Showing posts with label civilisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civilisation. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 November 2023
Wednesday, 6 September 2023
Monday, 13 November 2017
Africa has been failed by westernisation. It must cast off its subservience
Chigozie Obioma in The Guardian
One of the greatest ironies in the history of the collapse of any civilisation must be the initial interaction between Africans and Europeans. The Igbos in the east of Nigeria, for instance, initially saw the Europeans as madmen of strange appearance and ill-formed ideologies. On banking, the Igbos wondered how an adult in his right mind could hand over his possessions for others to keep for him. By the end of the 19th century, the “madman” had overturned their civilisation, and they had adopted his.
The irony is especially relevant in these times when, given the relative failures of most former western colonies, there have been renewed calls for recolonialisation. In September, American professor Bruce Gilley wrote an essay arguing for a recolonialisation of some states, replicating colonial governance of the past “as far as possible” and even building new colonies from scratch.
If the very foundations of his arguments are flawed, it is because he, like most people today, has come to accept that the only metric for measuring modernity is through the western lens. This is the heart of the problem.
Colonialism across most of Africa was so thorough – especially among the former British protectorates – that in its aftermath Africa was essentially hollowed out. The civilisations of the peoples, their various cultures and traditions, their religions, political philosophies and institutions, were eroded or even destroyed.
Today most of the nations in Africa should not even be called African nations, but western African nations. The language, political ideology, socio-economic structures, education, and everything that makes up a nation, even down to popular culture, do not originate from within these countries. African nations have a total dependency on foreign political philosophies and ideas, and their shifts and movements.
It is the feeblest position a state and its people can be in, because it is a position of chronic subservience. It also means that whatever becomes normalised in the west will eventually be adopted in, say, Uganda or Togo.
This has resulted in Africa being slowly emptied of its essence, and becoming a relic, no different in substance from a statue or a museum.
Celebrations of Africa on the international scene mostly involve dancing, music, traditional fashion and other cultural artefacts – hardly ever showcasing African-originated economic ideas, social ideologies or intellectual theories. It is not that these do not exist, but the world has successfully convinced everyone – including Africans themselves – that everything African is inferior.
Central to this psychology is the proliferation of Africans being educated in the west. This trend has resulted in the rise of an army of western-influenced elites who continue the colonialism of their own people.
Imagine what can happen when an African nation with a high unemployment rate imbibes a gun culture. Consider the potential danger of a situation in Nigeria, where the Hausa man insists his culture is being appropriated by the Yoruba. Or the Christian Igbo embracing their identity, recruiting allies, and ostracising anyone who will not acquiesce with their cause.
But this is becoming Africa’s reality. Increasingly, our elites tell us that the way of the west is “modern” and “civilised”, echoing the early colonialists who dismissed our civilisations as “barbaric”, “archaic”, and “uncivilised” to install theirs. They tell us that our institutions are corrupt, that our societies are patriarchal, and that the African traditional religions are heathenish. As western supremacy entrenches itself in our psyche, we are developing a complex that embraces western ideas without considering whether or not they are compatible with our own political, social, economic and cultural system.
Although Americans may be rightly calling for “diversity”, given a history that excluded a major demographic population of black people, Nigeria’s struggle from inception has been how to unify its enormous diversity. It was the lack of that unity that resulted in the civil war of the late 1960s. This is the same for Angola, Rwanda and Uganda, to name just a few.
But this is of little concern to Africa’s elites. What matters is to find what the political currency is in the US or Europe, and to uncritically follow it. Whereas people in the west are de-emphasising patriotism and nationalism, Africans need these to build sustainable nations.
‘The most viable pathway would be for Africa’s elite to look within the vast political and ideological resources on which successful civilisations were built.’ Timbuktu in Mali. Photograph: Sean Smith for the Guardian
One of the greatest ironies in the history of the collapse of any civilisation must be the initial interaction between Africans and Europeans. The Igbos in the east of Nigeria, for instance, initially saw the Europeans as madmen of strange appearance and ill-formed ideologies. On banking, the Igbos wondered how an adult in his right mind could hand over his possessions for others to keep for him. By the end of the 19th century, the “madman” had overturned their civilisation, and they had adopted his.
The irony is especially relevant in these times when, given the relative failures of most former western colonies, there have been renewed calls for recolonialisation. In September, American professor Bruce Gilley wrote an essay arguing for a recolonialisation of some states, replicating colonial governance of the past “as far as possible” and even building new colonies from scratch.
If the very foundations of his arguments are flawed, it is because he, like most people today, has come to accept that the only metric for measuring modernity is through the western lens. This is the heart of the problem.
Colonialism across most of Africa was so thorough – especially among the former British protectorates – that in its aftermath Africa was essentially hollowed out. The civilisations of the peoples, their various cultures and traditions, their religions, political philosophies and institutions, were eroded or even destroyed.
Today most of the nations in Africa should not even be called African nations, but western African nations. The language, political ideology, socio-economic structures, education, and everything that makes up a nation, even down to popular culture, do not originate from within these countries. African nations have a total dependency on foreign political philosophies and ideas, and their shifts and movements.
It is the feeblest position a state and its people can be in, because it is a position of chronic subservience. It also means that whatever becomes normalised in the west will eventually be adopted in, say, Uganda or Togo.
