Stephen Fry hits back at accusations of Islamophobia

[K. A. Pital]

Europeans put all others down the shit pipe, only outright genociding them all would be worse. Asia is barely cathing up now with the Great Convergence, and it is much more the creation of independent states and rampant tech theft which helps them than European benevolence.

The Boxer Rebellion was a case of imperialists propping up a government that sold the hell out of China with unequal treaties, a corrupt ugly puppet dynasty.

[Thanas]

I am very much disturbed that one can seriously compare colonialism and its racist policies which directly caused the deaths of more people than WWII and indirectly probably caused the death of millions, if not billions of people is somehow being used as a valid comparison to social groups not having as many options. Whatever hurdles gay people face are not comparable to the Bengal famines. Whatever hurdles women face are not comparable to the burning of the Summer palace and the campaigns that accompanied it.

I agree with the sentiment, but the Summer Palace is an odd example to choose. It was certainly beautiful, but lost tourist opportunities for the upper middle class are not quite in the same league, to my mind, as death of actual people, and the surrounding campaigns were not very large.

No, it resulted in millions of death due to the Opium, as well as the loss of central power in China, which lead to civil war, widespread piracy etc. It also was a direct symbol of European colonialism. So you are wrong about that.

The Spanish conquests in America seem by far the worst examples to me, with the Belgian Congo perhaps second.

The Spanish conquests in America were overall much less destructive than what the Anglo-French did in the north. They also featured local alliances and marriages with local nobility. So no.

[energiewende]

I am very much disturbed that one can seriously compare colonialism and its racist policies which directly caused the deaths of more people than WWII and indirectly probably caused the death of millions, if not billions of people is somehow being used as a valid comparison to social groups not having as many options. Whatever hurdles gay people face are not comparable to the Bengal famines. Whatever hurdles women face are not comparable to the burning of the Summer palace and the campaigns that accompanied it.

I agree with the sentiment, but the Summer Palace is an odd example to choose. It was certainly beautiful, but lost tourist opportunities for the upper middle class are not quite in the same league, to my mind, as death of actual people, and the surrounding campaigns were not very large.

No, it resulted in millions of death due to the Opium,

That's debatable, and assigning blame to the West for selling the opium is a value judgement. Remember it was legal to sell opium in Britain and the US too at this time, just as it is currently legal to sell cigarettes.

as well as the loss of central power in China, which lead to civil war, widespread piracy etc. It also was a direct symbol of European colonialism. So you are wrong about that.

What civil war is that? Taipingguo was on-going at the time of the destruction of the Summer Palace, and the Qing won (one of their best Generals, for sake of irony, being one arch-imperialist "Chinese" Gordon of Khartoum). I think it is wrong to view China as a colonized country. This serves some peoples' propaganda aims, but it's more historically accurate to view it as a weak but independent state, like the Latin American countries, Siam, or Ethiopia, and even then plainly the strongest of them.

The Spanish conquests in America seem by far the worst examples to me, with the Belgian Congo perhaps second.

The Spanish conquests in America were overall much less destructive than what the Anglo-French did in the north. They also featured local alliances and marriages with local nobility. So no.

That's pretty absurd claim. The Spanish destroyed densely populated and developed urban civilizations, slaughtered most of the population, and enslaved the rest. Today their culture is essentially gone which is why US uses "Hispanic" as a politically acceptable term for "Amerindian". Anglo-French faced a much sparser and weaker opponents and treated them much less badly; native states there even still exist with some claim to sovereignty.

[Thanas]

That's debatable, and assigning blame to the West for selling the opium is a value judgement.

It is nice to see how you describe forcing a sovereign state with gunboats to open their market to illegal goods (and yes, Opium was illegal then) as "value judgement".

What civil war is that? Taipingguo was on-going at the time of the destruction of the Summer Palace, and the Qing won (one of their best Generals, for sake of irony, being one arch-imperialist "Chinese" Gordon of Khartoum).

And the destruction of central Imperial authority, as well as the continued weakening of the central state armies through the Opium wars did nothing to impede the chinese side? That is a dubious claim.

I think it is wrong to view China as a colonized country. This serves some peoples' propaganda aims, but it's more historically accurate to view it as a weak but independent state, like the Latin American countries, Siam, or Ethiopia, and even then plainly the strongest of them.

Nobody claimed China was completely colonized.

That's pretty absurd claim. The Spanish destroyed densely populated and developed urban civilizations, slaughtered most of the population, and enslaved the rest.

And yet, they also had intermarriages as well as Royal efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Indios, as well as treaties and local alliances. Local nobles were recognized by the crown and local nobles gained prominent position in the administration, even reaching up to high offices among the viceroyalties. They were willing to grant de facto independence to local Indian tribes (see for example the Mapauche). There are no comparable systems of integration. Nobody is denying that a lot of people were killed or died as a result, but the Spanish were far less racist in their colonial empire than the English and French were.

