishment and fascination by what you have expressed. I hope you see this message.

The author has a point in condemning monodimensional explanations of societal issues in the Middle East or Africa, but it seems that his own preferred explanation of dysfunctional politics in those regions will turn out similarly monodimensional. After all, it's not all our fault, as the brainwashed left claims, it is really all their fault, as the right rightly claims.

In my view, all of this misses the point, and it is not very helpful to politicise a historical inquiry in terms of 'left' and 'right' from the start. In my view at least, the point is not guilt. The point is pragmatic foreign policy. Now, since the foreign policy in question is inevitably 'ours', we must ask, what 'we' did in the past in certain countries at a specific time and whether that influence was - next to all other internal or external societal forces exerting an influence - benign or not, and how we avoid mistakes made in the past in the future. Now look at multitude of African or Middle Eastern countries, one by one, and you will find that the Wests influence has indeed very often not been benign. It did not foster political stability or economic prosperity in those countries and in the long term it did not enhance our own economic prosperity or security. Look at Iran, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Algeria, most of Latin America and many other countries vis-á-vis the foreign policy of Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, and last but not least the US.

One more thing: I stumbled upon the sentence
"They imply that Europe’s explorations and conquests constituted a new order of evil. In reality, the movements of peoples in search of resources, as well as the destruction of those already in possession of them, is the perennial dynamic of history." This formulation seems to me unfortunate. Because on the one side, evil does not have to be new evil to still be evil, on the other hand it sound as if the author wants to rid himself of moral standards through historical relativism, while at same time writing in strongly evaluative terms. This kind of obvious inconsistencies ought to be avoided in a scholarly article.

Mencius Moldbug wrote an essay a few years ago noting that the concept of Charter Cities, was essentially taking the core benefits of what colonialism offered:

"The fundamental observation of colonialism is that non-European societies thrive under normal European
administration, at least in comparison to their condition under native
rule. This observation was obvious during the colonial period. Since,
it has only grown more so - at least, to those who can handle the truth.

If this observation is "condescending," so is Professor Romer's proposal.
If it is invalid, so is Professor Romer's proposal. If it is neither,
Professor Romer's 18 minutes should be invested in introducing,
explaining, and defending the original observers - not on passing it off
as his own "radical idea."

The most casual inspection of history reveals the observation's truth. By any comparison with colonial
government, precolonial regimes provided extremely poor service. Spend a
little time with the Ashanti or the Mahrattas. So have postcolonial regimes. Rent a room at the Grande Hotel Beira
sometime. If you remain trapped in your outdated, 20th-century
thinking and prefer statistics to intuition and narrative, the
observation is still so obvious that it is impossible for me to imagine
any set of governance metrics which could conceal it.

Moreover, Professor Romer's other distinctions are obviously without substance.
The claim that there is any serious distinction between a "colony" and a
"charter city" founded on "uninhabited land" is preposterous. Many
great colonial cities, such as Bombay, Calcutta, and Singapore, were
founded on uninhabited land. So in general were the original colonies
of the antique era - the Phocaeans didn't conquer Marseilles, they created it.

And so was Hong Kong, a Crown Colony of the British Empire.
Which, built on uninhabited land, by some miracle survived almost
intact into the 21st century. It is not that the fluke of history
which preserved this living fossil "reduced world poverty." It's that
the destruction of all the world's other Hong Kongs - ie, "decolonialization" - created "world poverty" as we know it.

More precisely, decolonialization created the Third World. The project of
Professor Romer's own intellectual and political establishment, the
American and Americanized "scientific" experts in growth and
development. What we need here is not a "radical idea." It is a simple
apology. Alas, hell will freeze over before.

As for "coercion," of course charter cities govern by coercion. All governments do. The
subjects of Professor Romer's colonies may arrive
by consent. But it is not consent which prevents the Haitians of
Guantanamo City from all getting together one day with their axes and
clubs, and converting their blonde proconsuls into Canadian bacon. It is
General Dyer or Governor Eyre.

Whose names may mean nothing to Professor Romer - but we can let them
stand for the principle by which every government retains its position: force. Ie, "coercion...

The various colonial regimes were by no means perfect. But to assert
that their average quality of government service was anything but far
better than either their predecessors, or their successors, is a
political distortion of history which I have no trouble at all in
comparing to Holocaust denial. Far more people were murdered in
decolonization and postcolonial violence than in the Holocaust.
Moreover, only a few fringe nutcases deny the Holocaust - whereas
anticolonialism is a core tenet of everyone's college education. Oops."

From Cromer to Romer and Back Again - August 20, 2009

Here is the article:
http://unqualified-reservat...

wow, very good!

Great article.

Had Europe remained in the stone age and the New World populations achieved the technological advancements of the West, ships carrying Aztecs, Comanches, or the Iroquois Confederation would have ultimately arrived on European shores as conquerors leaving a trail of destruction similar to that which was wrongly afflicted on them.

This is completely wrong. The Chinese had superior weapons, navy, industry and technology, a much bigger and better equipped army than all European nations combined in the 15th century, yet never tried to conquer any European (or African) state because their foreign policy was not driven by greed and racism. They truly believed in peace and harmony. Whitewashing the crimes of Western powers or portraying them as "natural behaviour" creates the conditions for commiting new ones.