This has resulted in Africa being slowly emptied of its essence, and becoming a relic, no different in substance from a statue or a museum.
Celebrations of Africa on the international scene mostly involve dancing, music, traditional fashion and other cultural artefacts – hardly ever showcasing African-originated economic ideas, social ideologies or intellectual theories. It is not that these do not exist, but the world has successfully convinced everyone – including Africans themselves – that everything African is inferior.
Central to this psychology is the proliferation of Africans being educated in the west. This trend has resulted in the rise of an army of western-influenced elites who continue the colonialism of their own people.
Imagine what can happen when an African nation with a high unemployment rate imbibes a gun culture. Consider the potential danger of a situation in Nigeria, where the Hausa man insists his culture is being appropriated by the Yoruba. Or the Christian Igbo embracing their identity, recruiting allies, and ostracising anyone who will not acquiesce with their cause.
But this is becoming Africa’s reality. Increasingly, our elites tell us that the way of the west is “modern” and “civilised”, echoing the early colonialists who dismissed our civilisations as “barbaric”, “archaic”, and “uncivilised” to install theirs. They tell us that our institutions are corrupt, that our societies are patriarchal, and that the African traditional religions are heathenish. As western supremacy entrenches itself in our psyche, we are developing a complex that embraces western ideas without considering whether or not they are compatible with our own political, social, economic and cultural system.
Although Americans may be rightly calling for “diversity”, given a history that excluded a major demographic population of black people, Nigeria’s struggle from inception has been how to unify its enormous diversity. It was the lack of that unity that resulted in the civil war of the late 1960s. This is the same for Angola, Rwanda and Uganda, to name just a few.
But this is of little concern to Africa’s elites. What matters is to find what the political currency is in the US or Europe, and to uncritically follow it. Whereas people in the west are de-emphasising patriotism and nationalism, Africans need these to build sustainable nations.
‘The most viable pathway would be for Africa’s elite to look within the vast political and ideological resources on which successful civilisations were built.’ Timbuktu in Mali. Photograph: Sean Smith for the Guardian
In fact, the lack of them, in favour of ethnic allegiance, has been the bane of most African nations, from Congo to Somalia: the result of the Berlin Conference of 1884, in which European leaders divvied up African territories among themselves, ignoring traditional ethnic borders.
In making a case about east Asia and citing the success of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and others, Chinese philosopher Zou Shipeng argued that the west’s claim to its culture as the only pathway to modernity creates unfair hegemony. Is it possible, he asked, to achieve modernity solely through Chinese culture?
The Middle Eastern nations are another example of cultures that have accepted material modernity but have not been westernised ideologically. They have retained their political systems which, given their theocratic cultural framework, seem best suited for these countries. Every time western nations have tried to disrupt those systems and install a western-style democracy, it has failed.
This was also the case with the first two centuries of European contact with west Africans. The Portuguese and the Dutch traded with many west African tribes from the mid-15th century without colonising them. For 200 years, the Igbos had “Dane guns”, mirrors, and gins, among others, but held on to their own traditions and cultures. It could therefore be argued that the “modernism” orchestrated by western colonialism, isn’t organic to the Africans. Yet proponents of recolonialisation and the African elites fail to see this.
With the sudden unexpected rise in rightwing populism across the west, it is challenging to decide what a viable future may look like. One would think African nations would take this opportunity to think for themselves, to come up with unique African systems.
However, rather than do this, the African elite class largely insists that Africa is not western enough, and is trying to drag the continent, still grappling with western modernism, into the west’s evolving postmodernist regime.
The most viable pathway would be for Africa’s elite to look within the vast political and ideological resources on which successful civilisations (the Zulu, the Igbo, the Malian dynasties of Timbuktu, the Oyo empire, etc) were built. In most Igbo states, for instance, there was an egalitarian system where an older member of a clan represented his people in the elders’ council. There were no kings or presidents. Perhaps there could be a way to adapt this unique political structure to replace the western one which has so far failed.
We need to look into these systems and extract coherent policies that can help form workable and uniquely African social and political systems. This is the only viable path to preventing the continent from fully becoming western Africa – and the only way to ending the continent’s long-term political decay.
In making a case about east Asia and citing the success of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and others, Chinese philosopher Zou Shipeng argued that the west’s claim to its culture as the only pathway to modernity creates unfair hegemony. Is it possible, he asked, to achieve modernity solely through Chinese culture?
The Middle Eastern nations are another example of cultures that have accepted material modernity but have not been westernised ideologically. They have retained their political systems which, given their theocratic cultural framework, seem best suited for these countries. Every time western nations have tried to disrupt those systems and install a western-style democracy, it has failed.
This was also the case with the first two centuries of European contact with west Africans. The Portuguese and the Dutch traded with many west African tribes from the mid-15th century without colonising them. For 200 years, the Igbos had “Dane guns”, mirrors, and gins, among others, but held on to their own traditions and cultures. It could therefore be argued that the “modernism” orchestrated by western colonialism, isn’t organic to the Africans. Yet proponents of recolonialisation and the African elites fail to see this.
With the sudden unexpected rise in rightwing populism across the west, it is challenging to decide what a viable future may look like. One would think African nations would take this opportunity to think for themselves, to come up with unique African systems.
