NAS President Peter Wood condemned the attempts to censor Gilley, praising the scholar for communicating “a well-reasoned and humane perspective” in his work.
“The efforts to censor Bruce Gilley’s article and the attacks on him personally were outrageous,” he said in a statement. “Gilley published a well-reasoned and humane perspective on the political and economic challenges that face many Third World nations. Anyone who actually reads the article will see his thoughtful tone and good will.”
This article, "The Case for Colonialism," shouldn't be taken as a defense of owning other countries and people.
But even under that bad practice--which is wrong, have no doubt--it is possible that the colonial power can benefit the colonial people in the long run. Not to extrapolate from personal experience, but am I the only person who has experienced bad things that ultimately benefited me?
Although in the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it is difficult to see any benefit flowing from Belgian colonial rule.
Far be it for me to generalize from American experience, but being a colony of Britain benefited the eventual independent United States of America.
Sure, it would have been nice if Britain hadn't over-stayed their welcome requiring us to insist--twice!--they leave. But still, thank you Great Britain! I'm glad we're allies now.
And good for the National Association of Scholars to reverse suppression--complete with threats of physical violence prior to the withdrawal of the article--of scholarly research.
If Gilley is wrong, demonstrate where he is wrong.
Or is opposition to the article all about providing a convenient excuse for failures of former colonies to move beyond despotism, poverty, and dysfunctional states more than half a century after they gained independence?
And I did say that colonialism is a morally bad practice, right?
