Is colonialism really such a bad thing?

[fushigi]

Traveling throughout China, I can't help notice that the best cities are the ones where developed nations had the greatest colonial influence: Hong Kong and Shanghai had the British, Macau had the Portuguese, Qingdao had the Germans, Harbin had the Russians AND the Japanese, and Beijing had all of them and more. Outside these cities, for the most part you see poverty and backwards traditions. So I started to wonder: in some cases, is colonialism really such a bad thing?

So I looked up some data, and found this report on colonialism of island nations:

The number of years spent as a European colony is strongly positively related to the island's GDP per capita and negatively related to infant mortality.

It's just one case, and I'm sure more examples will come up. Obviously, the conditions in colonialism were always different.

Furthermore, I want to be clear when I say I'm not advocating colonialism in any way. I'm merely arguing that in some cases, colonialism may have had a net positive effect on the colonized peoples.

[Technosoul]

Normally places that are the cities are better developed and near the ports and so that is where the businesses set up camp which produece the wealthy few and they in turn create a more modern looking environment. The other areas are remote or for farming purposes, normally. As I recall from history books China was pretty advanced in the pre-pioneering days, they traded with England and sold them tea, silk, noodles, spieces, and so forth, and that is why the Mayflower was seekng a short cut to the far east. In other words England, Spain, and France did not modernize the world with their colonialism. India was also once a very advanced nation in their prime time long before England forced them into submission.

So lets look at all the places where colonialism were established and you tell me which ones can report excellent health conditions of lack of poverty.

Costa Rica.
Mexico.
Panama.
South Africa.
Veit Nam
India
Irag
Most of South America
New Zealand
Ireland
Washington D.C.
Canada

[gw120]

Colonialism essentially, is a bad thing. On occasion it can have good, long term out come, but always for the people living in the colonizing community, it sucks balls. For example, in the places you stated, the out come wasn't bad, but colonization probably wasn't necessary for that to occur, also the colonizers left those places, as far as I know, there's not a huge white population in those places. Not to mention in a lot of places where colonization occured, the colonized race isn't there any more, and are often exterminated, put into genocide, or, at bare minimum, mistreated. Like when they start giving the colinized race blankets infected with small pox.

Also:
Costa Rica. - bad outcome
Mexico. - bad outcome
Panama. - bad outcome
South Africa. - bad outcome
Veit Nam - not sure about current conditions
India - bad outcome (as far as I'm aware)
Irag - bad outcome
Most of South America - bad outcome
New Zealand - no clue
Ireland - decent outcome
Washington D.C. - bad outcome
Canada - decent outcome (exceptions being parts of Toronto & Vancouver)

[Technosoul]

Okay, the first post mentioned parts of China, or perhaps Japan.

Today I was at a garage sale and found a veggie dish made in "occupied Japan" - Rose China company.

Japan - Great outcome, but is Japan widely populated by white people? Or is Honk Kong populated by White people?

None the less, with possible exception of Eastern Island, all the good "tourest traps" of Islanders have fairly large white populations, tourests and also businessmen. I think Patrick Henry lives over there, perhaps he knows more about what is happening on the islands?

Now the Island of Cuba was not doing so great when the island was populated and dominated by the underworld gangsters from America, and has not recovered due to other reasons since (embargos, etc.). It was once a tourest place with gambling and positution as their calling card. And the cigar of course.

Look at America in general, it seems to have had a great outcome, but not so much for the Native Americans who dwelled here upon the arrival of the White Man's influence.

Colonialism is the product of an Empire with the objective of taxing other nations which can create "debt slaves". Taxing other nations was a idea used to enlarge a kingdom or Empire. In the days of Jesus the Jews paid taxes to Rome, and this policy has continued in the name of Ceasar ever since, our forefathers in America broke that historical trend at the Boston tea party. But taxing other nations rebounded in other forms.

[Keith Hamburger]

Everyone in this discussion, thus far, has made some very basic errors in this discussion.

One big issue is how to define a "good" vs. a "bad" outcome. You have all made the quintessential error that is almost always made in such evaluations. You are judging "good" and "bad" outcomes using purely modern, Western standards. That may, or may not, be a valid measure, but it is not the only measure possible.

Many of the colonizers of the third world were missionaries. Their goal was to "bring God to the heathens". By that measure, many of the colonized areas which have been discussed, thus far, had VERY successful outcomes. Before colonization, the indigenous populations had never heard of the Christian God. Today, most of the people in those areas, in particular the Pacific islanders and Latin Americans are Christians of one sort or another. By the measure of the European missionaries, the outcome of colonization was positive.

By measures of population densities, GDP, literacy, infant mortality and other health metrics, and many other Western type measurements, the outcomes of colonization in virtually all parts of the world have been positive. Most of them haven't kept up with the colonizing countries, but they are ahead of where they were before. There are a lot of issues with how that colonization took place but virtually all of those former colonies are better off than they were 100-300+ years ago.

But, do either of these measures mean that the overall outcome was good?

The first, the only way to tell is to die. If the colonized peoples die and find out that the Christian missionaries were right, then, I guess the outcome is better. If they find out the missionaries were wrong, however, then the outcome is worse. They wasted their entire lives following an introduced belief that wasn't true. Perhaps the beliefs they had before that have been all but wiped out were true, or closer to the truth, than Christianity. In that case colonization wasn't simply worse for the indigenous populations but worse for the entire world.

On the second, there is a lot that is dependent on point of view. Perhaps it was "better', by the locals method of measurement, to live in a world that was more harsh but overall had less stress and worry. Perhaps it would be better for all if we had smaller populations, unfortunately subject to disease with a short lifespan, but that was overall happier and more relaxed. Perhaps living in relative poverty, but closer to nature, had greater value to the conquered peoples than the system that was forced upon them that gave them relative wealth and health.

We really can't give a clear answer to any of these questions.

Nor can we tell, as most libertarians would claim, if the same benefits, at lower costs, could have been acheived through open trade and dialogue, rather than conquest. Perhaps by teaching those in other regions about how we lived our lives, and learning from them how they lived theirs, we could have reached a synthesis that was overall better than anything that was achieved by forcing them to submit to a single way of life.

Overall I would contend that colonization resulted in a number of bad outcomes for a lot of different reasons. But, it is impossible to tell if the world, as a whole, is a better or worse place because of it. Or even, in most cases, if the populations of those countries are better or worse.

Most of the deaths in the Americas, after the "discovery" of the New World, were due to introduced diseases. Sometimes those diseases were introduced intentionally, but usually not. And, even if the Europeans had come with purely peaceful intentions to teach, to trade and to learn, the end result would have been much the same. Millions would have died due to diseases they had no resistance to. Eventually, even if the migrations or Europeans to the Americas had been as equals wishing to utilize previously unused or underused resources, and no violence had occured between the immigrants and the existing populations, the final result would be much the same. Certainly we would have a stronger population of "Native Americans" treated as equals in these lands, but there would probably have been more intermixing of the populations and far fewer "pure" indigenous peoples.

We could have avoided a lot of bloodshed and strife, but it is unlikely that the final results would have been drastically different.

(this could go on and on, perhaps I should stop now and see where the discussion heads)

Keith

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Everyone in this discussion, thus far, has made some very basic errors in this discussion. One big issue is how to define a "good" vs. a "bad" outcome. You have all made the quintessential error that is almost always made in such evaluations. You are judging "good" and "bad" outcomes using purely modern, Western standards. That may, or may not, be a valid measure, but it is not the only measure possible.

Thank you.


Most people are completely blind to their own cultural bias.

[Nono]

What Keith says is very true, but doesn't get us anywhere. No kidding we all have cultural biases, and no kidding "good" and "bad" aren't surgically precise terms.

One consideration is that national boundaries are invariably dictated by colonial boundaries, which for a hell of a lot of countries (especially in Africa) is part of the problem.

Quote by: gw ]Costa Rica. - bad outcome

Care to elaborate?

Canada - decent outcome (exceptions being parts of Toronto & Vancouver)

What parts are those? And why?

Quote by: Tech Veit Nam

Tech blew it here and, typically of him, misspelled the name. Viet Nam today conforms largely to its precolonial borders, i.e. as it was settled by an invading Confucian, Chinese-influenced people who drove the indigenous inhabitants up into the mountains. In fact, under the French it was divided into several different colonies.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Nono What Keith says is very true, but doesn't get us anywhere. No kidding we all have cultural biases, and no kidding "good" and "bad" aren't surgically precise terms.

Of course it doesn't get us anywhere. Which was my entire point. It's not possible to get anywhere with such an analysis. There is no universal better or worse because there is no single, consistent outcome from colonization. Even if there were, the examples given in the OP don't tell us what is better or what is worse. Sure, there's a lot of poverty in rural China compared to urban China, but, is that better or worse? From our myopic point of view, it's worse to be poor. But, is that the real answer? A lot of Americans, even, would like to get away from the "rat-race" and have a bucolic, pastoral life. Many would even trade longevity for such a life. Does that make them wrong?

Quote by: Nono One consideration is that national boundaries are invariably dictated by colonial boundaries, which for a hell of a lot of countries (especially in Africa) is part of the problem.

And, this is a valid point. Even more to the point would be the Middle East, and Iraq and Isreal in particular. It's probably possible to state that colonization had a negative effect in such cases. But, this only applies if tribal ties remain strong and this redrawing of boundaries stays fresh in the memories of those affected. Does this mean that such is a negative effect of colonization or is this a negative effect of tribalism? Is nationalism, in opposition to tribalism, the ultimate problem?

Sure, we can look at individual instances and point to good and bad outcomes, but we're still biased by our own view. There are always opposing values and some good things in one value system might be a bad thing in another.

All in all, however, I do have to say that only by allowing people to live as free as possible from external interference, even by their own governments and neighbors, let alone from imposition of outside controls, can we all hope to realize the greatest return based on our own value systems. My government can NEVER understand everything that is important to me to allow me to maximize my own happiness. Another countries government damn well doesn't stand a chance.

Keith

[Alive]

The places which were colonized earliest and therefore longest were presumably already the most attractive places. Perhaps that is the cause of their current success rather than colonization.

In the new world colonialism was inarguably a bad thing for the natives, and probably in Africa too. In China, India, and some other places it might have had a beneficial overall effect.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Many of the colonizers of the third world were missionaries. Their goal was to "bring God to the heathens". By that measure, many of the colonized areas which have been discussed, thus far, had VERY successful outcomes. Before colonization, the indigenous populations had never heard of the Christian God. Today, most of the people in those areas, in particular the Pacific islanders and Latin Americans are Christians of one sort or another. By the measure of the European missionaries, the outcome of colonization was positive.

The European missionaries were part of the colonial projects in the Pacific and Latin America. Of course they would view their activities "positively." But it's debatable that the introduction of the Christian god, and the destruction of indigenous religions and cultures, were "positive" to the indigenous peoples. Many people died after the missionaries introduced new diseases or were "assisted" by European militaries in the pacification of "heathen" areas.

[yourwrong]

Quote by: The Decider The European missionaries were part of the colonial projects in the Pacific and Latin America. Of course they would view their activities "positively." But it's debatable that the introduction of the Christian god, and the destruction of indigenous religions and cultures, were "positive" to the indigenous peoples. Many people died after the missionaries introduced new diseases or were "assisted" by European militaries in the pacification of "heathen" areas.

.
Keith Hamburger war not referring to postives and negatives of colinization he was more referring to that colonatizion is good or bad depending on who you ask. As colonization like anything has avantages and
disadvantages. Keith Hamburger was not arguing that colonization is right or wrong. I personally am against colonization because no country has any right to tell other countrys how to run their country or what religion they should be. For no nation has enough proof to verify there religion.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: yourwrong Keith Hamburger war not referring to postives and negatives of colinization he was more referring to that colonatizion is good or bad depending on who you ask. As colonization like anything has avantages and disadvantages. Keith Hamburger was not arguing that colonization is right or wrong. I personally am against colonization because no country has any right to tell other countrys how to run their country or what religion they should be. For no nation has enough proof to verify there religion.