However, rather than do this, the African elite class largely insists that Africa is not western enough, and is trying to drag the continent, still grappling with western modernism, into the west’s evolving postmodernist regime.
The most viable pathway would be for Africa’s elite to look within the vast political and ideological resources on which successful civilisations (the Zulu, the Igbo, the Malian dynasties of Timbuktu, the Oyo empire, etc) were built. In most Igbo states, for instance, there was an egalitarian system where an older member of a clan represented his people in the elders’ council. There were no kings or presidents. Perhaps there could be a way to adapt this unique political structure to replace the western one which has so far failed.
We need to look into these systems and extract coherent policies that can help form workable and uniquely African social and political systems. This is the only viable path to preventing the continent from fully becoming western Africa – and the only way to ending the continent’s long-term political decay.
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
This NHS crisis is not economic. It's political
Aditya Chakrabortty in The Guardian
As the health services endures its biggest squeeze, talk of it being unviable is wide of the mark. We cannot afford to do without it
David Cameron addresses the Tory conference in October 2014. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA
As the health services endures its biggest squeeze, talk of it being unviable is wide of the mark. We cannot afford to do without it
Patients wait for spaces in A&E at Royal Stoke university hospital in Stoke-on-Trent. A&E waiting time targets have been watered down in recent years. Photograph: Alicia Canter for the Guardian
How many times have you read that the NHS is bust? No need for answers on a postcard: I can tell you.
Over 2015, the number of national newspaper headlines featuring “NHS” alongside the words bust, deficit, meltdown or financial crisis came to a grand total of 80. Call this the NHS panic index – a measure of public anxiety over the viability of our health service. Using a database of all national newspapers, our librarians added up the number of such headlines for each year. The index shows that panic over the sustainability of our healthcare isn’t just on the rise – it has begun to soar.
During the whole of 2009, just two pieces appeared warning of financial crisis in the NHS. By 2012 that had nudged up a bit, to 12. Then came liftoff: the bust headlines more than doubled to 30 in 2013, before nearly tripling to 82 in 2014. Newspapers such as this one now regularly carry warnings that our entire system of healthcare could go bankrupt – unless, that is, radical change are made. For David Prior, the then chair of the health watchdog the Care Quality Commission - and now health minister, that means giving more of the system to private companies.
This means that the press and political classes are now discussing a theoretical impossibility. Think about it for a moment, and you realise the NHS can’t go broke. It’s not an endowment with a set pot of cash, but a giant service with a yearly budget. Unlike a business, it doesn’t need to raise money from sales – as taxpayers and voters, we have the final say over how much funding it gets. This panic isn’t economic at all, but politically created.
The balance to be struck with the NHS, as with all public services, is between how much cash we sink into it and how much we expect in return. Give the NHS less money, get less healthcare. Give it more, and the opposite happens. As Rowena Crawford at the Institute for Fiscal Studies says: “Financial stability just requires that healthcare demand and expectations are constrained to match the available funding.”
And that right there is the rub. Because the NHS is enduring the sharpest and most prolonged spending squeeze in its history – even while the government pretends no such thing is happening and the public expect the same service. Our health service is where all the paradoxes of austerity come home to roost.
This may seem an odd thing to say. Isn’t the NHS one of the very few parts of the public realm to be sheltered from this decade’s cuts? Didn’t David Cameron promise before the last general election to “protect the NHS budget and continue to invest more”?
How many times have you read that the NHS is bust? No need for answers on a postcard: I can tell you.
Over 2015, the number of national newspaper headlines featuring “NHS” alongside the words bust, deficit, meltdown or financial crisis came to a grand total of 80. Call this the NHS panic index – a measure of public anxiety over the viability of our health service. Using a database of all national newspapers, our librarians added up the number of such headlines for each year. The index shows that panic over the sustainability of our healthcare isn’t just on the rise – it has begun to soar.
During the whole of 2009, just two pieces appeared warning of financial crisis in the NHS. By 2012 that had nudged up a bit, to 12. Then came liftoff: the bust headlines more than doubled to 30 in 2013, before nearly tripling to 82 in 2014. Newspapers such as this one now regularly carry warnings that our entire system of healthcare could go bankrupt – unless, that is, radical change are made. For David Prior, the then chair of the health watchdog the Care Quality Commission - and now health minister, that means giving more of the system to private companies.
This means that the press and political classes are now discussing a theoretical impossibility. Think about it for a moment, and you realise the NHS can’t go broke. It’s not an endowment with a set pot of cash, but a giant service with a yearly budget. Unlike a business, it doesn’t need to raise money from sales – as taxpayers and voters, we have the final say over how much funding it gets. This panic isn’t economic at all, but politically created.
The balance to be struck with the NHS, as with all public services, is between how much cash we sink into it and how much we expect in return. Give the NHS less money, get less healthcare. Give it more, and the opposite happens. As Rowena Crawford at the Institute for Fiscal Studies says: “Financial stability just requires that healthcare demand and expectations are constrained to match the available funding.”
And that right there is the rub. Because the NHS is enduring the sharpest and most prolonged spending squeeze in its history – even while the government pretends no such thing is happening and the public expect the same service. Our health service is where all the paradoxes of austerity come home to roost.
