Bright Young Things discussion

We've chatted a bit about the colonialist views represented in this book and I find myself encountering another perspective lately--this time by Graham Greene--who describes Haiti in the 1960s in his book, The Comedians. Its quite a vivid portrait of unrest.

The question forming in my mind after these two reading experiences is this: is there any evidence to suggest that when a former European colony acquires independence very swiftly--it experiences more upheaval and chaos than colonies which (for better or worse) endure as colonies for an extended period of time?

For example, can one compare Haiti or the Belgian Congo, Uganda perhaps--with all the troubles those countries experienced--with colonies enjoying a more slow-paced transfer of power? Would such a comparison be supported --or refuted--by a list of colonies which 'seized power abruptly'? Moving from Third World to First world to too speedily, could we say that often brings about 'lasting' turbulence?

Let's look at India for example. The British implemented their institutions there for 150 years. There was a brief upheaval in acquiring independence--but thereafter, the country has been sailing along fairly smoothly. Are there others which fit? Macao (Portugese)?

I guess I'm mulling over a kind of 'birds leaving the nest' theory. Just musing out loud. If you care to suggest some nonfiction reference on the matter, I'd be keen.

Feliks, Here is a link to a series of four lectures by Niall Ferguson. The subject is relevant to your comments above. I'd be very interested in what you think. The lectures are amazing and profound. I've listened to them numerous times. They're free podcast download.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jmx0p

I posted the link in BYT discussion Non-fiction Sept. In Search of England - H. V. Morton, message 11.

You are great. Super helpful!

Question: is there any way I might *read* his lectures? I never do anything like podcasts...

He has one or two books:
Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World
Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.
I haven't read it myself, but my daughter read this version Empire as part of her geography degree and thought it was well argued.

Only two countries took independence from Britain (as opposed to being granted it by Act of Parliament and negotiating a transfer to self government) and both were by minority colonist governments, not indigenous independence movements: USA and Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. The USA has become very economically successful since independence although it was many years before it could be considered peaceful (or pacified). White minority rule in Southern Rhodesia did not last long, mainly because very few countries recognised the government or traded with it. It left a legacy of instability in the country which lasts to today, but cannot be entirely blamed for that.
Not all of the negotiated transfers went as smoothly as hoped and some newly independent countries had civil wars within a few years. I'm not sure whether how successful or peaceful the independent countries were was in any way related to how long they had been under British rule beforehand, but it is an interesting question. Many of them did keep a lot of the administrative infrastructure set up by the British (and many former French colonies kept the French administrative infrastructure, former Dutch colonies a Dutch one, etc.), but this did not guarantee economic or political stability.
I think both Haiti and the Belgian Congo are unique; Haiti's independence was from a slave rebellion (which frightened other slave owning countries and colonies) and was economically isolated, the Belgian Congo suffered from a singularly brutal and repressive colonial regime.

Feliks wrote: "You are great. Super helpful!

Question: is there any way I might *read* his lectures? I never do anything like podcasts..."

Feliks, you can listen to them online, click on the link, from the link, just click where it says 'listen now' next to the image of Niall Ferguson.
The lectures may be available in print form.

Thanks Val, the two books should be brilliant if his lectures are anything to go by. Ferguson explains very clearly how former British colonies prospered that kept the institutions in place like the rule of law. He compares North America (British) to South America (Spain).
One was inclusive, the other hierarchical.

Wasn't sure of which discussion is the most appropriate to post this on BYT so I thought Colonialism is as good as any.

http://itzhakts.wordpress.com/2011/11...

No.3 decree is alright by me. No. 4. is funny also. No. 7 is the all time cracker.

Greg wrote: "Wasn't sure of which discussion is the most appropriate to post this on BYT so I thought Colonialism is as good as any. "

Absolutely brilliant Greg. Thanks so much for posting it. I chuckled so much, my keyboard is now covered in Earl Grey.

As you say, number 7 is especially pertinent...

You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults and then used solely for shooting grouse. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you’re not ready to handle a gun, let alone shoot grouse.