In Praise of Colonisation: Acknowledging the Evils, Celebrating the Goods, By James Reed
We are in an era where "decolonisation" means scrubbing Western canon from syllabi and framing colonialism as unmitigated evil, but a bombshell study in the British Journal of Political Science flips the script: Most former colonies view their old overlords more favourably than other nations today. Andy Baker and David Cupery's "Animosity, Amnesia, or Admiration?" crunches data from global surveys (Pew, BBC, etc.) across 64 ex-colonies and finds a "former-coloniser gap" that's positive in 47 of them, citizens rate the UK, France, Spain, etc., 0.38 standard deviations (about 9 percentage points) warmer than average foreign views. Mexico digs Spain (76% favourable); even Zimbabwe likes the UK (72%). Why? Not nostalgia for whips and taxes, but modern perks: Democracy, trade, shared lingo. It's "amnesia" for the bad, admiration for the lasting good.
This isn't whitewashing: colonialism was brutal, racking up millions dead from exploitation, famines, and forced labour. But as Bruce Gilley and Nigel Biggar argue (despite cancel campaigns), ignoring positives stifles debate and distorts history. Today, let's balance the ledger: The evils were real and reprehensible; the goods, railroads, rights, resilience, endure. In a world screaming "racism and violence," praising colonisation's upsides isn't denial; it's nuance.
No sugarcoating: European empires from 1492-1960s were conquest machines, fuelled by greed and superiority complexes. Shurk's American Thinker echoes the toll, exploitation as policy, violence as routine. Key sins:
Human Cost: Belgians in Congo (1885-1908) killed 10M via rubber quotas and mutilations. British famines in India (1870s-1940s) claimed 30M, per Amartya Sen, from export-first policies amid droughts. Atlantic slave trade? 12M Africans shipped, 2M dead en route.
Cultural Erasure: Missionaries and mandates crushed languages, 90% of Indigenous Australian tongues gone by 1900. Land grabs displaced millions; Native American population plunged 90% post-1492 from disease and war.
Economic Drain: Colonies as resource pits, India's share of world GDP fell from 24% (1700) to 4% (1950) under Britain, per Utsa Patnaik.
Post-colonial scholars like Edward Said nail the "Orientalism," a gaze that dehumanised to justify rule. These scars linger: Inequality, borders drawn in blood (Africa's arbitrary lines fuel endless conflicts). Decolonisation's push? Vital, independence waves (1940s-70s) birthed 100+ nations, reclaiming agency.
Yet, as the study shows, resentment fades faster than we'd think. Why? Because history's not a grudge match; it's a balance sheet. And the credits? They stack up.
The Goods: Seeds of Modernity Sown in Contested Soil
Colonialism didn't just extract, it exported. Railroads, republics, and rule of law reshaped the world, often outlasting empires. Gilley's 2017 paper (cancelled but vindicated) tallies infrastructure, health gains, and institutions that turbocharged development. The Baker-Cupery data backs it: Positive views stem from today's fruits, democratic norms (former colonies 50% more likely to be democracies) and trade ties boosting GDP 1-2% annually.
Data from Angus Maddison's historical GDP and WHO archives show colonial investment (e.g., Britain's £1B in India, 1858-1947) laid industrial bases. Positives weren't accidental, enlightened admins (e.g., Britain's "civilising mission") built schools alongside sins. And the study? It proves publics weigh this: Mexico's love for Spain ignores Inquisition ghosts for shared heritage and EU trade (€30B/year).
The Mixed Legacy: Why Nuance Beats Narrative
Colonialism's story is no binary, evil empires birthed modern miracles amid monstrosities. Post-colonial activism, per the Daily Sceptic, often cherry-picks atrocities, ignoring how 47/64 ex-colonies rate colonisers higher than rivals. Why admiration? "Amnesia" for abuses (no correlation with violence levels), plus real ties: Trade volumes explain 30% of the gap; democracy another 50%. Zimbabwe's UK fondness? Post-apartheid aid and Premier League dreams trump Rhodes' raids.
This challenges the "litany of racism" trope; Biggar's Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (2023) documents abolitionists within empires ending slavery faster than anywhere. Evils demand apology (Belgium's Congo reparations talks, 2024); goods deserve credit, lest we romanticise pre-colonial utopias (e.g., Aztec sacrifices, Dahomey slave raids).
In 2025, as WEF's "decolonise" push eyes curricula, these matters: Balanced history fosters gratitude over grudge, progress over paralysis. Colonisation's double edge cut deep, but the blade forged tools those people still wield.
"We hear a lot about 'decolonisation' these days, even though practically all countries that were colonised by the European powers gained their independence decades ago. In contemporary parlance, 'decolonisation' means adding non-white authors to university reading lists and ensuring that 'indigenous ways of knowing' are reflected in the curriculum.
What's more, there's a whole academic field called 'post-colonial studies', which seeks to critically analyse Western colonialism. And while there's nothing wrong with this in principle (we should analyse Western colonialism from a critical standpoint), many post-colonial scholars are less impartial critics than anti-Western activists.
They refuse to accept there was anything positive about Western colonialism. And when dissidents like Bruce Gilley or Nigel Biggar point out that there were positive aspects, those dissidents find themselves on the receiving end of censorious petitions signed by hundreds of their colleagues.
Such activism stifles intellectual debate and gives the false impression that Western colonialism was "a litany of racism, exploitation and massively murderous violence" – to quote Biggar.
One indication that the legacy of colonialism is far more mixed than most post-colonial scholars will admit comes from a recent study published in the British Journal of Political Science.
Andy Baker and David Cupery combined data from several cross-national surveys in which respondents in different countries were asked for their opinion about certain named foreign countries. The exact question varied from survey to survey. In one case, respondents were asked for their opinion "with zero expressing a very unfavorable opinion" and "100 expressing a very favorable opinion". In another case, they were asked if they have a "have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion". Baker and Cuprey combined the various surveys using a technique called factor analysis.
They were then able to calculate, for each country in their dataset that was a former colony, the average favourability toward that country's coloniser minus the average favourability toward all other countries respondents were asked about. They call this quantity the 'former-coloniser gap'.
Interestingly, they found that this gap was positive for a large majority of the former colonies in their dataset (47 out of 64). In other words, most former colonies have a more favourable opinion of their coloniser than they have of other countries."
Comments