This may seem an odd thing to say. Isn’t the NHS one of the very few parts of the public realm to be sheltered from this decade’s cuts? Didn’t David Cameron promise before the last general election to “protect the NHS budget and continue to invest more”?
David Cameron addresses the Tory conference in October 2014. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA
The figures suggest otherwise. True, the NHS is seeing a rise in its funding. Between 2010 and 2014, health spending went up 0.8% each year, adjusting for inflation. A plus sign in front, granted, but a teeny-tiny one – since its creation in 1948, the health service has never had it so bad. Over this decade as a whole, that allocation will amount to 1.2% a year, which is way down on the average 3.7% that health spending grew each year between 1949 and 1979. And, coming after the 6.7% extra that Gordon Brown was shovelling in annually by the time of the banking crash, it feels like a recession.
So on the one hand, you have a healthcare system that can cause even the most secular of Brits to get religion, that can drive Telegraph-reading colonels to channel their inner Nye Bevan – hell, that even beats Justin Bieber to a Christmas No 1. And on the other you have a Tory prime minister who wants to cut public spending but knows that harming the NHS will be electoral poison.
Put the two together and what do you get? A dangerous muddle of overspending, frontline service cuts and political self-denial.
Cameron pretends the NHS isn’t on austerity rations and expects it to do the same work to pretty much the same targets. The various parts of the NHS try to do just that with a budget smaller than they need, with the result that they begin missing targets and making cuts even while breaking their budgets.
Take the A&E waiting times. Under Labour, the old rule was that 98% of patients must be seen within four hours. Soon after Cameron moved into Downing Street in 2010, the target was watered down to 95% of patients – even so it is now routinely missed. The number of patients stuck on trolleys in A&E, while staff try to find them beds is now at levels that “no civilised society should tolerate”, according to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine .
Even while falling short, arm after arm of the NHS is now in the red: 95% of hospital and other acute care providers in England plunged into deficit in the first half of the financial year starting in April, joining 80% of ambulance providers and 46% of those in mental health.
Demoralised staff can resign, go on an agency book, pick their shifts and earn more
You might treat all this as argument for NHS staff to be more productive. Except that, as John Appleby of the King’s Fund thinktank argues, they are. He calculates that, had NHS activity only gone up in line with government money, between 2010 and 2015 it would have treated 3.7 million fewer outpatients and 4.5 million fewer A&E patients than actually got seen.
This is productivity as doing more with less, which is almost always unsustainable. A real increase in productivity would come from doing things differently. There’s certainly scope to do that – by doing more phone consultations with GPs, perhaps, or upgrading technology. One joke among NHS professionals runs that, in all of China, there’s but one factory left still making fax machines, and that its only client is the NHS. But this sort of change is never going to come in an organisation now in a frenzy of cost-cutting.
One example of NHS austerity’s screwy logic is its sudden reliance on expensive agency staff. This, says Anita Charlesworth of the Health Foundation charity, is a direct result of staff pay freezes and overwork: “If you’re a permanent member of staff and you’ve had no pay rise and you’re demoralised and disengaged you can resign from the NHS, you can go on an agency book, you can pick your shifts, you can pick your wards and you earn more.”
The result is that agency staff costs are rising at over 25% a year.
Meanwhile, NHS England pretends it can cap hospital deficits for the year at £2.2bn – even though in the first six months alone that had already hit £1.6bn . Some of Britain’s biggest and most renowned hospitals are now actively planning on ending the year in the red. And Appleby points out that everything from patient time with doctors and nurses to repairs of your local hospital’s roof is being sacrificed in order to do the same work with less money.
“I can see another Jennifer’s ear coming,” Appleby says, referring to the five-year-old with glue ear who waited a year for a simple operation and ended up being used by Neil Kinnock to attack John Major on health spending. “Only this time it probably won’t be something as innocuous as glue ear. It might be a child who dies of cancer because their medical care has been so drastically cut.”
As societies get richer and older, they spend more on healthcare. Compared with nearly everyone else in western Europe, the UK spends much less of its national income on health. By the end of this decade, we will be even further behind. Meanwhile, pundits will continue to claim the entire system is unaffordably expensive, even while the public still want and need doctors and nurses, their medicines and operations.
This is the paradox of austerity: pretending that you can scrap and scrimp on the services and institutions that make you a civilised country, without making your country less civilised.
So on the one hand, you have a healthcare system that can cause even the most secular of Brits to get religion, that can drive Telegraph-reading colonels to channel their inner Nye Bevan – hell, that even beats Justin Bieber to a Christmas No 1. And on the other you have a Tory prime minister who wants to cut public spending but knows that harming the NHS will be electoral poison.
Put the two together and what do you get? A dangerous muddle of overspending, frontline service cuts and political self-denial.
Cameron pretends the NHS isn’t on austerity rations and expects it to do the same work to pretty much the same targets. The various parts of the NHS try to do just that with a budget smaller than they need, with the result that they begin missing targets and making cuts even while breaking their budgets.
Take the A&E waiting times. Under Labour, the old rule was that 98% of patients must be seen within four hours. Soon after Cameron moved into Downing Street in 2010, the target was watered down to 95% of patients – even so it is now routinely missed. The number of patients stuck on trolleys in A&E, while staff try to find them beds is now at levels that “no civilised society should tolerate”, according to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine .
