The ghost in the box

[shkrobius]

If liberty is inalienable natural right, as we hold it, how can the convicts be deprived of liberty as just punishment? The Bible does not consider imprisonment (as opposed to jailing before a trial) as the lawful mode of punishment. There is no "tradition" justifying this barabarian practice except for the perverted sadism of Germanic pagans,

Comments

[i_eron]

1. I have made an Afghan comparison once - "И краснеют, коль завидят шапку нашу невзначай". I believe very much in looking up the real facts and then thinking a bit, as opposed to seeing the warring countries metaphorically. And in the importance of demography ( "Демография - это судьба").

2. I am no Batman, but I think you are wrong - the technology gaps are closing. Also, the organizational and the ideological gaps are. The national nuts - hm, is it the "nuts and bolts" or the "nuts and berries" variety? Because if you are referring to the anatomical variety, I am reminded of the hated Spengler again. Yuck.

3. Too difficult - yes, I have meant it half-sardonically. On the other hand, I serve in a Western army myself, all this pussy-cute talk of the value of human lives sounds quite appealing when one is actually holding the weapon and risking one's life (even if it is a very small or rare risk, as in my case).

4. I have chosen these words deliberately. The most disgusting African states are very modern - there was no such thing even 50 years ago. They are functioning - badly from our standards, but very much alive and kicking compared to the situation encountered by by Europeans 200 years ago. Just go settle there and see - the chances are that the first bandit you will encounter will be on a government pay (er, theoretically). And state - oh, yes - "a state is an institutionalized mafia". I hope this also clears your last point.

It sounds like we do not disagree much.

[poltorazhyda]

1. The principles of governance do not vary according to geography. As far as demography is concerned, the history of colonialism shows us that it is quite possible for a small but competent nation to conquer and administer a large but incompetent one.

2. The technology gaps are NOT closing. The gap is in the field of competence. In the 16th and 17th centuries, it was possible for the Dutch and British to routinely put a few hundred scurvy desperadoes on boats made out of wood and canvas, with a few cannon, and send them halfway around the world to kick the crap out of whomever they found living there, then report back in a couple of years with profits. The unfortunates on the other end would often have their own cannons and be ruled by genuine warlike leader badasses (compare the Indonesian Sultans with Abu Musab Zarqawi, for instance-it is to laugh, no?) Yet the whole thing worked pretty well. Today, we have the ability to produce an explosion of any desired size anywhere in the world and watch it in real time. The enemy is basically packing barrels of gunpowder into the ground and lighting a fuse, or taking potshots at us and scurrying off-19th century stuff. Yet semi-pacifying Iraq has taken us the better part of a decade, and Afghanistan is still uncertain. I don't know much about Spengler.

3. Your opinion on the appeal of the value of the lives of the frenemy population may have been different if you had been, say, in a squad of infantry taking fire from a compound and being denied fire support due to the impossibility of determining the presence or absence of women and children inside. Not coincidentally, fighting a war according to such values virtually guarantees that it will drag on and on, and more of those valued human lives will be lost and ruined than would have been had we seen their preservation as incidental.

4. We need some other word for those entities besides "modern states," then, because in the mind of most normal humans, Singapore and Israel are modern states. Calling Burkina Faso a modern state is like calling Alzheimer's a sign of maturity.

Though we may not disagree on much, it is still fun to argue, no?

[i_eron]

1. Competence is not enough. Yes, it was possible occasionally. Please notice that in most examples of colonialism it was a large and competent (plus technologically advanced) nation conquering a small-incompetent-backward one. The British rule in India was an amazing exception, not the rule (so to speak). India was not only especially backward, it was also "softened up" by the Moghuls - the foreign rule and the associated communal/religious difficulty was the way of life before the British. I guess you may call this "incompetence".

But the modern nationalism itself was invented by the French Revolution and it took a century (or even more) for it to take hold outside Europe. I have read a bit recently about the unexpected British triumph in Burma and the unsuccessful attempt of the French on Madagascar. Would you call the victorious XIX century Madagascar a "competent nation"? Puh-lease. But perhaps you may call the French incompetent :-)

2. Spengler has likened nations to biological objects - young-and-vigorous, old-and-feeble etc., with inevitable cycles. I HATE that. A nation cannot "desire", be "happy" or "offended". A nation is an imaginary construct, not a person.

