Being a history buff, I have read all sorts of “justifications” for colonialism, including Niall Ferguson’s book Empire, in which he claims British imperialism modernized the world,1 and Bruce Gilley’s controversial article “The case for colonialism,” in which he presents a full-throated justification for the practice.2 But the commentary by Suman Seth (Physics Today, December 2022, page 10) is the first piece that I’ve read that seems to glorify colonialism by linking it to scientific advances.
Seth states, “It is hard to imagine what much of modern science would have looked like without colonialism.” Such a statement should be accompanied by a mention of the fact that under colonialism hundreds of millions of people lost their lives, many colonies were looted, and slavery flourished—the consequences of which we still live with today.
Are we supposed to look more fondly on colonialism because some scientific advances may have been delayed a bit in its absence? Before considering where science would be without colonialism, one should consider colonialism’s devastating impacts. Colonialism killed more than 50 million native people in the Americas.3 King Leopold II’s rule over the Congo Free State is associated with the deaths of 5 million to 10 million people, though it was possibly many more.4 Under British rule, India experienced 165 million excess deaths between 1880 and 1920.5 An estimated 125 000 to 400 000 civilians died in the First Indochina War, which was fought for liberation from France. Algerian sources say 1.5 million lives were lost in that country’s war of liberation against France. And such statistics do not even reflect the cultural genocide that occurred.
It is shameful to imply colonialism was justified for any reason—and that includes its connection to scientific advances.