Even while falling short, arm after arm of the NHS is now in the red: 95% of hospital and other acute care providers in England plunged into deficit in the first half of the financial year starting in April, joining 80% of ambulance providers and 46% of those in mental health.
Demoralised staff can resign, go on an agency book, pick their shifts and earn more
You might treat all this as argument for NHS staff to be more productive. Except that, as John Appleby of the King’s Fund thinktank argues, they are. He calculates that, had NHS activity only gone up in line with government money, between 2010 and 2015 it would have treated 3.7 million fewer outpatients and 4.5 million fewer A&E patients than actually got seen.
This is productivity as doing more with less, which is almost always unsustainable. A real increase in productivity would come from doing things differently. There’s certainly scope to do that – by doing more phone consultations with GPs, perhaps, or upgrading technology. One joke among NHS professionals runs that, in all of China, there’s but one factory left still making fax machines, and that its only client is the NHS. But this sort of change is never going to come in an organisation now in a frenzy of cost-cutting.
One example of NHS austerity’s screwy logic is its sudden reliance on expensive agency staff. This, says Anita Charlesworth of the Health Foundation charity, is a direct result of staff pay freezes and overwork: “If you’re a permanent member of staff and you’ve had no pay rise and you’re demoralised and disengaged you can resign from the NHS, you can go on an agency book, you can pick your shifts, you can pick your wards and you earn more.”
The result is that agency staff costs are rising at over 25% a year.
Meanwhile, NHS England pretends it can cap hospital deficits for the year at £2.2bn – even though in the first six months alone that had already hit £1.6bn . Some of Britain’s biggest and most renowned hospitals are now actively planning on ending the year in the red. And Appleby points out that everything from patient time with doctors and nurses to repairs of your local hospital’s roof is being sacrificed in order to do the same work with less money.
“I can see another Jennifer’s ear coming,” Appleby says, referring to the five-year-old with glue ear who waited a year for a simple operation and ended up being used by Neil Kinnock to attack John Major on health spending. “Only this time it probably won’t be something as innocuous as glue ear. It might be a child who dies of cancer because their medical care has been so drastically cut.”
As societies get richer and older, they spend more on healthcare. Compared with nearly everyone else in western Europe, the UK spends much less of its national income on health. By the end of this decade, we will be even further behind. Meanwhile, pundits will continue to claim the entire system is unaffordably expensive, even while the public still want and need doctors and nurses, their medicines and operations.
This is the paradox of austerity: pretending that you can scrap and scrimp on the services and institutions that make you a civilised country, without making your country less civilised.
Thursday, 21 January 2016
Deny the British empire's crimes? No, we ignore them
New evidence of British colonial atrocities has not changed our national ability to disregard it.
George Monbiot in The Guardian
George Monbiot in The Guardian
Members of the Devon Regiment round up local people in a search for Mau Mau fighters in Kenya in 1954. Photograph: Popperfoto/Popperfoto/Getty Images
There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain's colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied.
The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. But it draws its power from a remarkable national ability to airbrush and disregard our past.
Last week's revelations, that the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story. But it was either ignored or consigned to a footnote by most of the British press. I was unable to find any mention of the secret archive on the Telegraph's website. The Mail's only coverage, as far as I can determine, was an opinion piece by a historian called Lawrence James, who used the occasion to insist that any deficiencies in the management of the colonies were the work of "a sprinkling of misfits, incompetents and bullies", while everyone else was "dedicated, loyal and disciplined".
There is one thing you can say for the Holocaust deniers: at least they know what they are denying. In order to sustain the lies they tell, they must engage in strenuous falsification. To dismiss Britain's colonial atrocities, no such effort is required. Most people appear to be unaware that anything needs to be denied.
The story of benign imperialism, whose overriding purpose was not to seize land, labour and commodities but to teach the natives English, table manners and double-entry book-keeping, is a myth that has been carefully propagated by the rightwing press. But it draws its power from a remarkable national ability to airbrush and disregard our past.
Last week's revelations, that the British government systematically destroyed the documents detailing mistreatment of its colonial subjects, and that the Foreign Office then lied about a secret cache of files containing lesser revelations, is by any standards a big story. But it was either ignored or consigned to a footnote by most of the British press. I was unable to find any mention of the secret archive on the Telegraph's website. The Mail's only coverage, as far as I can determine, was an opinion piece by a historian called Lawrence James, who used the occasion to insist that any deficiencies in the management of the colonies were the work of "a sprinkling of misfits, incompetents and bullies", while everyone else was "dedicated, loyal and disciplined".
----Also read
-----
The British government's suppression of evidence was scarcely necessary. Even when the documentation of great crimes is abundant, it is not denied but simply ignored. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2010, for example, the historian Dominic Sandbrook announced that "Britain's empire stands out as a beacon of tolerance, decency and the rule of law … Nor did Britain countenance anything like the dreadful tortures committed in French Algeria." Could he really have been unaware of the history he is disavowing?
Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.
Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.
The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.
Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.
No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process".
The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves. But it is clear that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Kikuyu died in the camps and during the round-ups. Hannan's is one of the most blatant examples of revisionism I have ever encountered.