[Patroklos]

I don't think the level of racism is the benchmark you should use. As was mentioned the Spanish were dealing with a lot more numbers than in the North, and as those populations had some level of urbanism they survived the introduction of disease far better. In other words the Spanish had to make accommodations.

[Thanas]

I don't think the level of racism is the benchmark you should use. As was mentioned the Spanish were dealing with a lot more numbers than in the North, and as those populations had some level of urbanism they survived the introduction of disease far better. In other words the Spanish had to make accommodations.

It is not just accomodations. There is clear integration to be found in the Spanish programs. You will for example not find something like the Villagomez family, or the Dukes of Moctezuma in English colonies. You also will not have persons sentenced to death for mistreatment of the indians.

[Ultonius]

It is not just accomodations. There is clear integration to be found in the Spanish programs. You will for example not find something like the Villagomez family, or the Dukes of Moctezuma in English colonies. You also will not have persons sentenced to death for mistreatment of the indians.

What about the descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas? I would also point out that I'm not aware of any Spanish equivalent of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which forbade unregulated British settlement on Indian lands beyond the Appalachians.

From here

...

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds —We do therefore, with the Advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our Royal Will and Pleasure, that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our Colonies of Quebec, East Florida, or West Florida, do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands beyond the Bounds of their respective Governments, as described in their Commissions: as also that no Governor or Commander in Chief in any of our other Colonies or Plantations in America do presume for the present, and until our further Pleasure be known, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them.

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.

And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.

And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests, and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do, with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government, they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose: And we do, by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever, provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside, and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit, by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade:

And we do hereby authorize, enjoin, and require the Governors and Commanders in Chief of all our Colonies respectively, as well those under Our immediate Government as those under the Government and Direction of Proprietaries, to grant such Licences without Fee or Reward, taking especial Care to insert therein a Condition, that such Licence shall be void, and the Security forfeited in case the Person to whom the same is granted shall refuse or neglect to observe such Regulations as We shall think proper to prescribe as aforesaid.

...

[Thanas]

It is not just accomodations. There is clear integration to be found in the Spanish programs. You will for example not find something like the Villagomez family, or the Dukes of Moctezuma in English colonies. You also will not have persons sentenced to death for mistreatment of the indians.

What about the descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas?

Did they receive English noble patents? Did they continue to adhere to local customs? Did they speak the local languages? Did natives (note: not descendants of them, but natives themselves) reach high office in the colonies?

I would also point out that I'm not aware of any Spanish equivalent of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which forbade unregulated British settlement on Indian lands beyond the Appalachians.

The New laws, although unsuccessful, were far more reaching than any of those laws. The Laws of the indies, while preceding the Royal Proclamation by circa 200 years also forbade unregulated settlement throughout the whole Empire. There were also treaties with native states/rulers prohibiting encroachment on Indian territory. More importantly, those things were enforced. You ever heard of a British citizen being sent to his death by the British crown because he raided Indian villages? I have not and I doubt this ever happened. But cases like that existed in the Spanish empire.

But again, this is a very complex topic. Like any other Empire the treatment of natives varied from time to time and from region to region. Generally however, I feel that the Spanish, while responsible for much cruelty, nevertheless were less racist and less fanatical in their colonial empire.

[PainRack]

No it doesn't. The sacking of the Summer Palace occurred during the Second Opium War while this quote comes from the Boxer Rebellion. Germany was not involved in the sacking of the Summer Palace.

Ah.. Pardon me then. I was thinking of the sacking of the Imperial palace during the Boxer rebellion.

Not to imply it wouldn't be equally ludicrous to compare the Boxer Rebellion to the Spanish Empire (especially as China was, in legal terms at least, the aggressor).

Nonsense. The Boxer Rebellion was a populist sect dressed up in mysticism, that targeted foreigners. They weren't Qing forces, despite Cixi backing of them.

I don't approve of torching missionaries of any nationality. I don't see how this story is any different to Southerners using stories about blacks raping or murdering white women (which, by law of large numbers, will have been true at least some of the time) to justifying lynchings. The government of China was in the wrong for not having the freedom of speech and religion and not protecting religious minorities against persecution.

Ok, while I do agree that the Boxers actions were motivated by xenophobia and bigotry, there's a huge difference between 'freedom of speech/religion' and the Boxer retaliation against foreigners.

Its not as if China actually suppressed freedom of religion, if any, actions aimed at suppressing 'religion' was directed against the Boxers. Christianity as a religion wasn't targeted for suppression. Again, one must realize just how weak the central court was at this time and how Imperial politics between Cixi and the Imperial government directed various actions and forces.


