The burgeoning economy of Mauritius stands out by being ranked 12th by the Heritage Foundation on their 2011 Index of Economic Freedom — just below Chile and just above Luxembourg. The index ranks nations based on freedom in categories such as business, taxes, money, finance, and labor. FULL ARTICLE by Sterling T. Terrell
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15440/mauritius-a-glimmer-of-african-freedom-2/
Mauritius: A Glimmer of African Freedom
Previous post: The Austrian School is the Cause of All the World’s Problems
Next post: Why the Definition of Probability Matters
{ 24 comments }
I enjoyed this article. Prior to reading it, I had never even heard of Mauritius.
One line that I didn’t like was the following:
“Arab and Malay sailors first happened upon Mauritius in the 10th century, but it was not until the 16th century that the West found it.”
I really do not like it when someone refers to the “West” as an entity that can act. The “West,” which the author is perhaps refering to as some combination of European countries, cannot find anything.
The “West,” as best as I can tell, seems to be a reference to some geographical area or to certain groups of people who do not as a collective “find” anything.
How do you exactly define the “West” anyways?
Is the “West” all of the people within a certain geographical area? Is it just people who think a certain way that live in a certain geographical area? Do you have to be born in this area to be a “Westerner” or is ok if you are born outside of the “West” and move into it? What are the actual geographical boundaries of the “West,” and how can this vague concept act?
Sailors can discover new places, politicians can pass laws which declare their government to have power over a colony, but the “West” cannot find anything. I’d really prefer not to see this collectivist langauage in Mises.org articles.
If was a sailor and I was the first American or European to discover an island, it would not be accurate to say that the “West” discovered it. I discovered it.
Seriously? You’re objecting to the very real concept of [and term] “the West?” It has been a feature of history, anthropology, and science for a long time. “The West,” in my opinion, refers to the major states of Europe who share cultural, historical, and religious ties. In any case, “the West” or even “Europe” is a good way to shorten the chain from the first European explorer[s] to reach Mauritius to the last European to find out about it through millions of intermediaries. The author is merely using a slightly colourful phrase to point out that the first European contact with Mauritius happened in the 16th century. Would you object so much if the author had written “…it wasn’t until the 16th century that it became known to the West.”?
It’s very difficult to completely remove old ways of thinking from your mind – especially when it’s a simplification everybody understands. Due to the lack of records(or lack of desire to swim through those records), really the best that can be said is that the island was unknown in western Europe until the sixteenth century.
If beings from outer space landed on the earth, we wouldn’t say they discovered the earth. Try this: european explorers first arrived in mauritania in the 16th century.
FYI – Mauritania != Mauritius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius
It is an old way of thinking, and you’re correct. I think it was more of a time saving tactic.
Articles like this are great. We may need to figure out where to flee!
does Mauritius really count as part of africa? most common religion=Hindu.
Aside from that, I am glad to hear that this tiny country is ranked above the US of A in some categories. Maybe I will run away there when things in the US really start getting bad.
does Mauritius really count as part of africa? most common religion=Hindu
The population is 68% Indian and the rest Creole, so I’d say you’re on to something here.
He is definitely on to something. Mauritius was built by migrant workers from the Indian sub-continent who where lured into the place with exaggerated promises during the time of the British Empire. They where brought in, because slavery was abolished within the British Empire in 1835, which meant willing workers needed to be found to perform the jobs that slaves could be forced to perform before. They must have suffered a lot before they got to where they did today.
There is a similar story going on today. People are still being lured into places with promises no one intends to keep. Not Mauritius or Fiji, but Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Dubai. Low skilled migrants subsisting on next to slave like conditions. They are in the millions – construction workers, cooks and maids – facing every sort of terror imaginable. And they are not just from the Indian-subcontinent anymore.
Africa is geographic, not based on population make-up. Northern Africa is very different from Southern Africa, but both are Africa.
That is part of it, but it is not simple. Geographically speaking Russia is mostly in Asia, but people rarely refer to Asia when they mean Russia. Russia is Russia. Asia seems to be South-East Asia and China. The Middle-East and the Indian sub-continent are geographically part of Asia but are referred to separately. When it comes to the Middle East it gets even more interesting. Turkey is geographically speaking most completely in the Middle East, but is referred to as European. But Egypt is geographically almost fully in Africa (except the Sinai Peninsula), but is considered as part of the Middle East.
I think you are right, KK, that this phrase was just used to make the point that the 16th century was the first point in time when Europeans came into contact with Mauritius. I also suppose that many people do have some sense of what someone is referring to when they mention the “West,” but I try to be as clear as possible with language and try to avoid “colorful phrases” such as these.
To me, the concept of the “West” is not something clearly definable. KK, you refer to the West as “major states of Europe who share cultural, historical, and religious ties.” That definition does not convince me that the West is a clearly definable entity. Which “major states” are included? Are there “minor states” that are in the West as well? If you look up a map of the 16th century Europe and Asia, where would you draw the boundary that demonstrates what is the West? The US is considered by many to be in the West. When did it become part of the West since you did not refer to it in your description which I am assuming referred to the 16th Century.