Without explaining what this means, Lawrence James concedes that "harsh measures" were sometimes used, but he maintains that "while the Mau Mau were terrorising the Kikuyu, veterinary surgeons in the Colonial Service were teaching tribesmen how to deal with cattle plagues." The theft of the Kikuyu's land and livestock, the starvation and killings, the widespread support among the Kikuyu for the Mau Mau's attempt to reclaim their land and freedom: all vanish into thin air. Both men maintain that the British government acted to stop any abuses as soon as they were revealed.
What I find remarkable is not that they write such things, but that these distortions go almost unchallenged. The myths of empire are so well-established that we appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence.
The British government's suppression of evidence was scarcely necessary. Even when the documentation of great crimes is abundant, it is not denied but simply ignored. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2010, for example, the historian Dominic Sandbrook announced that "Britain's empire stands out as a beacon of tolerance, decency and the rule of law … Nor did Britain countenance anything like the dreadful tortures committed in French Algeria." Could he really have been unaware of the history he is disavowing?
Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.
Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.
The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.
Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.
No matter. Even those who acknowledge that something happened write as if Elkins and her work did not exist. In the Telegraph, Daniel Hannan maintains that just eleven people were beaten to death. Apart from that, "1,090 terrorists were hanged and as many as 71,000 detained without due process".
The British did not do body counts, and most victims were buried in unmarked graves. But it is clear that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Kikuyu died in the camps and during the round-ups. Hannan's is one of the most blatant examples of revisionism I have ever encountered.
Without explaining what this means, Lawrence James concedes that "harsh measures" were sometimes used, but he maintains that "while the Mau Mau were terrorising the Kikuyu, veterinary surgeons in the Colonial Service were teaching tribesmen how to deal with cattle plagues." The theft of the Kikuyu's land and livestock, the starvation and killings, the widespread support among the Kikuyu for the Mau Mau's attempt to reclaim their land and freedom: all vanish into thin air. Both men maintain that the British government acted to stop any abuses as soon as they were revealed.
What I find remarkable is not that they write such things, but that these distortions go almost unchallenged. The myths of empire are so well-established that we appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence.
Wednesday, 29 July 2015
The West likes to think that 'civilisation' will defeat Isis, but history suggests otherwise
Robert Fisk in The Independent
Hitler set a bad example. He was evil. His regime was evil. His Reich was destroyed, the Nazis vanquished, the Fuhrer dying by his own hand in the ashes of the European nightmare. Bad guys lose. Good guys win. Morality, human rights, law, democracy – though with the latter, we should perhaps speak carefully – will always prevail over wickedness. That’s what the Second World War taught us.
We have grown up in a Western society that believes in such simple, dodgy, history lessons. The world’s major religions teach us about goodness, humility, family, love, faith. So why should we not – however liberal, agnostic, cynical – cling on to our fundamental belief that violence and torture and cruelty will never outlast the power and courage of the righteous?
Isis is evil. It massacres its opponents, slaughters civilians, beheads the innocent, rapes children and enslaves women. It is “apocalyptic”, according to the Americans, and therefore it is doomed. Better still, Ash Carter – the US Secretary of Defence who accused the Iraqis of running away from Isis – lectured the Iraqi Prime Minister last week. His message – I could hardly believe this naivety – was Hollywood-clear. “Civilisation always wins over barbarism.”
But does it? We only have to go back to the lie about the Second World War in my first sentence. Sure, Hitler lost. But our ally Stalin won. The 1917 Russian Revolution gave rise to one of the Gorgons of our age: Soviet dictatorship, the mass starvation leading the to death of millions, barbarism – on an Ash Carter scale – and evil incarnate ruled in Russia and Eastern Europe for more than 70 years, 40 of them after the Second World War.
The Romans kept “barbarism” at bay for almost a thousand years, but in the end the Goths, Ostrogoths and Visigoths – the Isis of their time – won. Unless you were opposed to Rome, in which case Roman barbarism – crucifixion, slavery, torture, massacre (the whole Isis gamut minus the videotapes) – was victorious for almost a thousand years.
Attila the Hun, the Scourge of God, destroyed almost everything between Persia and the Mediterranean. Ghengis Khan, an inevitable actor in this sordid drama, kept going until his death in 1227 – 30 years longer than Isis has so far ruled. His grandson Hulagu was invoked by General Angus Maude when he “liberated” Baghdad in 1917 and brought “civilisation” to Mesopotamia. Ash Carter should read Maude’s proclamation to the people of Baghdad: “Since the days of Hulagu, your citizens have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunken in desolation and your forefathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage.” Pretty much like Isis, in other words. But, by Maude’s count, this “tyranny” lasted for around 700 years.
Now let’s go forward to the years immediately after we brought “civilisation” – again – to Baghdad, by illegally invading Iraq in 2003. Between daily trips to the city mortuary and visits to tents of mourning, angry families would tell us that the “freedom” we brought had given them anarchy. They hated the dictator Saddam who slaughtered his opponents – and who imposed 24 years of “barbarism” on his people – but at least he gave them security. If you have children, these people would tell us, you want them to come home from school. You do not want them to be murdered. So which do we prefer, they asked us? Freedom or security? Democracy or Saddam?
