Liberal paternalists justified colonial despotism as preparation for self-government.

Evidence

The Fabians in the Labour government were the inheritors of the utilitarianism and paternalism of the nineteenth-century liberal J. S. Mill, who famously declared that despotism was legitimate in governing those he termed ‘barbarians’ – ‘provided the end be their improvement’. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 244

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s work on human-rights discourse: this is the classic colonial ‘civilising mission’ structure that human rights critiques (e.g. postcolonial theory) attack. — connects to: Colonial powers justified intervention by portraying colonized subjects as incapable of self-understanding — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 694; Colonial rule justified itself by keeping the ruled unfit to rule — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 571; Colonial reformers’ ethical indignation coexisted with colonial privilege (+4 more)
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: how directly did this Millian paternalism thread survive into post-WWII institutions like the UN’s trusteeship system?

Broader Connections

• Colonial powers justified intervention by portraying colonized subjects as incapable of self-understanding #expands (0.90) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 694
• British liberals justified imperial rule by infantilizing Indian subjects #exemplifies (0.90)
• Colonial rule justified itself by keeping the ruled unfit to rule #corroborates (0.85) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 571
• Colonial rule frames subject peoples as wards needing Western paternal judgment #expands (0.85) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 120
• Key human rights drafters combined universalist rhetoric with colonial paternalism #exemplifies (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 269
• French officials justified colonial rule as wisely progressive rather than disruptive #exemplifies (0.80)
• Colonial reformers’ ethical indignation coexisted with colonial privilege #qualifies (0.75)