moonbattery logo

Sep 18 2017

Scholar Points to Benefits of Colonialism, Others Demand He Be Silenced

The best thing that ever happened to the non-Western world was colonialism, which spread the manifold benefits of European civilization across the globe, resulting in better health, longer life spans, increased populations, higher standards or living, and more political freedom than had ever been known outside of Europe before. Yet according to cultural Marxism, the official ideology of academia, European civilization is the source of all evil; only when it has been eradicated can mankind return to the blissful condition of the Noble Savage. What would happen if a scholar were honest enough to tell the truth about colonialism, rather than reciting the corrosive lies normally taught to students? Here’s what:

Several professors have launched a petition seeking to take down an academic essay that extols the benefits of Western colonialism.

The appeal was launched on petition website Change.org and calls for Third World Quarterly, an academic journal published by Routledge, to apologize and retract Portland State University Professor Bruce Gilley’s “appalling article” titled The Case for Colonialism.

Get a load of this heresy:

In the abstract of the essay, Gilley, a political science professor at Portland State University, argues that Western colonialism was “as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts.

“The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it,” he elaborates. “Anti-colonial ideology imposed grave harms on subject peoples and continues to thwart sustained development and a fruitful encounter with modernity in many places.”

Compare Singapore to Zimbabwe, and you’ve got the idea.

Since he is obviously right, his fellow academics don’t try to argue with him. They just demand that he be silenced. Gilley’s findings have been denounced as “offensive” and as sacrilege against sacred “BIPOC” (black people, indigenous peoples, and people of color).

Gilley also argues that the practice of colonialism “can be recovered by weak and fragile states today in three ways: by reclaiming colonial modes of governance; by recolonising some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch.”

Excellent idea, for everyone concerned. Unfortunately, the liberal ruling class would never allow it to happen. That’s why civilization doesn’t expand anymore, but instead has begun to contract — to the benefit of no one.

British-Empire-Flags
Forward progress was seen under flags like these.

On a tip from J.



13 Responses to “Scholar Points to Benefits of Colonialism, Others Demand He Be Silenced”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Civilization– progressives will miss it when it’s gone and not one second before.

  2. Frank says:

    Colonizing is right up there with empire building when it comes to siphoning off the host nation’s gold, blood and vitality. Britain’s colonies were a millstone around her neck during the second world war. They were too far flung to protect properly and too precious to relinquish. The British Empire once ruled a quarter of the world. It’s all gone. Look at the mess France got into trying to regain control of Vietnam after WWII. 8,000 Frenchmen and French colonials were annihilated at Dien Bien Phu trying to keep France’s boot on Vietnam’s neck. The days of modern versions of Pax Romana are over. No nation state can successfully obliterate the culture of another or hold the people of another hostage in perpetuity. The collapse of the Soviet Union was proof of it.

  3. FromNJ says:

    Ah yes, once again the well educated and open minded scholars throw a tantrum and scream for blood when one of their own says something they don’t want to hear.

  4. MAS says:

    Maybe we should give it a try in, say, Mexico. They are obviously too indolent and corrupt to fix themselves and are invading us (illegal aliens) so why not?

  5. g says:

    Since the Hispanic peoples of the New World were created when white Spaniards colonized it, anti-colonialism is ANTI-HISPANIC RACISM!!!

  6. Spiny Norman says:

    Look at the mess France got into trying to regain control of Vietnam after WWII. 8,000 Frenchmen and French colonials were annihilated at Dien Bien Phu trying to keep France’s boot on Vietnam’s neck.

    During the war, we (the US) promised the Viet Minh that if they helped us against the Japanese we’d support Vietnamese independence. Ho Chi Minh actually held up his end of the bargain. Unfortunately, the State Department (and Winston Churchill) convinced Truman that we needed to “restore French national pride” and reinstalled colonial rule in Indochine. The Vietnam War of the 1960s was a direct result.

  7. Frank says:

    Churchill and Truman also screwed Poland royally after WWII. Our skirt’s far from clean.

  8. Frank says:

    Capital idea! We can make them pay for the wall by charging a taco tax! If they get nasty, we can threaten them with making Clapifornia a Mexican state!

  9. Mike_W20 says:

    What have the Romans ever done for us?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7tvauOJMHo

  10. Artfuldgr says:

    Maybe they want to bring back sati?

    Sati or suttee is an obsolete funeral custom where a widow immolates herself on her husband’s
    pyre or commits suicide in another fashion shortly after her husband’s death.

    but its only obsolete for two reasons: colonialism & christianity

    Under British rule, the practice was initially tolerated. In the province of Bengal, sati was attended by a colonial government official,
    which states historian A.F. Salahuddin Ahmed, “not only seemed to accord an official sanction, but also increased its prestige value”.
    Between 1815 and 1818, the number of sati in Bengal province doubled from 378 to 839. Under sustained campaigning against sati
    by Christian missionaries such as William Carey and Brahmin Hindu reformers such as Ram Mohan Roy, the provincial government
    banned sati in 1829. This was followed up by similar laws by the authorities in the princely states of India in the ensuing decades,
    with a general ban for the whole of India issued by Queen Victoria in 1861. In Nepal, sati was banned in 1920.
    The Indian Sati Prevention Act from 1988 further criminalised any type of aiding, abetting, and glorifying of sati.

  11. […] course not. They won’t engage Bruce Gilley's arguments in favor of colonialism either. You can’t expect a pack of rabid dogs to […]

  12. […] course not. They won’t engage Bruce Gilley‘s arguments in favor of colonialism either. You can’t expect a pack of rabid dogs to engage […]


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy