Is colonialism really such a bad thing?

[fushigi]

Well, lower infant mortality is a good thing; higher GDP per capita certainly is too IMO. Of course, the study mentioned compares colonies where the whites stayed LONGER vs. those where they took off earlier, but it still seems to provide compelling evidence that these two indicators would be positively affected by colonial influence.

[Keith Hamburger]

You are showing your biases here. Even if you can't see them, they are there.

Quote by: fushigi Well, lower infant mortality is a good thing.

Always? What about the impact on the environment through higher population growths?

This is a bias from the Western religious background that all human life is of value and is sacred. Note that I'm not saying that I don't share this value to a large degree, but it is not necessarily universal. There is value, even in our Western system of values, to having lower populations with overall higher productivity.

Quote by: fushigi higher GDP per capita certainly is too IMO.

At least here you admit that this is your opinion.

There is a lot to indicate that people can live happier lives without the "rat-race" of Western civilization to produce/consume/produce day in and day out. As I have stated before, many people, even in our own culture, are happy to produce less and reduce stress and live overall happier lives.

This is still a measure of "better" in a biased world-view.

Quote by: fushigi Of course, the study mentioned compares colonies where the whites stayed LONGER vs. those where they took off earlier, but it still seems to provide compelling evidence that these two indicators would be positively affected by colonial influence.

And, neither of these measures, nor any others, could be considered absolutes. This is where all of my issues with governments imposing values statements on others arises. There are no absolutes in terms of values. The government has no means of determining what I value, only I can do that. The government can never serve to maximize my values, not to rank my values as better or worse than anyone elses, because they don't know what I value. Only I can do that and do the best I can to meet my own values without directly and physically interfering with any one else's attempts to do the same.

Keith

[xyzer]

I agree somewhat with Kieths question..and can only add what the criteria and who defines it?
Throught the history of humankind there are all sorts of instances of the conquest and occupation or various countries. The indirect consequences have been bad and good for the people. Some areas were enslaved and exploited by their conquerers, others liberatewd from conquerers.

I think most of us think only in terms of recent colonial expansion in Africa and South America though Japan occupied China and Korea. Some of the colonial occupations proved beneficial to the local populace..gave them and infrastructure and a cadre of civil servants who could run a government?

What happened after the occupiers pulled out was in Africa particularly a return to the tribal anarchy thatat had previously existed and then the destruction of the infrastructure established rapidly occured.. I think we tend to blame the colonial occupiers for the chaos that followed their pull out...But it really rests with those who took over after they left. example Mugabe in Zimbabwe

[rmnunez]

Aspects of colonialism are bad (genocide, exploitation, slavery...), but there are positive effects too. Colonies acquire technology, institutions are transfered, certain beneficial practices established. Whether Mexico, or any other place, benefited from colonial subyugation is hard to tell. What would the place be like had the colonists never arrived? Would they have evolved differently without those centuries of colonial occupation? Would another sort of relationship with the colonists have allowed them to better retain cultural practices? In most cases where we can find isolated indigenous communities unaffected by colonists, they are marginal groups subsisting in harsh conditions.

[Nono]

Quote by: gw Toronto's got Jane&Finch, and Scarborough. Most of Canada though had a good outcome.

Scarborough? (Or "Scarberia" as it's known to some.) So what's special (especially undesirable) about these places?

[castille]

A somewhat better alternative to colonialism would simply be trade. All the benefits (technology, sharing ideas, multiculturalism), without the disadvantages (well...pretty obvious).

[Technosoul]

This is sort of like saying that war is a good thing because weapon inventions led to other peaceful inventions that aided humanity, like when people say that the A-bomb resulted in nuclear energy plants.

I for one do not agree with that line of logic. I do not think that a nation should expand it's empire into another country and claim it as their own just because they are more powerful then the people they tramp upon. If the place was empty of people then that would be a different situation. But to justify a wrong for any reason still does not justifiy that wrong as being 'something good".

It is somewhat the lastest fad to try to put a positive spin on something tragic, like when a child dies due to some preditor and so the parents organize a program or get a new law passed in the name of the victimized child, as if that would turn the death into something of value for the rest of the world. I for one do not agree with the concept of trying to turn wrong into a good by giving it a positive spin. Something bad is just flat bad and should remain that way in our thinking.

