In 1968, Abbie Hoffman famously wrote a book called Revolution for the Hell of It.
In 1973, this negatively inspired David Friedman to write a chapter called “Revolution is the Hell of It.”
Last month, I watched The Battle of Algiers, probably the most famous pro-terrorist (or at least anti-anti-terrorist) movie in history. If you don’t know the sordid history of the “liberation” of Algeria, you should. The whole movie is gripping, but this little speech by terrorist Ben M’Hidi stayed with me. Though the writers probably intended the speech to be an inspiration rather than a warning, it’s a vivid vindication of Friedman over Hoffman.
BEN M’HIDI: Do you know something Ali? Starting a revolution is hard, and it’s even harder to continue it. Winning is hardest of all. But only afterward, when we have won, will the real hardships begin.
Which raises the obvious pacifist question: “Then why start?” Committing evil deeds when the benefits are large and reliable might be justified. Committing evil deeds when the benefits are deeply speculative is absurd.
Am I really going to defend colonialism? No. As I’ve said before, both colonialism and anti-colonialism are blameworthy expressions of violent nationalism:
But don’t you either have to be pro-colonial or anti-colonial? No. You can take the cynical view that foreign and native rule are about equally bad. You can take the pacifist view that the difference between foreign and native rule isn’t worth a war. Or, like me, you can merge these positions into cynical pacifism. On this view, fighting wars to start colonial rule was one monstrous crime – and fighting wars to end colonial rule was another.
In the case of Algeria, however, I should add that native rule turned out to be vastly worse.
READER COMMENTS
Philo
Feb 9 2021 at 10:43am
“In the case of Algeria, however, I should add that native rule turned out to be vastly worse.” That has been the general experience of the aftermath of anti-colonial victories. Colonialism and anti-colonialism may both be bad, but the latter has proven to be a lot worse than the former.
David Henderson
Feb 9 2021 at 10:46am
Good post. I saw that that movie was on recently and I recorded it for future viewing. I expected that I would be pro-Algerian. Wrong! After the scene in which those young kids attacked a guy and were encouraged to do so, I quit watching.
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 9 2021 at 1:21pm
David – you have to accept (or not in your case) the film for what it is, a piece of propaganda against colonial rule. Gillo Pontecorvo explores this theme further in his next major film, Queimada! (known as Burn here in the US) that covers the creation and then destruction of a tropical republic in the Caribbean. Marlon Brando is the protagonist who first works on the side of those fighting for the republic and then later on the sugar barons who wish to reinstate colonial rule. It’s an interesting film but as with the Algiers film, highly propaganda in scope.
One film worth watching on this topic is ‘Lost Command’ which covers French paratroopers first at Dien Bien Phu in the final French stand in Vietnam and then onto Algeria. George Segal has an interesting turn as an Arab born French soldier who sides with the insurgents in Algeria. Anthony Quinn, Alain Delon and Claudia Cardinale are also in the cast. The Jean Larteguy book is actually better than the film but the translation was out of print for a lot of years.
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 9 2021 at 1:24pm
It is difficult to think of any post-colonial nation where the governance, in general, was better. Rather than debating colonialism, it’s more interesting to figure out why the government and economic trajectories were so poor.
Aaron Stewart
Feb 9 2021 at 1:54pm
One obvious hypothesis is that, governance being the dynamic process it is, one can’t just start governing well nearly from scratch. Rather, it takes many years or practice and experience to develop good governance. With that in mind, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to blame the interruption in self-governance caused by colonial rule for the subsequent poor governance.
Iskander
Feb 10 2021 at 6:56am
There is not much to suggest that there would have been many improvements in governance had foreigners not taken over.
robc
Feb 9 2021 at 2:17pm
I think USA is superior to UK, so there is one.
Does Canada count?
Alan Goldhammer
Feb 9 2021 at 5:53pm
I was thinking of post-WW 2 colonies and not ones from much further back.
robc
Feb 10 2021 at 6:58am
Sint Maarten?
They have been “independent” since 2010 (they are to the Netherlands like Canada is to the UK) when they split from the Netherlands Antilles.
Jose Pablo
Feb 12 2021 at 4:51pm
Believe it or not Argentina for many years (one century even) … and then …
Although it seems to be a big difference between USA-UK, Argentina-Spain and the African and Southeast Asian colonies related to the amount of “native presence” in post-colonial rule.
Phil H
Feb 9 2021 at 9:11pm
The argument that governance has been much worse since the end of colonialism is… shaky, I think.
To start with, it’s rooted in a particular view of the British Empire, and ignores the other empires. German and Belgian colonialism were famously extractive, so I don’t think they’ll hold up as examples of good governance. And even the British case… the history that’s been done over the last 20 years has dug up a lot more repressive violence than the old textbooks used to admit to.
