The Beautiful Colonial History

He states, in a recorded clip: “The British, French, Belgian, and Portuguese colonialism went berserk in our lands. But there is no comparison between the British and the French, as the latter killed 15 million people in Algeria during its revolution, and thus he was savage. As for the British, they did not do the same, except that they were savage in Palestine and gave our land to those who did not deserve it. They were savage in India, and did even worse in other countries (!!!). However, the Gulf states had a special status, as the British did not kill a single person there, nor did they steal their gold, as they did with other countries; thus, each case has its own ruling... and so on, this strange talk continues. He goes on to say that the British did not commit crimes in the Gulf, but rather wanted it as a secure passage from India and Australia to Europe. Then came oil, and they became partners in development. Refineries were built in Ahmadi. They gave us investment advantages that were not available to any foreigner, so why do we lump them in with British colonialism in Palestine? That has its own ruling, and our situation has another ruling; the process is not a blanket statement (???). And when we use the label ‘colonialism,’ we confuse matters, as they contributed to the development of Kuwait, Oman, and Aden, which during their ‘colonialism’ was the hub of all the world’s ports (exactly as stated). All the world’s goods passed through it. And when they left, the Communists occupied it. He says that the word ‘colonialism’ has been demonized; the word means ‘development’ (and thus it is not a demonic word), nor is it repulsive, but rather a beautiful word, because they built streets and refineries. *** It is difficult to respond to this logic in a few words; it requires dozens. One cannot reduce the colonial history of any country, in all its ugliness, to a name or definition. If the meaning of the word is beautiful, it is beautiful, even if the owner of the history is criminal. And if it is ugly, it is ugly, even if the owner of the history is great and honorable. This is indeed a ridiculous justification and explanation. Even more strange is viewing matters from the angle of our own interests, blatantly ignoring the suffering of dozens of countries under colonial rule, and the rivers of blood shed to maintain their occupation and exploitation of those countries. It is truly absurd to consider one party good and beautiful simply because it was not savage toward me, despite all its crimes over hundreds of years against dozens of countries around the world. It is also ridiculous to claim that they were not savage in their dealings with the Gulf, as they were with other countries they colonized. This statement is insulting to Gulf countries, because savagery usually results from resistance to colonial rule; total submission does not produce any savagery. As for citing the ‘positive’ role of the British in Aden, and that its port passed through ‘the goods of the world,’ this involves great exaggeration, and does not mean it was honorable colonialism. They left Aden without schools, universities, freedoms, a parliament, or political leaders. It was natural for Communists to fill the vacuum left by colonial rule, because they failed to create a ruling political class or a dignified, free life; this was never their role. Britain ruled India for two hundred years with the smallest number of soldiers, and its most important weapon was pitting one group against another, ensuring safety from the evil of all. When they left, India fragmented into several states. The response is long, and the subject is complex and painful. What we see is the justification of colonial crimes and attempts to beautify its already terrible image, simply because their role, according to the meaning of their name, lies in developing the countries they rule. It was also strange that the speaker forgot what the British ‘Percy Cox’ did to us in Al-Awairi in 1922. He, who held many important positions with the support of a well-known party, was supposed to have a fairer and more mature vision, but greed for social media... Ahmed Al-Sarraf