Yes, "pacifying" Iraq now is difficult. Part of the reason may be that Iraqis now can relate to the idea of not having foreigners in Iraq. This is a new and a very successful Western idea. Another part is technological - they have learned to use explosives and guns. I merely point out that there is one more difference - demography. There are 32 million Iraqis now, that's a lot. And one really cannot say they are so very backward - most have some education, some use mobile phones, many know how to drive. Iraqis now are more technologically advanced than the British in the XIX century.

3. Let us not talk about incompetent generals - they happen everywhere (even among the XIX century British). Usually own soldiers are protected over the civilians from the other side. An operation may be canceled for fear of hurting too many civilians - I believe this is a good thing. It is also a luxury, which is understood perfectly well by the politicians and generals, I assure you. If one day my country will be in an existential danger with many casualties, they will not protect civilians on the other side as well as they do now.

4. I do not know much about Burkina Faso. But, say, a Cameroon or a Kenya (I do not know much about them too) are "modern states", certainly. By this I mean that they are really different from the Indian territories in the future USA 400 years ago, or from Australia 240 years ago. They are governed by organized crime entities. You just cannot plant a colony there that would live not in accordance with what is the prevalent way of life. Exactly as you cannot plant a colony of Cameroonians in, say, France, that would live as they do in Cameroon. Oh. Ahem.

I have an idea. The proposal in this post requires a piece of land that its government would agree to lend to the American convicts so they become free colonists. Clearly, this will not work in Cameroon. But it may work in France. The French would be much more tolerant to the poor bastards than the Cameroonians. But wait, it was tried with this Guantanamo. Every single country on Earth was asked to accept some prisoners from there. Not a success. Somehow even the French...

[shkrobius]

Any country would do, including France. Your initial concern was about small countries; those that do not have much territory or overpopulated. The US is not such a country.

[i_eron]

I have mentioned France to suggest that even they would not agree. No country has even agreed to accept a significant number of Guantanamo prisoners.

Today there are these options:

1. Find a country whose government would agree to accept the convicts. To give enough incentives, perhaps a fee for each person sent. This is the "gently smiling jaws" scenario. These people would be at the mercy of some murderous local dictator.

2. Find a country that is not too populated and send people there in spite of the objections of the local government. The consequences will be like this:

2a. The convicts will be overwhelmed by the local forces. The people will die or imprisoned or live like slaves.

2b. The convicts will be sufficiently numerous and armed by their mother country to survive. They will carve out a part of the local state for themselves, a colony. Here some particulars must be specified - which country, what arms, how to stop them from returning back. Will the mother country defend the colony in future, so that it would be possible to send more people there? I think this scenario is impossible anyway - nobody in the modern world would tolerate creation of new colonies.

[shkrobius]

Why do you think the locals will necessarily be hostile?

[i_eron]

One can imagine a peaceful local community looking forward to cooperate and trade with the new arrivals that would settle next door. However, the reality in these countries is very far from pastoral. Every "peaceful local community" already has bandit parasites preying upon it. It might be the local "officials", kind of all-powerful country barons, as in most of India now. It might be some "rebel" bandits. Or pro-government bandits. But this niche is never empty.

They will be expecting to exploit the settlers just as they exploit the locals. They will need to impose themselves on the settlers, to explain who is the boss. This would mean killing some. Perhaps the best way to exploit them will be to send them work in the mines, as a large proportion of convicts must be able-bodied men not familiar with agriculture.

The only way for the settlers to survive will be to play the local game. They may form a "tribe" that will resist the attacks. The problem with that is that such a new tribe will attract more and more powerful enemies that will feel threatened. Or, they may join an existing local warlord, enlist in his bandit force or, say, official forces of the local government. The latter option will be available only to individuals, because the positions are few and the competition for government money and jobs is strong.