Governance in the ex-colonies has been notably bad. But it seems to me that governance during colonial times was covertly bad, as well. There’s just been a lot of bad governing 🙁
Mark Brady
Feb 10 2021 at 12:06am
1. “I think USA is superior to UK, so there is one.” For whom? The African-descended population of the USA through slavery and Jim Crow? 🙂
2. There are major differences between the history of (a) the white settler colonies (like the Thirteen Colonies, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the Southern Cone of South America) and (b) the European colonies in, say, the West Indies, Africa, India, South East Asia, and the East Indies.
robc
Feb 10 2021 at 7:00am
Britain didn’t free the slaves in the colonies. The US did, eventually.
Britain had 150 of so years to do it? US did it in under 90 years.
Mark Brady
Feb 16 2021 at 12:14am
Nonetheless, the British freed their slaves in the 1830s, well before the U.S. freed their slaves (1865).
Shane L
Feb 10 2021 at 4:39am
I’m surprised by the consensus that post-liberation governments were generally worse than colonial governments – astonished!
It seems to me that there’s quite a list of countries that left colonialism in impoverished state that are today rich (Ireland, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.) or rapidly growing middle-income states (Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Chile, etc.).
Would Israel be as prosperous if it was still governed from London or Istanbul? Do Lithuanians long for a restoration of competent Russian rule? All in all I would call decolonisation a triumph. How competent do you think American government would be if it was organised from another continent by people who had never set foot there and didn’t give Americans the vote?
Iskander
Feb 10 2021 at 6:58am
What policies made Singapore unsuccessful and impoverished during the colonial era? It was the boom town of south east Asia and attracted immigrants from all across the continent.
Shane L
Feb 10 2021 at 12:58pm
Hi Iskander,
World Bank data puts Singapore’s GDP per capita in 1965, the year of its independence, at 28% that of the UK. By 2019, the most recent year available, Singapore’s GDP per capita was 154% of the UK’s.
Here in the Republic of Ireland there is a similar story. Much of the British elite viewed the Irish as racially inferior, superstitious savages, incapable of self-rule. Indeed, the Anglo-Irish Protestants who dominated pre-independence Ireland did also; the conservative Protestant-oriented The Irish Times wrote in 1920, on the prospect of Irish independence:
The arrogance of it! They were describing their own neighbours. Instead, after a century of independence, the Republic of Ireland is broadly comparable in wealth to its former colonial oppressor, and considerably wealthier than Northern Ireland despite the former’s head start.
It’s a bit baffling to me to see the blasé attitude in the comments here about colonialism. Americans, imagine: China has invaded and violently conquered your country. They have promoted local senators or sheriffs to imperial positions, free from any democratic accountability. They view your people as racially inferior and childlike, and view your culture as barbaric, requiring obliteration. They talk about granting you freedom one day, when you’ve been sufficiently civilised. Meanwhile, decisions are made in Beijing by people who despise you. I think most people would be rightly unhappy.
Iskander
Feb 10 2021 at 1:11pm
That fact about Singapore is true – but exactly the same could be said about Hong Kong, which saw similar growth to Singapore while remaining a colony and with very little change in economic institutions or policies after ww2.
Prewar economic policy in Singapore and Hong Kong (and India, Burma or Malaya I would add) was not very different to that in the UK.
While ex-pat Brits did look down on other people, did that actually manifest itself as barriers to enterprise from the average non-brit? I would say no as Chinese and Indian merchants flocked to colonial Singapore to do business.
That many countries did not grow fast under British colonialism is true, but convincing reasons for that are very hard to find.
Mark Z
Feb 10 2021 at 3:55pm
Is being disdained by domestic rulers so much better than being disdained by foreign ones? The latter seems more disagreeable in large part because it’s offensive to one’s national identity, but I don’t think that’s a rational reason.
Jose Pablo
Feb 12 2021 at 5:03pm
At what point was Israel ruled from London? To the best of my knowledge the London rule over Israel lasted for 8 hours. From the Ben Gurion’s proclamation of the independent state at 4:00 pm May 14, 1948 to the end of the British mandate over Palestine at midnight that very same day.
You can argue that the role of the British in this issue was shameful (to say the least) but it is very difficult to assign a significant economic or institutional influence on an 8-hour rule
Thomas Hutcheson
Feb 10 2021 at 10:04am
But is post-colonial “native” rule worse than non-colonialism native rule.
nobody.really
Feb 10 2021 at 4:29pm
Once upon a time, I encountered an adage something like “A revolution is always a tragedy–an abortive one, more so.” I’d be happy to cite such an adage here–except I’ve never found a source. Anyone?
George Carns
Feb 10 2021 at 10:52pm
Bryan’s post reminds me of the efforts of the French-Algerian novelist Albert Camus to unite liberals, moderates and whatever remained of the non-communist left in both countries to campaign for an alternative to both French repressive colonialism and Algerian revolutionary anti-colonialist extremes. His forlorn hope for a compromise fostering a bit of peace and justice for both French and Algerians was of course not realized, to his great sadness. See his essays on the Algerian question in his book, Resistance, Rebellion and Death.
Comments are closed.