Absolutely right. The Europeans cannot come to terms with the evil they have unleashed in the world. They can point the finger at others all they want. Currently it’s the Muslims, later it will be some other race or religion but make no mistake they will unleash their hate on someone else. They have something seriously emotionally and mentally wrong with them and are never at peace with themselves. I believe this is why they are always appropriating the culture of others. Just a desperate attempt at finding an identity.

I mean, are you going to ignore one of the largest, brutal and oppressive imperialist powers in Asian history and gloss over the Mongols? Also listing One Nation, and one century in history as any sort of refute is intellectually dishonest. Speaking of the 15th century you failed to mention the creation of the imperialist Aztec empire, whose purpose of empire expansion was to acquire more tributary states that would be reaped of their resources as ransom to feed the hungry Aztec capital, as well as send people to the Aztecs for human sacrifice.

This is such a bad, ill-informed take! You seem to deterministic in that view.

If I may: I agree that most tribes/clans across the globe had been fighting between themselves. That was the norm and to some extent still is. As is usually the case, these issues are multi-dimensional. India, for eg, had similar princely states with tons of internal battles. However, there was never this deep desire among Indians or their rules to 'conquer the world' or 'spread their faith' or 'Civilize the world' etc. India was deeply rooted in spirituality, faith, and yes - the states fought amongst themselves, but most rulers fought with the intention for more resources (ofcourse) but more importantly a unified India. That element of harmony with nature, not having any grand ambitions for world domination is common across various native communities, pre-colonization. Europeans colonizers DID want to access more resources, wanted to expand, control trade routes and seemed on a mission to 'civilize' the world. Not to mention, the psychological destruction based on 'white superiority' - manufactured based on color of the skin and supposed 'civilized west' [When you'd find that most cultures had tremendous contributions and advancements in science, naturopathic ways, science etc]. Did you know Indian civilization was vastly advanced in math, astronomy, medicine, urban planning, yoga, spirituality, and didnt feel the need to conquer the world. There were deeper principles on 'All guest on our land are embodiments of god', 'Our land belongs to all' -- these are literally embedded in ancient spiritual sanskrit texts in India. That kind of world view is heart warming. Yes, they had their challenges and internal conflicts - no one is a saint here but hopefully you got the point.

So, while many wanted to colonize the dominate, various indigenous groups had no such grand ambitions and its wrong to label them as having such ambitions across all tribes. India was the land of so much gold and diamonds, natural resources that it was called Britain's crown jewel and even 'Golden Bird' by the crown. In today's terms, Britain took away $46T in resources from India for itself. That's just one country. Even when Brits were leaving, divide and conquer policies were implemented that caused so much wreckage during India's partition to ensure India remained weak and never attacked Britain back,

Again, I am no absolving internal conflicts and state challenges, but colonization played a significant role in how things have shaped up - the effects (financial, psychological, ecological) of which are being felt to date. It's a sad fact and something we should acknowledge. This is not to be confused with a victim's mindset - there's plenty those nations could have and can still do if they address their internal challenges - and yes, there are many!

Not sure where to even start. To use India as a positive example is a gross misunderstanding of their society. I would hardly call a spirituality that pruduced and sustained the caste system (one of the worst examples of racism the world has ever seen) for 3000 years or the practice of sati "heart warming". You are also grossly ignorant of the history. Their were massive examples of empires built through subjugation of other tribes. They extracted wealth, spread distruction, comitted genocide and enslaved those they subjugate, all driven by a fervid racial superiority. Just because some tribes had no such ambitions does not somehow paint the Caucasian race as particularly evil. There were also many of them who did not practice colonialism..

So many like the "three blind mice" their birth and existence is an affront to the human experience. Take this repository for example of the Hoover Institute - obviously and decidedly controlled by white men for white men without an intrusion of reality or historical fact and a continuation of entrenched racism and racist utter ignorance. The majority of those posting comments are like-minded and convinced the centuries of blatant outright lies are an epitome of intelligence because for centuries it has gone unquestioned by the tens of millions whose blood their ancestors used to saturate the ground. And they wrote a multitude of books to question the intelligence and worth of any in millennia of evolution did not produce white skin - and their rage a self-fulfilling prophesy destroying the features of ancient objects of marvel created by black skin. What rage did not destroy is restricted from view in a British museum. Unfortunately for those who are blinded their blindness also restricts from view irrefutable evidence those they deny and scorn leave an undeniable record of their achievements the blinded have matched only by theft and insertion of their image - their own historical footprint as barren as their collective soul. Man may distort and snarl insistence to an audience of bones however, it is a marker of cowardice rather than dominance.

Did you even read the article? The point is whiteness has nothing to do with Colonialism. It has happened vertually everywhere throughout all of time. Read a good history on pre-Colombian south and central America Islam, Africa or China. Man's ruthlessness to man is not limited to white Europeans. Nice rant though!

Excellent article about absolving 'Westerner' from evils of Colonizination (in Middle-east). Whether it was the Romans in Gaul, the Arabs throughout the Mediterranean and Southern Asia, the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Mongols in China, the Turks in the Middle East and the Balkans, the Bantu in southern Africa, the Khmer in East Asia, the Aztecs in Mexico, human history has been stained by man’s continual use of brutal violence to acquire land and resources and destroy or replace those possessing them.
#indonordicassociation.org

Well written, Onymous... It's as if there is an "In That Day" when citizens and leaders will herald the "Tragic-Liberty" worldview, as the 18th Century American Founders did, and the world will become sane. Else Commie Death.