In short, they necessarily will have to integrate with the locals, either in the slave capacity, or in the bandit capacity. The possibility of apartheid is long gone - because of the demography and because of the better local organization and modernization.

[shkrobius]

You yourself suggested an example of Liberia. Neither did the emancipated slaves integrate nor were they harassed. That it ended badly does not undermine the fact that it worked for many decades. The Liberians never planned to repatriate to the US and Canada, while it can be expected that the colonists will.

In fact, I think you are wrong for another reason, too: in no time the locals and the colonists will start to mix and settle. These settlers would partake of both words and temper bad passions on both sides.

[i_eron]

The emancipated slaves in Liberia have succeeded in suppressing the local population and becoming the ruling elite. They have found and occupied the niche I was talking about. I wonder if this is what you mean by success - unleash the American convicts on a local population that cannot defend itself from them.

Anyway, it was >150 years ago. It cannot succeed now. Just imagine sending the convicts to Liberia now. There are 10 times more people in Africa now compared to back then. And now many of these people have machine guns and know how to use them.

The world was empty. Now the world is full. The next colony, if at all, will be on Mars, not in Liberia. We somehow have to find the solution within our own borders, not send people somewhere else.

[shkrobius]

Why do you say they "suppressed" the local population. As far as I know, they peacefully blended with it.

I think you are overly negative. The locals will be delighted to have any influx of $$$.

[i_eron]

Well, the governing elite has consisted of their descendants until 1980. Does not sound much like "blending". The freed slaves were racially very distinct from the locals. I do not know much more than Wiki about the history of Liberia. According to it, there was not much "peaceful blending".

Please understand that "the locals" are not a uniform group. The governing bandits will be surely "delighted to have the influx of $$$". Just like they are now happy to control and redistribute (or re-sell) the Western aid. But from the point of view of most of the "locals" this just supports and perpetuates their main problem.

Some quotes from that Wiki article:

...At least until 1915, the U.S. assisted the Liberian rulers in putting down rebellions and uprisings of indigenous tribes.

...The Americo-Liberian settlers in 1878 organized their political power in the True Whig Party, which permitted no organized political opposition. Until 1980, the Americo-Liberians firmly held onto their position of authority, meeting with unremitting uprising, rebellion and riots from the native peoples.

...In the decades after 1945, the Liberian government received hundreds of millions of dollars of unrestricted foreign investment, which destabilized the Liberian economy. Liberian Government revenue rose enormously, but was being grossly embezzled by government officials. Growing economic disparities caused increased hostility between indigenous groups and Americo-Liberians.

[shkrobius]

Only 2-5% of the Liberians are the Congoes. The total number of repatriated slaves was <15,000, these "descendants" are a heavy mixture of the colonists with the locals. That they consider themselves the superior race is their fantasy, in reality they are mutts and the conflict is the city vs the country. I repeat that the slaves blended with the locals peacefully. Their "descendants" are the locals that happen to hve a remote American ancestor in one of the many lineages.

[i_eron]

The point is that Liberia was conquered by Americans, the locals were suppressed and the immigrants to Liberia from the USA were given the power. There was no pretense of democracy. The locals were given no say in selecting the governor, who later became first "independent" president. Frequent conflicts have followed. Perhaps the immigrant descendants have eventually mixed with the locals, it is only natural. But at least for the first couple of generations the division was clear - the Americo-Liberians were in power, the locals were subordinated and rose violently against the governing elite. The elite was distinct from the indigenous population in culture, dress, habits etc. Not only the elite has considered itself superior, the natives considered it distinct and foreign. It is not important (I think), how large was the actual racial difference. What matters is this mutual feeling of being different.

In short, suppose for a minute it is possible to repeat this story today (I think it is not). Americans will conquer an African country, suppress its population, install its freed convicts there, give them power and support them with weapons and other supplies. There will be a degree of segregation, mutual hatred and rebellions but in time there will be assimilation (with some very bloody consequences). Is this your plan?

