Imaginary victims

It's very interesting how there are always people who completely warp historical reality to suit their political agenda. I just now came across a bizarre claim by a Native American action group, claiming that European settlers in the USA (not the Americas as a whole, just the USA!) have historically killed 50 million Native Americans. And that's with disease not even included: they purely mean the purposeful killing of natives.

50 million. What a number! But a number out of thin air. The truth is that, after the Old World diseases had burned their way through the New World, there were only about 10 million Native Americans left in all of the Americas! Perhaps, if we're charitable, some 3 million of those lived in what is now the USA. How can you murder 50 million in a region where only 3 million exist? How could that be done? Do tell.

Either out of incompetence or out of wickedness, these 'activists' with their (too-)big claims are conflating certain numbers to fit their own narrative. The truth is that much larger numbers of Native Americans than those c. 10 million have indeed historically existed... but they died in vast multitudes due to disease. In all likelihood, Old World diseases killed c. 90% of the pre-contact population of the Americas. If the post-disease population is c. 10 million, that would make the pre-contact population c. 100 million.

Needless to say, there is a lot of debate about that. Historiographers once tended to consider numbers like 2 or 3 million when estimating how many Native Americans there must have been in 1491. But Henry F. Dobyns rather convincingly made the case for a number between 90 and 110 million, spread across the Americas.

Even the modern-day "low counters", who are sceptical of such high claims, simply believe that disease killed fewer people, like 50% for instance. (That's about the lowest credible estimate in use today.) So there are those who believe that disease killed 90% of the pre-contact population, leaving behind 10 million or so. And then there are those who believe disease killed perhaps 50%... leaving behind 10 million or so.

This is important to note, because this is where those 'activists' get it all wrong. In truth, the low counters simply believe there were much fewer pre-contact natives than the high counters do. That is the point of contention. But the 'activists' muddle the numbers. They claim the pre-contact numbers of the high counters (100 million) and the death rate of the low counters (50%) and claim that post-disease, there were some 50 million natives left.

That's simply not the case. And even then, that would be a number for all of the Americas, and not just for the USA.

Whether disease killed roughly 10 million or roughly 90 million or some number in between... that's still being debated. [1] But that there were roughly 10 million natives left in total after the disease had burned its way through the population is not under discussion.

Of those remaining 10 million, Europeans no doubt killed quite a lot. Although the fact that there are about 69 million Native Americans around today (which means considerable population increase from those 10 million), the amount killed by Europeans must not be overestimated. We are probably talking about hundreds of thousands. Probably not about multiple millions. Certainly not about tens of millions, which weren't there in any case.

-----------

[1] A footnote regarding the discussion about pre-contact numbers. Personally, I tend towards the position of the high counters. The effect of disease cannot be underestimated. By the accounts of Hernando de Soto (the conquistador, obviously, not the economist), who traveled the southeastern (later-to-be) USA in the 1500s, the place was filled with settlements. Hundreds of towns, from Florida to the Mississippi. When latter-day explorers reached the area again in the 1700s, they found... nothing. Except that De Soto had not made these villages up. Their archeological remains have been found. As have the mass graves that started appearing after he passed through.

The thing is, he brought livestock along, and animals escaped into the wild. They spread European disease, which killed countless natives and utterly destroyed many communities. This all happened without any Europeans there to witness or actively influence events. De Soto was gone when the dying started, and by the time other Europeans reached the area again, it was all over...

Patriots and Tyrants

Robert E. Lee was the foremost general of the Confederate forces in their desperate war for independence from northern tyranny, which sought to illegally subdue them by armed might after they had chosen to separate themselves from the central government in Washington DC. His words, quoted above, are a clear indication of his character and his motives. In a time when Abraham Lincoln is often (wrongfully) regarded as a heroic figure, and the Southern secession is (equally incorrectly) viewed as evil and treasonous, we should take some time to explore Lee's reasons for supporting Virginia in its secession and opposing Lincoln in his war of conquest.

General Lee, an educated man, knew very well the shape of history— and he tried his best to fight in the name of his sovereign state, Virginia; defending it against the despotic ambitions of Lincoln and his centralist ilk. The victory of the northern aggressors, in their war against the southern states that peacefully and lawfully seceded, remains a great tragedy. That war destroyed the last bastions of honour and aristocracy in North America, thus sealing the fate of the United States. Rather than saving the Union, Abraham Lincoln and his butchers destroyed it, and put a centralist colossus in its place. This was their plan from the outset, and fighting that depraved ambition was the South's foremost reason to secede in the first place. (Anyone who claims that it was primarily about slavery is either wholly ignorant or wholly evil.)