Fearful of the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, whose militias slaughtered them, and the corrupt Arab dictatorships, who suppressed them, many hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims appear to have found security under Isis. Not the Shias, nor the Christians, nor the Yazidis. There is no “freedom”, as we would call it. But Sunni Iraqi men in Beirut, for example, regularly travel to and from the Isis Syrian capital Raqqa and report that – provided they don’t smoke or drink alcohol, their women are covered, and they do not oppose Isis – they are left alone: to do business, to visit families, to travel in safety. (Much the same applied under the Taliban in Afghanistan.)
ID cards are issued in Isis-land, the river police have newly-painted boats, taxes are raised, and yes, punishment is barbarous. But that does not mean the “Islamic Caliphate” is going to be conquered by “civilisation”.
And how can we believe that it will, when our own public-relations boss raves on about “British values” – and at the same time worships the venal, hypocritical, immensely wealthy and dangerous men who have helped to inspire Isis. I refer, of course, to those Saudis whose crazed Sunni Wahhabist cult has encouraged Isis, whose grotesque puritanism has led them to adopt a head-chopping extremism, which lies at the heart of Isis’s own “barbarism”. Sure, the Saudi state arrests Isis cells. But these same Saudis are now killing thousands of Shia Houthis in Yemen in a bombing campaign supported by our Western nations. And what does David Cameron do when the desiccated old king of this weird state dies? Money talks louder than “civilisation”. So he orders that British flags should be flown at half-mast. Now that’s what I call British values!
Poor old Dave. He loathes Isis but adores one of its elderly “facilitators”. Yet fear not. “Civilisation” may yet win over “barbarism”. My own suspicion is that Ash, Dave and the rest will try to buy up Isis, split them into factions and choose the “moderates” among them. Then we’ll have a new, liberal Isis – people we can do business with, the sort of chaps we can get along with, sins forgotten – and we can then establish relations with them as cosy as those the Americans maintained with Hitler’s murderous rocket scientists after “civilisation” conquered “barbarism” in the Second World War.
So much for “civilisation”.
Hitler set a bad example. He was evil. His regime was evil. His Reich was destroyed, the Nazis vanquished, the Fuhrer dying by his own hand in the ashes of the European nightmare. Bad guys lose. Good guys win. Morality, human rights, law, democracy – though with the latter, we should perhaps speak carefully – will always prevail over wickedness. That’s what the Second World War taught us.
We have grown up in a Western society that believes in such simple, dodgy, history lessons. The world’s major religions teach us about goodness, humility, family, love, faith. So why should we not – however liberal, agnostic, cynical – cling on to our fundamental belief that violence and torture and cruelty will never outlast the power and courage of the righteous?
Isis is evil. It massacres its opponents, slaughters civilians, beheads the innocent, rapes children and enslaves women. It is “apocalyptic”, according to the Americans, and therefore it is doomed. Better still, Ash Carter – the US Secretary of Defence who accused the Iraqis of running away from Isis – lectured the Iraqi Prime Minister last week. His message – I could hardly believe this naivety – was Hollywood-clear. “Civilisation always wins over barbarism.”
But does it? We only have to go back to the lie about the Second World War in my first sentence. Sure, Hitler lost. But our ally Stalin won. The 1917 Russian Revolution gave rise to one of the Gorgons of our age: Soviet dictatorship, the mass starvation leading the to death of millions, barbarism – on an Ash Carter scale – and evil incarnate ruled in Russia and Eastern Europe for more than 70 years, 40 of them after the Second World War.
The Romans kept “barbarism” at bay for almost a thousand years, but in the end the Goths, Ostrogoths and Visigoths – the Isis of their time – won. Unless you were opposed to Rome, in which case Roman barbarism – crucifixion, slavery, torture, massacre (the whole Isis gamut minus the videotapes) – was victorious for almost a thousand years.
Attila the Hun, the Scourge of God, destroyed almost everything between Persia and the Mediterranean. Ghengis Khan, an inevitable actor in this sordid drama, kept going until his death in 1227 – 30 years longer than Isis has so far ruled. His grandson Hulagu was invoked by General Angus Maude when he “liberated” Baghdad in 1917 and brought “civilisation” to Mesopotamia. Ash Carter should read Maude’s proclamation to the people of Baghdad: “Since the days of Hulagu, your citizens have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunken in desolation and your forefathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage.” Pretty much like Isis, in other words. But, by Maude’s count, this “tyranny” lasted for around 700 years.
Now let’s go forward to the years immediately after we brought “civilisation” – again – to Baghdad, by illegally invading Iraq in 2003. Between daily trips to the city mortuary and visits to tents of mourning, angry families would tell us that the “freedom” we brought had given them anarchy. They hated the dictator Saddam who slaughtered his opponents – and who imposed 24 years of “barbarism” on his people – but at least he gave them security. If you have children, these people would tell us, you want them to come home from school. You do not want them to be murdered. So which do we prefer, they asked us? Freedom or security? Democracy or Saddam?
Fearful of the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, whose militias slaughtered them, and the corrupt Arab dictatorships, who suppressed them, many hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims appear to have found security under Isis. Not the Shias, nor the Christians, nor the Yazidis. There is no “freedom”, as we would call it. But Sunni Iraqi men in Beirut, for example, regularly travel to and from the Isis Syrian capital Raqqa and report that – provided they don’t smoke or drink alcohol, their women are covered, and they do not oppose Isis – they are left alone: to do business, to visit families, to travel in safety. (Much the same applied under the Taliban in Afghanistan.)