[shkrobius]

The locals were hardly angels. They raided the colony repeatedly from 1820s to 1870s. In any case, the control of the colonial government was over a very small territory: it was a country more on paper than in reality. I think you are repeating someone's narrative intending to invent historical wrongs. If your source is Internet, you should be cautious. I do not think that Liberian history even exists as a nonpartisan account, with most of the historical documentation long destroyed by the sides involved in the conflict.

[i_eron]

I am not an expert on African history, I am not even particularly interested. I have read a book a long time ago that said something about Liberia, now I discover that what I remember fits with the Wiki article on Liberian history. The article looks serious, but you are right - it might be biased. It looks to be written from the anti-colonial sentiment, which is common now but was not common back then. But I hope the facts are still correct. Anyway, you suspect I repeat "an invented narrative". I do not like "inventing historical wrongs", but you do not challenge the validity of any specific fact, only the general bias, which I am not defending. So let us stick to the facts.

Of course the locals were not angels - no one is (even if some want to be). They raided the colony. You have asked earlier "Why do you think the locals will necessarily be hostile" - here is one example.

You have said "Neither did the emancipated slaves integrate nor were they harassed", but then you have said "they peacefully blended with it [the local population]". Also they were "repeatedly raided" - how does that square with "not harassed"? Either you accept that the locals were suppressed but frequently revolted or you must accept that the immigrant colony was repeatedly attacked. But whichever you choose, happy it was not.

You have said "The locals will be delighted to have any influx of $$$." - these particular locals, however you look at it, were not delighted. Although later the elite claiming the descent from the emancipated slaves was "delighted in the influx" - in the words of Wiki:

In the decades after 1945, the Liberian government received hundreds of millions of dollars of unrestricted foreign investment, which destabilized the Liberian economy. Liberian Government revenue rose enormously, but was being grossly embezzled by government officials. Growing economic disparities caused increased hostility between indigenous groups and Americo-Liberians.

You have said "in no time the locals and the colonists will start to mix and settle. These settlers would partake of both words and temper bad passions on both sides." In fact, the bad passions were not tempered but brooded and resulted, predictably, in the elite being overthrown in a bloody coup and in the civil wars that followed. Mr. Charles Taylor, with whom I share a birthday, is a very typical successful African bandit of the kind I was talking about.

Liberia is just one example of why I am "overly negative". But I repeat - the Liberian experiment was long ago, its relevance for today is limited.

Today the world consists of countries. There are no tribal areas left. All land except Antarctica is claimed (and usually controlled) by the governments of modern(-ish) states. A "proper" way to introduce settlers into a country would be to win a democratic agreement there. Which is kinda difficult since most of the "third world" countries are dictatorships. Also, the history does not provide many examples that would encourage us to expect such a positive vote. France is an example of a democratic country. Would it accept the convicts?

What is left is to win an agreement from a dictator. This is possible, oh yes. He "will be delighted to have any influx of $$$." Also, he will be delighted "to welcome little fishes in". But is it what we want? Imagine winning such an agreement, say, from Stalin in 1949. Would you send any American convicts to their freedom and pursuit of happiness in the "gently smiling jaws" of Stalin?

[shkrobius]

That these Liberian tribes raided the colony proves nothing. American and Australian colonies by and large coexisted unharassed.

The raids in Liberia involved agricultural outposts. The bulk of the settlers were not harassed. Over three generations they've blended in. The Crown Hill was an exception rather than the rule. How many people were actually involved in these raids is anyone's guess. In different periods widly different numbers have been given.

These particular locals were not suggested retributions by the ACS, so the example is not telling.

No coexistence is entirely blissful and you can always blow a border incidence to the status of "battles", "wars", etc., especially if it suits your purpose. The difficulty with Liberia is right there. First its history was written to conform to imperialist narrative,. Then it was rewritten to conform to nationalist narrative. I'd use common sense. 2% of population cannot harass 98% without local suppor, and if 98% would really want to wipe out these 2%, they would do it.

If penal colonies trade with the locals, the locals would be all for such colonies.

Surely, democratic acceptance would be best.

The French loved Polanski, did not they? So, apparently, they can tolerate and even want some of our bad guys.