Now, freedom of assembly/movement was restricted but this wasn't targeted at the religion per say but rather, the political controls of the Qing evolved to push back against the growing Western influence in China.



I know the question has been asked before, just how much influence Cixi had over the Boxers and the choice of targets. We could certainly point out that Qing forces stepped aside and turned a blind eye to Boxer activities against the western powers, Cixi condoned their actions and supported it. But control? That's another question.....

[energiewende]

Nonsense. The Boxer Rebellion was a populist sect dressed up in mysticism, that targeted foreigners. They weren't Qing forces, despite Cixi backing of them.

Now, freedom of assembly/movement was restricted but this wasn't targeted at the religion per say but rather, the political controls of the Qing evolved to push back against the growing Western influence in China.

I know the question has been asked before, just how much influence Cixi had over the Boxers and the choice of targets. We could certainly point out that Qing forces stepped aside and turned a blind eye to Boxer activities against the western powers, Cixi condoned their actions and supported it. But control? That's another question.....

Choosing not to enforce the law is complicity, attacking a diplomatic mission is an act of war, and setting out to murder civilians sheltered within due to their membership of a religious minority (mostly ethnic Chinese) is a crime against humanity.

I don't approve of torching missionaries of any nationality. I don't see how this story is any different to Southerners using stories about blacks raping or murdering white women (which, by law of large numbers, will have been true at least some of the time) to justifying lynchings. The government of China was in the wrong for not having the freedom of speech and religion and not protecting religious minorities against persecution.

Now, freedom of assembly/movement was restricted but this wasn't targeted at the religion per say but rather, the political controls of the Qing evolved to push back against the growing Western influence in China.

Ok, while I do agree that the Boxers actions were motivated by xenophobia and bigotry, there's a huge difference between 'freedom of speech/religion' and the Boxer retaliation against foreigners.

Its not as if China actually suppressed freedom of religion, if any, actions aimed at suppressing 'religion' was directed against the Boxers. Christianity as a religion wasn't targeted for suppression. Again, one must realize just how weak the central court was at this time and how Imperial politics between Cixi and the Imperial government directed various actions and forces.

It's all a bit tortuous isn't it? Were the KKK, the Freikorps and Brownshirts 'pushing back against foreign influences'? Maybe, but it's more something they would state themselves than an impartial observer. Moving freely throughout a country and spreading ideas is not a morally reprehensible activity that should be met with criminal sanctions or officially-tolerated private violence. These 'demands' on the part of the Western powers were entirely reasonable.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually it is not that simple. The concept of crimes against humanity did not exist back then - but even if it had, I really doubt Russian, British, French, American imperialists and landgrabbers complicit in a good handful of genocides and ethnic cleansings both before and after the rebellion and being in tne process of robbing China and carving it up like a piece of meat, could paint themselves as morally superior here.

Protecting such a violent monotheist religion as Cristianity, whose role in invasions, genocides and subjugations of a myriad peoples is so well documented no one would deny it, is of course a necessity.

Just as the protection of Islam, actually. The point is to protect every religion, even Empire vessels that Christianity's sects were.

[PainRack]

Choosing not to enforce the law is complicity,

Wrong. Cixi decided not to persecute the Boxer sect. The actions in International territory by definition is INTERNATONAL, since European powers enjoyed extraterritorial laws in China. Qing forces could not very well act to do POI security because of the extraterritorial laws in effect. Their complicity was in not choosing to crack down on the Boxers in Chinese areas and even here, the question is more of whether they COULD have given the extreme weakness of security forces(albeit, complicated by Cixi endorsement of the Boxers).

attacking a diplomatic mission is an act of war,

A mob is NOT Chinese forces.

and setting out to murder civilians sheltered within due to their membership of a religious minority (mostly ethnic Chinese) is a crime against humanity.

It can be argued that after attacks were launched against foreign targets, the subsequent attacks on christian chinese were because of their inability to strike at foreign targets, leading them to easier targets, just like the Crusades.

It's all a bit tortuous isn't it? Were the KKK, the Freikorps and Brownshirts 'pushing back against foreign influences'? Maybe, but it's more something they would state themselves than an impartial observer. Moving freely throughout a country and spreading ideas is not a morally reprehensible activity that should be met with criminal sanctions or officially-tolerated private violence. These 'demands' on the part of the Western powers were entirely reasonable.

Except that the Boxers weren't officially sponsered by the State. That's why its disingenous to claim its an act of war, or that the Chinese state were aggressors.

Its much more complex than that. The Chinese government hands weren't clean of course, because Cixi most definitely did plan to exploit the chaos the Boxers created but they were not under state control. And if you have historical evidence of the influence Cixi or any other element of the central government on the Boxers, please submit it to a historical journal for publication because that question was still being debated by historians a decade ago.