Everything Lee predicted has come true, and the United States are fated to perish— at least in their current form. Observe that I write "their form", because the states ought to be referred to in the plural. But nowadays, we all too often hear "the United States is" rather than "the United States are". That, too, is the legacy of northern aggression and centralism. And it is exactly that unitary, centralist moloch that will ultimately perish. One may hope that one day, there will again be sovereign and voluntarily united states, once more capable of bringing something worthwhile into this world.

Until that day comes, we should do our best to remember the courage and honour of general Lee, in a world where uneducated scoundrels are tearing down the statues that were once put up the memorialise him and his fellow heroes of independence.

Paideia: a curriculum (in the form of an extensive reading list)

In ancient Greece, the ideal of education involved far more than the learning of facts and the mastering of skills. More, even, than the training of intellect and the honing of abstract reasoning skills. Beyond intellectual refinement and physical training, the Greek educational ideal also involved the shaping of moral character and philosophical excellence. The ideal education involved rhetoric, grammar, history, philosophy, scientific disciplines (such as mathematics, physics, geography and biology), literature, poetry, music and a variety of physical disciplines (such as gymnastics, wrestling, horsemanship and archery). All these aspects were not seen as separate, but as facets of an undivided whole. They supported and enhanced each other, jointly contributing to a complete education.

This educational ideal was called paideia.

Kurds, Turks and the importance of secession

It is my conviction that any sensible freedom-loving individual ought to be, by definition, a proponent of secession in all circumstances. Indeed, many classical liberals and libertarians of note have argued as much. I find it astaunding that there are self-styled 'libertarians' and 'classical liberals' who are opposed to secession in some or all cases. Something that just recently struck my as truly bizarre is the reaction of some people in egards to Turkish government aggression towards Kurdish secessionists. That is to say: there are people involved in the liberty movement with such a weak grasp of basic economic concepts and such a shocking lack of historical perspective that they will happily side with the imperialist Turkish regime when it comes to the Kurdish struggle for independence... "because the PKK is communist!"

Maybe an elementary lesson in history would benefit them. One might consider, for instance, that if Turkey had let the Kurds go on their merry way to indepence long ago, the communist revolutionary nonsense would never have had any appeal to the Kurds at all. Beyond that, it's a simple fact that the Kurds (who have no ethnic or linguistic relation to the Turks) don't want to be a part of Turkey. Even if they want to be communist (and I wouldn't advise it), it's still their own damn business. Turkey has occupied Kurdish land for far too long, and putting an end to that immoral occupation is simply a matter of respecting the fundamental right to self-determination.

This whole mess is the fault of Turkish imperialism in the first place. Personally, I remain convinced that at the end of World War One, both the Kurdish areas in the east of Anatolia and the Greek areas in the west ought to have been freed from Turkish rule. Instead, the Turks were allowed to continue to oppress the Kurdish people, and even to expell the Hellenes from Anatolia (where they had lived for thousands of years, long before the invading Turkish hordes ever stirred from their barbarian tents in East Asia). Civilised people ought to condemn these mistakes of history, as well as the sorry situation that has emerged as their result. Civilised people ought to support a free Kurdistan, and perhaps—just perhaps—they ought to give some consideration to the question wether the world would not be better off if 'Istanbul' would still be known as 'Constantinople'.

History clearly condemns the Turkish state, and puts the Kurds in the right. Yet even if one ignores all this, the secession of the Kurdish regions of Anatolia would still be a very good idea. Secession is always desirable, because it always improves the situation. This has been explained perfectly by professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who should perhaps be considered the greatest living thinker within the liberty movement. Writes Hoppe:

Forced integration invariably creates tension, hatred and conflict. In conflict voluntary separation leads to harmony and peace. Through secession hegemonic domestic relations are replaced by contractual – mutually beneficial – foreign relations. Rather than promoting a downward leveling of cultures, as under forced integration, secession stimulates a cooperative process of cultural selection and advancement.

