Thanks, I mostly agree.
But even in colonialism, individual traits played a role. For example, compare King Leopold II’s rule over the Congo Free State vs. other colonial regimes.
While all colonialism was exploitative, under Leopold’s personal rule the Congo saw extraordinarily brutal policies, e.g., his rubber quota system led soldiers to torture and cut off the hands of workers, including children, who failed to meet quotas. Under his rule,1.5-15 million Congolese people died—the total population was only around 15 to 20 million. The brutality was so extreme that it caused public outrage which led other colonial powers to intervene until the Belgian government took control over the Congo Free State from Leopold.
Compare this to, say, British colonial administration during certain periods which, while still overall morally reprehensible, saw much less barbaric policies under some administrators who showed basic compassion for indigenous people. For instance, Governor William Bentinck in India abolished practices like sati (widows burning themselves alive) and implemented other humanitarian reforms.
One can easily find other examples (e.g. sadistic slave owners vs. more compassionate slave owners).
In conclusion, I totally agree that power imbalances enabled systemic exploitation regardless of individual temperament. But individual traits significantly affected how much suffering and death that exploitation created in practice.[1]
- ^
Also, slavery and colonialism were ultimately abolished (in the Western world). My guess is that those who advocated for these reforms were, on average, more compassionate and less malevolent than those who tried to preserve these practices. Of course, the reformers were also heavily influenced by great ideas like the Enlightenment / classic liberalism.
Hm, I don’t think so. What about Lincoln, JFK, Roosevelt, Marcus Aurelius, Adenauer, etc.?