ID cards are issued in Isis-land, the river police have newly-painted boats, taxes are raised, and yes, punishment is barbarous. But that does not mean the “Islamic Caliphate” is going to be conquered by “civilisation”.
And how can we believe that it will, when our own public-relations boss raves on about “British values” – and at the same time worships the venal, hypocritical, immensely wealthy and dangerous men who have helped to inspire Isis. I refer, of course, to those Saudis whose crazed Sunni Wahhabist cult has encouraged Isis, whose grotesque puritanism has led them to adopt a head-chopping extremism, which lies at the heart of Isis’s own “barbarism”. Sure, the Saudi state arrests Isis cells. But these same Saudis are now killing thousands of Shia Houthis in Yemen in a bombing campaign supported by our Western nations. And what does David Cameron do when the desiccated old king of this weird state dies? Money talks louder than “civilisation”. So he orders that British flags should be flown at half-mast. Now that’s what I call British values!
Poor old Dave. He loathes Isis but adores one of its elderly “facilitators”. Yet fear not. “Civilisation” may yet win over “barbarism”. My own suspicion is that Ash, Dave and the rest will try to buy up Isis, split them into factions and choose the “moderates” among them. Then we’ll have a new, liberal Isis – people we can do business with, the sort of chaps we can get along with, sins forgotten – and we can then establish relations with them as cosy as those the Americans maintained with Hitler’s murderous rocket scientists after “civilisation” conquered “barbarism” in the Second World War.
So much for “civilisation”.
Saturday, 21 March 2015
The West and the Rest
Gautam Adhikari in The Times of India
What is it about the so-called West that so many in the Indian elite seem to hate? Not ordinary people, but the bureaucratic-academic-intellectual elite that dominates public as well as private discourse in the metropolises, particularly in Delhi and, less influentially, Kolkata and Mumbai. Too many members of that privileged class sneer at the West, especially America, and both right-wing ultra-nationalists and left-wing Lohiaite and Gandhian socialists want to build protective walls for the native masses against a tide of Western culture and values that they fear are out to sabotage India.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty that’s dysfunctional in Western societies, by which we mean the urbanised, modernised and, therefore, advanced economies that lie mostly in the Western hemisphere. But isn’t the aim today of every developing nation to achieve precisely that kind of urbanised advancement as best as feasible?
Swathes of India’s intellectual elite would apparently disagree. They conjure up visions of a bucolic, spiritually untainted, pristinely Indian and self-reliant utopia that can come about if only the Western model of growth were jettisoned once for all. There are several problems with this dream, to say nothing of the futility of searching for a tested model of such an ideal society. Walden Pond, Tolstoy Farm and Sabarmati Ashram are not examples anyone can recreate on a national scale.
Like it or not urbanised modernisation, with all its flaws, forms the only surviving blueprint that humankind has to improve the quality and durability of life. And, it so happens, the current phase of urbanised advancement the human race is passing through indeed began a few centuries ago in societies located in the West.
That by no means implies that the road to this unprecedentedly rapid phase of modernisation of the world began magically in the West. The bricks of that road had been laid gradually over centuries by many civilisations, though it was from Europe for a complex range of reasons that the path began to take the shape of a highway.
Hundreds of scholars and intellectuals, mainly Western, have written on how a 15,000-year-old agricultural system suddenly gave way to an industrial society, and thence to our globalised post-industrial world in the space of a few hundred years. Only, it wasn’t all that sudden, though the speed of change was truly phenomenal.
If you don’t trust Western scholars on the subject, there are non-Western options available. You can read Nayan Chanda’s ‘Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers and Warriors Shaped Globalization’. He is of pure Indian origin. His 2007 book traces the ever-growing interconnectedness and interdependence that began from the start of early human migration from Africa 50-70,000 years ago and remains ongoing in this intricately globalised phase of our history.
Much of the foundation of Western enlightenment, for instance, was based on ancient Greek philosophy and logic. Along with their own speculative philosophy, the Greeks were open-minded enough to borrow ideas that had germinated in China and India. The Romans borrowed wholesale from the Greeks and developed ideas to create social and legal systems that form a basis for many modern institutions.
Then came a lull in the area now known as the West for about a millennium. It is commonly called the Dark Ages in European literature but it was not dark at all for a rising Islamic-Arab civilisation, which thrived for much of that period to keep Greek thought alive while also developing Chinese inventions and Indian mathematics to spread ideas across a wide empire. The Arabs thus formed a crucial link in global civilisation.
Then, to compress a complex story, came the European Renaissance. As the name implies, it was a ‘rebirth’ of ideas and a socio-cultural reawakening that led in due course to the industrial revolution and to this extraordinary stage in civilisation that we inhabit. In sum, we live a life born of interconnectedness and interdependence.
To put it another way, what we call the West today is little more than a stage in the march of human history. In the intertwined world that has come about as a result of millennia of exchange between cultures, the West is a convenient geopolitical term that combines both a violently harsh as well as enlightened tale of interdependence.
So, get over it. Why try to reinvent the wheel?
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)