That is to say: as long as the Turkish regime (or any regime) forcibly keeps the Kurdish people (or any unwilling people) enchained within the confines of its imperialist state, that state will suffer from internal strife. This benefits absolutely no-one, and as the conflict escales, it will actually demand a very high toll; in lives, in freedoms, and (if one is heartless and does not care for life or liberty) in wealth. Constantly fighting an internal war costs a lot. By allowing the unwilling people to secede, relations can be normalised, costs can be avoided, and profitable trade relations can be established.

Perhaps more importantly, the simple act of secession also creates a seconds polity, which automatically competes with its neighbours. It is a funamental truth of economics that competition drives down prices and drives up quality. Hoppe explains what this has historically meant in a European context:

Contrary to the political orthodoxy of the contemporary Eurocrats, precisely the fact that Europe posessed a highly decentralised power structure of countless independent political units explains the origin of capitalism – the expansion of market participation and of economic growth – in the Western world. It is not by accident that freedom and prosperity first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralisation: in the northern Italian city states, in southern Germany, and in the secessionist Low Countries. 

It is assumed that larger political units – and ultimately a single world government – imply wider markets and hence increased wealth. However, this is untrue. The larger the territories the lower a government’s incentive to continue its domestic liberalism will be because people will lose the possibility of voting with their feet. 

Hence, the argument that the Kurds should not be allowed to secede because they are "communist" is essentially ludicrous. Secession itself will ultimately benefit all involved parties, and if secession becomes standard practice, the vastly increased 'competition of nations' will make communism itself impossible to maintain. Communist statelets will simply be unable to compete.

Finally, the reasoning that secession of "communists" should be prevented because this would trap non-communist Kurds within a communist state is inconsistent and illogical. Anyone who only supports the secession of any region when freedom in that region will increase as a result (and refuses to endorse secession when freedom in the seceding region will decline) is not thinking logically.

Let us consider state A, consisting of provinces B and C. now imagine that B is very freedom-loving, whereas C is very collectivist and totalitarian. they both influence the politics and culture of A, which ends of rather moderate. Now imagine someone supporting the secession of B, because this will lead B to enjoy greater freedom... but opposing the secession of C, because this will cause C to become less free.

This makes no sense. If B secedes and becomes more free, A consists only of C, and becomes less free... which is the exact result of C's own secession! And if C secedes and becomes less free, A consists only of B and becomes more free... the same result as in the case of B's secession!

We are drawn to the inevitable conclusion that almost all secessions will result in either the seceding territory becoming more free and the remnant becoming less so... or the exact reverse. Yet in any case, as Hoppe has explained, secession ultimately increases competition between states and thus aids liberty everywhere. Therefore, secession, regardless of the ideology of the secessionists, is a good thing and ought to be supported by freedom-loving individuals. In the words of Hoppe:

Throughout the entire period of European and, indeed, global unification we have witnessed a steady and dramatic growth of government power, taxation and regulatory expropriation. In the light of social and economic theory and history a very strong case can be made for secession.

A very strong case indeed. One might go so far as to call it irrefutable. Therefore, the Kurds ought to be supported in their struggle for independence. And if the communist Kurds currently living in Turkey form one Kurdish state, and the non-communist Kurds in northern Iraq and syria form a separate state of their own... so much the better! The more competing territories, the greater everyone's share of freedom will ultimately be. In the past, this has worked wonders for Europe. The same applies to the Middle East. Let several Kurdish states emerge! A Yazidi state; a Druze state; an Assyrian state; an Aramaic state; a Lebanese Greek state; a Circassian state... etc. etc.

One may go on forever, splitting the large, artificial states of the present day into smaller and smaller autonomous communities. One may go on forever, but first one must commence. An independent Kurdistan would be an excellent start.


The Facebook thread discussing this article may be found here.

Old Shanghai and all that jazz…

The Shanghai waterfront in the 1930s

Nowadays, Hong Kong is generally viewed as the capitalist bastion in China; the place most friendly to Western interests and economic sensibilities. Back in the day—meaning the period stretching from the 1840s to the early 1940s—that distinction was reserved for Shanghai. The city that would become, for a time, the glamourous and decadent “Paris of the East”. A unique gateway between China and the rest of the world. A turbulent metropolis where East not only met West, but veritably merged with it. Where an old world almost seamlessly transitioned into a new one. More than any other Chinese metropole, Shanghai during this turbulent century drew in businessmen, outlaws, expatriates and adventurers from all over the world. Needless to say, that time and place continue to hold the fond interest of all true romantics.