So... this morning, during a Clubhouse panel discussion about global economic divergence, a (Mainland Chinese) audience member made the argument that semi-colonization by European powers was a good thing for China, because it modernized the country’s institutions... 1.

I’m posting this because, first, it shows that nationalist historical discourse still has a ways to go before it wipes out even the most extreme forms of intellectual dissent, and, second, it echoes some persistent “empire is good” arguments made by UK (and US) scholars... 2.

(For a recent academic variant, see, e.g., https://www.nber.org/papers/w27558 .) Why is this line of argument ridiculous? Because it sets up a false counterfactual in which the alternative to being colonized/invaded is for a country to stay completely stagnant on its original path... 3.

... whereas a completely plausible alternative is for it to become painfully aware of its institutional/economic deficits, and therefore try to “catch up” aggressively, but *without* being colonized/invaded. See, e.g., Meiji Japan. In fact, one could easily argue that... 4.

... Japan’s relative success in “catching up” in the later 19th Century was largely due to the fact that it was *not* colonized, and instead left to reform largely on its own terms, whereas regions that fell directly under the boot of the British Empire fared much worse... 5.

“Colonization was good” is a nice way to comfort yourself if you’re European and want to look away from your historical sins, but let’s face it, it’s perhaps one of the most weakest historical arguments ever to gain a really large intellectual, social, and political following. 6.

Oh, I originally wanted to say “most ridiculous arguments,” but later decided to tone the rhetoric down to “weakest”... but forgot to delete the “most.” Ugh.