And while there is evidence of cultural, historical and religious similarities between major states in Europe, there are also cultural, historical and religious differences as well that demonstrate a lack of homogeneity both between different states and within individual ones. (Take the reformation for example. There was predominant religion, Christianity, but it would be hard to argue that that Christianity tied the Europe together during the 16th Century.)
Just because many people have in their minds some concept about what they believe the West to be, that doesn’t make that that concept real in my opinion when the concept is in fact extremely vague.My main point is that the West cannot “find” anything or act in any way. Even if someone clearly defined the West as a particular geographical area between certain boundaries he drew on a map, all the people within this area cannot act collectively.
I do not prefer “it wasn’t until the 16th century that it became known to the West,” as the West cannot “know” anything just as it cannot find anything either. I would have been fine with the statement, “Arab and Malay sailors first happened upon Mauritius in the 10th century, but it was not until the 16th century when the first Europeans discovered it.” (If he had written “when the first Westerners discovered it,” that would still have been an improvement, but something troubles me by the overall vagueness of the term “westerner.”
I might just be over thinking this, but I feel that the use of language is extremely important.
No, you’re correct – wording matters. Eastern Asia was once the Far East, meaning far from the all-important West. Now, Pacific Asia seems more correct.
Wording does matter, and yours is completely at odds with the facts on the ground. Do you seriously think the Berbers, the Hutus, the Tutsis, the Congolese, the Zulus, the Indo-Mauritians, the Creole-Mauritians, the Pygmy tribes, etc., are all just “Africans?” That Africa is nothing more than a place on a map, so if you move there you’re just as “African” as Goodluck Jonathan?
I’m reminded of that infuriating British habit of referring to people as “Asian.” What the hell does that mean–a Turk? A Turkmen? An Armenian? A Han Chinese? A Bengali?
So, are all the Creole-Mauritians the same? Of course not. What you are doing is perhaps worse – everyone in this category is similar – completely ignoring individualism. Sticking to geographic area at least allows for individualism. Your wording forces everyone of whatever person category to be similar. If you are not talking about an individual, then you are generalizing (which we were both doing). Mises would agree – focus on individual human action.
Your wording forces everyone of whatever person category to be similar.
It doesn’t “force” anything; they are similar. They share the same ancestry. They share the same homeland. They’ve generated a common language and culture. They’ve been doing this for a long time, which is why they are a distinct people from the Anglo-Saxons, French, Croats, etc., who’ve been doing the same thing thousands of miles away.
Interesting how your individualism actually ends up reductionist: a round-about denial of human biodiversity.
frank chodorov:
“…neither education, background, nor income can explain either the socialist or the libertarian. Whenever you try any of these criteria you are faced with cases that refute your premise; you find that both types come from penthouses and slums, that they include Ph.D.’s and illiterates. You are driven to the conclusion that if there is a causative principle it must be found somewhere in the makeup of the person rather than in environmental influences.”
sounds like a nature over nurture argument. mozambique may never be mauritius for the same reasons.
http://mises.org/daily/4927
It’s so complex that saying anything other than individuals act is wrong.
I’m a Midwestern US, Caucasian (as much as I can tell) male, and I’m vastly different when compared to a lot of the people I grew up with and who were/are my friends. We don’t all even speak the same first language.
Actually, what I’m saying supports the most biodiversity possible.
Newson
Are an individual’s ideas determined by his or her DNA?
Sione
to sione:
i sure hope not entirely, but certain traits or predispositions may be more common in some populations than others. not just i.q., but things like individualism or clannishness.
just because one country is less “advanced” than another doesn’t say its people are any less happy. each one to his own.
Very interesting. The funny thing is that just today I received a hydroponic ph meter that read “Made in Mauritius”. Weird coincidence.
Yeah, just discovered about them this year. Another interesting thing is that their road system was over congested, so the vast sugar plantations sell road permits for people to cut through the farm roads. So one could say their road system is partially private? One thing I don’t like about them is that their government %GDP debt levels are close to the USA, meaning they will eventually have tax pressures unless they continue to grow a lot. For debt I like Chile better, they have good fiscal and government spending freedom too. Mauritius exports are also mostly to the bankrupt UK and France, yuck, but not a show stopper because commodity markets are global. One thing I like about them (and not Chile) is that english is an official legal system language, even though the local population seems to use mostly french at home.
Anyhow, they are on my short emergency exit strategy list. If I want a tropical pardice they are way up there, if I want an urban metro living Hong Kong is way up there, and if I want something in the middle, it looks like Chile. Other countries like Australia and New Zealand look pretty good on the government debt picture, and are more close culturally and language wise to the USA that I am familiar with, but I don’t trust them on the government entitlement picture.
Bizarre. As a libertarian it saddens me to see the omissions you go through to propagate your world view.
Mauritius might be a model of plurality, governance and democracy. It owes a lot of that to a free trade agreement with India which allow capital gains taxes by Mauritius based companies to be repatriated tax-free. Consequently Mauritius became the tax free haven of choice to funnel money into India. All global banks have significant banking operations here catering to offshore entities that invest in India.
Absent that Mauritius would be no different than Maldives. Look it up and compare the two – the $8,000 per capita difference can be attributed to the financial secor.
Interesting… do you have any resources on that, arbittrage?
Comments on this entry are closed.