For the most part, European imperialism, outside of notable exceptions, did in fact look like this. Bringing order and modern conveniences to previously chaotic parts of the world usually had a significant positive effect. The only way you can ignore this is by refusing to ask the question "What does the alternative look like?" which is what most modern retrospectives of colonialism do.
Delve into the British Colonial Office's archives. Vast stores of deep local knowledge and sociological statistics gathered by dedicated expatriates under very trying circumstances (the "mad dogs and Englishmen" of lore). Of course, afternoon gin and tonics eased the arduous task somewhat...
I do not understand why so much of the Right continues to attempt to relitigate the Second World War. A fair portrayal of World War 1, and particularly the unfair treaties at its conclusion would be far more effective at providing balance to the historical record. The Weimar era might not have been nearly as disastrous if not for the loss of German colonies and the unreasonable demands of the French President Georges Clemenceau. Unlike the atrocities of World War II, closer investigation does not reveal any compelling moral justification for the dismemberment of Kaiser Wilhelm's empire.
One can have measured and even slightly positive opinion on German colonialism, overall. As for Herrero campaign specifically, arguments presented against it being genocide are weak. So, "order was rescinded" (on paper) and "intertribal warfare was also very cruel"? Both claims may be true- and yet, driving large numbers of Herrero non combatants into desert and denying them access to food and water, resulting in large casualties, is in my opinion, genocide and very reprehensible deed.
Sean, please read the book (or my review where I discuss Gilley's treatment of the Herrero Genocide.) You will see that Gilley does not ignore the negatives of German colonialism but provides context that has been largely omitted in a moralistic approach to colonialism.
For the most part, European imperialism, outside of notable exceptions, did in fact look like this. Bringing order and modern conveniences to previously chaotic parts of the world usually had a significant positive effect. The only way you can ignore this is by refusing to ask the question "What does the alternative look like?" which is what most modern retrospectives of colonialism do.
Delve into the British Colonial Office's archives. Vast stores of deep local knowledge and sociological statistics gathered by dedicated expatriates under very trying circumstances (the "mad dogs and Englishmen" of lore). Of course, afternoon gin and tonics eased the arduous task somewhat...
I do not understand why so much of the Right continues to attempt to relitigate the Second World War. A fair portrayal of World War 1, and particularly the unfair treaties at its conclusion would be far more effective at providing balance to the historical record. The Weimar era might not have been nearly as disastrous if not for the loss of German colonies and the unreasonable demands of the French President Georges Clemenceau. Unlike the atrocities of World War II, closer investigation does not reveal any compelling moral justification for the dismemberment of Kaiser Wilhelm's empire.
One can have measured and even slightly positive opinion on German colonialism, overall. As for Herrero campaign specifically, arguments presented against it being genocide are weak. So, "order was rescinded" (on paper) and "intertribal warfare was also very cruel"? Both claims may be true- and yet, driving large numbers of Herrero non combatants into desert and denying them access to food and water, resulting in large casualties, is in my opinion, genocide and very reprehensible deed.
This is a great review of an engaging book. Gilley's arguments are backed by encyclopedic information
Here is my humble review of the book - https://petersbradley.substack.com/p/history-matters-two-cheers-for-german
Thanks. I looked at your review and posted it on twitter
the competition is remakably straightforward - there are scholars like Bruce Gilley and on the other hand, brain dead ideologues.
An email I would like to email your question
lo_matthews@yahoo.com
Sean, please read the book (or my review where I discuss Gilley's treatment of the Herrero Genocide.) You will see that Gilley does not ignore the negatives of German colonialism but provides context that has been largely omitted in a moralistic approach to colonialism.
A courteous response: I didn't read the first book, but it doesn't seem kosher to critique a book you haven't read.