Yes and no. That was the primary point that whether colonization is positive or negative depends on your perspective (not necessarily "who you ask"). I think that, if you had read fully through my post and the subsequent one, you would find that I think that colonization is bad. Hell, being a libertarian I don't even want my own government to tell me what to do. What makes you think I would support another government telling someone half the world away to tell someone what to do?

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: The Decider The European missionaries were part of the colonial projects in the Pacific and Latin America. Of course they would view their activities "positively." But it's debatable that the introduction of the Christian god, and the destruction of indigenous religions and cultures, were "positive" to the indigenous peoples. Many people died after the missionaries introduced new diseases or were "assisted" by European militaries in the pacification of "heathen" areas.

Again, if you were to read my post fully, in order to find out if introduction of the Christian God is positive, you have to die. Of course the missionaries thought it to be positive, but, seeing as how they were alive when they took their actions they didn't really know if it was or not.

Also, in my post, I pointed out that the deaths through disease were pretty much inevitable. In these areas (and many others subject to colonization) the majority of deaths were due to introduced diseases. Yes, there were some no small number of deaths through "pacification", but the overwhelming majority were from the introduced diseases. Seeing as how contact between cultures was inevitable, those deaths could not have been avoided. Even traders with the best of intentions would have lead to the same results.

Sure, the Europeans could have treated the indigenous populations better, and we could have ended up with more empowered natives. However, the large number of deaths could not have been avoided short of the utopian fantasy of not having the Europeans arrive in the New World at all.

Keith

[gw120]

What parts are those? And why?

It's not huge parts, it's just a couple neighborhoods, in Vancouver there's Downtown Eastside (which is a pretty big part of the city) East Van (depending on who you ask). And Toronto's got Jane&Finch, and Scarborough. Most of Canada though had a good outcome.

[yourwrong]

I did not think you were for colonization. I thought you were more unbiased and supported or were against colonization based on the circumstances. I was not arguing with you I was merely telling The Decider the reason for your passage and stating my opinion. I never stated you were for or against colonization. Sorry you took it that way.

[yourwrong]

I did not think you were for colonization. I thought you were more unbiased and supported or were against colonization based on the circumstances. I was not arguing with you I was merely telling The Decider the reason for your passage and stating my opinion. I never stated you were for or against colonization. Sorry you took it that way. Stop replying

[fushigi]

Keith, I get what you mean about countries having relative standards for what is "good" and "bad," but it's hard to argue against indicators like life expectancy and infant mortality, which have risen for primitive people in the wake of colonization.

Countries where constant warfare was simply a part of life - such as among the Maori, Australian Aboriginals, and peoples from some parts of sub-Saharan Africa (such as South Africa) now enjoy relative security. That certainly is a good thing. I would also note that these places - in contrast to areas such as India/Pakistan, Congo/Uganda, and the Middle East - are places where the white people STAYED (i.e.colonization went on longer), which seems to me to be an argument FOR sustained colonization (as the article in the OP also states.)

Again, you might say it'd be better for these people - whose lives have grown longer, healthier, and more peaceful - to be "free," but I wonder if they would agree?

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't see much good in colonization.

[fushigi]

Osborn, to have an opinion you have to have some kind of reason to back it up. If you don't state the reason, it sounds more like a belief.

Beliefs are uninformed and by their very nature nonconstructive for debate.

[Osborn F Enready]

I was being obtuse to provoke direct questioning as to why I feel that way.

I feel more compelled to answer completely when the questions are clear and direct.

While I agree with some of what you said, mainly that "in some cases, net positive effect may be measured", it does not mean I would adopt, condone or support any type of the idea based on other lines of logic that would preclude it becoming a valid option.... to me.