I think this maybe highlights that it’s best when possible to bypass these acrimonious debates and avoid the loaded language they use.
We probably shouldn’t take them too seriously (as in assuming anything that vaguely pattern matches with colonialism is immediately bad), but this doesn’t meaning embracing colonialism revisionism either.
I think it’s probably extremely useful to avoid associating ourselves with arguments such as those that try to revise colonialism into “actually good”.
I think that even if we can think of cases where one could argue “colonialism good” (maybe French Guiana), it’s probably best to dissociate from such arguments and instead have a conversation about the origin of institutions and which ones lead to better and worse outcomes.
“Colonialism good” feels sort of like trying to reclaim eugenics. Just come up with a different term that doesn’t mean the thing the people who you’re arguing again will think of like “slavery, the Belgian Congo, or the partition of India”. And if you’re trying to defend those things, please for the love of the Good, keep EA out of it.
Your complaint here should be with the OP, not Geoffrey. “Don’t discuss colonialism” might be a plausible principle for EA; “you can discuss colonialism, but only if you say it is bad” is terrible community epistemics.
Joel—have you actually read the Bruce Gilley book?
If you haven’t, maybe give it a try before dismissing it as something that’s ‘extremely useful to avoid associating ourselves with’.
To me, EA involves a moral obligation to seek the truth about contentious political topics, especially those that concern the origins and functioning of successful institutions—which is what the whole colonialism debate is centrally about. And not ignoring these topics just to stay inside the Overton window.
I think this maybe highlights that it’s best when possible to bypass these acrimonious debates and avoid the loaded language they use.
We probably shouldn’t take them too seriously (as in assuming anything that vaguely pattern matches with colonialism is immediately bad), but this doesn’t meaning embracing colonialism revisionism either.
I think it’s probably extremely useful to avoid associating ourselves with arguments such as those that try to revise colonialism into “actually good”.
I think that even if we can think of cases where one could argue “colonialism good” (maybe French Guiana), it’s probably best to dissociate from such arguments and instead have a conversation about the origin of institutions and which ones lead to better and worse outcomes.
“Colonialism good” feels sort of like trying to reclaim eugenics. Just come up with a different term that doesn’t mean the thing the people who you’re arguing again will think of like “slavery, the Belgian Congo, or the partition of India”. And if you’re trying to defend those things, please for the love of the Good, keep EA out of it.
Your complaint here should be with the OP, not Geoffrey. “Don’t discuss colonialism” might be a plausible principle for EA; “you can discuss colonialism, but only if you say it is bad” is terrible community epistemics.
Joel—have you actually read the Bruce Gilley book?
If you haven’t, maybe give it a try before dismissing it as something that’s ‘extremely useful to avoid associating ourselves with’.
To me, EA involves a moral obligation to seek the truth about contentious political topics, especially those that concern the origins and functioning of successful institutions—which is what the whole colonialism debate is centrally about. And not ignoring these topics just to stay inside the Overton window.