Good comes from good and evil comes from evil... according to Buddist philosophy and not the other way around. So that also is my moral objection to tag on to my opinon.

[castille]

Quote by: Technosoul This is sort of like saying that war is a good thing because weapon inventions led to other peaceful inventions that aided humanity, like when people say that the A-bomb resulted in nuclear energy plants.

War has created a lot of useful inventions. Canned food, the internet, communications technologies, etc. Some could argue war keeps humans sharp for future conflicts.

I do not think that a nation should expand it's empire into another country and claim it as their own just because they are more powerful then the people they tramp upon.

Does that mean you disagree with the existence of the US, Germany, France, Spain, Egypt, Morocco...and nearly every single country in the world? Most modern-day states were the result of conquest.

There is no right or wrong about conquest - there just "is".

[fushigi]

Quote by: castille War has created a lot of useful inventions. Canned food, the internet, communications technologies, etc. Some could argue war keeps humans sharp for future conflicts.

In the sense that war is just a mass, violent form of competition, yes. But I think it's competition that motivates people, not war. Trade wars can be just as motivational as shooting wars to give governments, militaries, inventors, and scientists the incentive to create; if that weren't true, how would you explain the tens of thousands of great patents that have been created without the motivation of war?

In that same sense, colonialism wasn't NECESSARY for the countries listed in the study to reach development; it was merely one step along the road towards development.

Nevertheless, as someone mentioned earlier, the devastation that resulted from western "discovery" of native peoples probably would have taken place whether they had set out to colonize them or not.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Expansionism via agreeable colonisation is generaly a good thing.

however few enjoy such a dynamic change in their.

Colonisation by force often requires tremendous resources and a very ignorant populace who are happy to allow their government to take over another country. Unless of course it will profit large organisations or enable access to riches which would otherwise be unattenable.

Perhaps Europe should reconsider regaining their colonies :)

Quote by: gw120 Most of Canada though had a good outcome.

Not if you were an aboriginal.

Regards
S.

[DEEJ85]

Exactly.

If you are one of the invaders then of course conquering another country has a good outcome.

What about if you ask those who were displaced or conquered?
would they say that they are glad they were conquered? No they might say they appreciate the technology or development that resulted from it. but those results can be applied through other methods.

There is a right and wrong about conquest. It depends who you ask, If you ask those defending their home then yes it is wrong, But if you ask the invaders then of course they are going to say its a good and okay think to do.

If someone invaded the U.S. (or wherever you live) would you just accept it as what "is" or would you feel that you are being wronged by the invading force? Would this invading force have the right to force their rule over you?

[BobbyO]

There is nothing evil or extraordinary about colonialism. History would be unimaginable without colonialism of the Greeks, The Romans, the British ect ect. There is good colonialism and bad colonialism. But those standards should not be based upon the opinions of those who were colonised.

[Keith Hamburger]

Perhaps everyone who has posted in the past couple of days should read through the discussion that has taken place thus far. It's been fewer than 40 posts, it wouldn't take that long to go through it.

Keith

[rmnunez]

We live in a world governed by western models. The nation-state, atributes and responsibilities of government, how the people should live, what rights they are recognized to have. This model has benefited many, but it was definitely something imposed from abroad. Would the indigenous communities subyugated to imperial interests have fared better if left alone?

What would Africa or South America be like nowadays if colonists from Europe had only arrived after the UN declared self-determination a Universal Right? Would they subsist in controlled environmental preserves to marvel visiting tourists with their folklore and ecological sensitivity?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: rmnunez We live in a world governed by western models. The nation-state, atributes and responsibilities of government, how the people should live, what rights they are recognized to have. This model has benefited many, but it was definitely something imposed from abroad. Would the indigenous communities subyugated to imperial interests have fared better if left alone? What would Africa or South America be like nowadays if colonists from Europe had only arrived after the UN declared self-determination a Universal Right? Would they subsist in controlled environmental preserves to marvel visiting tourists with their folklore and ecological sensitivity?

What would the world be like today if the Aztecs, or the Japanese, or the Zulus, had colonised Europe? Had they the technical means, they most certainly would.

[rmnunez]

Had any other empire or empires done the colonization I'd expect democracy would not be as prevalent around the world. Empires are extended monarchies, the European ones colonizing eventually adopted democratic processes and these in turn were transfered to their colonies.