Good Colonialism?

[Anmon]

Exactly, whether or not might is right or not, it still ultimately decides who gets what.
This why the UN is a joke, because it has no might.
If there were millions of people in the world who would fight for its ideals, then it would have some teeth, but the only place people will fight hard for is their own country and its interests, not someone else's, unless they are a close ally.

[lsbskins1]

The issue is not if power will be exploited, the issue is if in exploiting power, you create more problems than you solve for yourself. Think of colonial powers like parents. Do you really serve your own interests if you raise your children by beating them when they talk back, tying them to chairs when they won't sit down on command and taking all their toys to play with yourself? Aren't you just raising a child that will try to beat you down the first chance it gets? So what if you gave it food and bought the house they live in? So what? You set yourself up to reap the whirlwind. Behaving as if your own actions bear no consequence is stupid and does not serve your own long term interests, period.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Dagda There seems to be a misconception among some that the old Brittish Empire(and, indeed the French, Spanish or even American one) created in its colonies some good. This is idiotic. Not only did many come under Imperial sway by armed conflict(never good) they raped the local reasources and destroyed local culture. Even after the colonials left, they left basketcase economies. No-where do I see benifits of Imperialism that outweigh the down side. That is why I think an Empire can never be a force of good.

It depends on your perspective. Your own country of Scotland placed massive pressure upon the English to join together as a single unit because of the massive benefits to Scots, particularly in terms of trade. Few towns, for example, did better than Glasgow out of Atlantic trade.

[stevemckay]

Quote by: Dagda There seems to be a misconception among some that the old British Empire(and, indeed the French, Spanish or even American one) created in its colonies some good. This is idiotic. Not only did many come under Imperial sway by armed conflict(never good) they raped the local resources and destroyed local culture. Even after the colonials left, they left basketcase economies. No-where do I see benefits of Imperialism that outweigh the down side. That is why I think an Empire can never be a force of good.

Why the Euro-American guilt here? History is chock full of Empires. The Egyptian Empire, The Roman Empire, The Ottoman Empire, The Aztec Empire, The Mayan Empire, The Inca Empire... etc. Why are you focused on the most recent examples to make your point?

Yes... each one has caused considerable damage to local resources and culture but on the other hand we may not be as advanced (if you call this advanced) or as connected as we are now without it.

The fact is that whether you are human, chimpanzee or even the apparently lowly ant... Building an "Empire" seems to be an evolutionary fact of civilization. In this I agree with Anmon. Sorry Anmon... not to say you believe in evolution of any sort.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: stevemckay Why the Euro-American guilt here? History is chock full of Empires. The Egyptian Empire, The Roman Empire, The Ottoman Empire, The Aztec Empire, The Mayan Empire, The Inca Empire... etc. Why are you focused on the most recent examples to make your point? Yes... each one has caused considerable damage to local resources and culture but on the other hand we may not be as advanced (if you call this advanced) or as connected as we are now without it. The fact is that whether you are human, chimpanzee or even the apparently lowly ant... Building an "Empire" seems to be an evolutionary fact of civilization. In this I agree with Anmon. Sorry Anmon... not to say you believe in evolution of any sort.

I don't know about anyone else, but my point is not that Empire is uniquely Western or that we Western-European people are somehow worse than anyone else. My point is that we have to honestly access the results of our behavior as humans. Humans are uniquely capable of destroying our environment and uniquely capable of destroying ourselves. Just because "others" are guilty of the same offense does not mean we should be less critical of the offense in ourselves. If we keep committing the same errors, we will keep causing the same disasters. What is wrong with asking people to learn and adapt? I may get caustic when someone implies that "we" advanced, superhuman, Western-European culture bearing individuals have brought so much greatness and advancement to the world that "we" should be wrapped in glory and have laurel wreaths placed on our heads, but that is not because I think we are really shit. It is because I believe that we are just as human as anyone else and that everyone else is just as human as we are.

[xyzer]

Though I don't think colonialism was the right way to go, I do see some benefits to the countries colonized. Benefits in infrastructure and the establishment of the governmental civil service structure which could overcome tribalism, paticularly in some African countries.

Rhodesia was also an example of how advanced agricultural methods could enrich a country. Problem is that after WW2 when public outcry forced the withdrawal of the European elements in these societies many deteriorated into chaos. Even those that had been taught well and left in good condition deteriorated into chaos and for the most part are still backward. Zimbabwe is a good example. South Africa survived and seems to have benefited. Most of the rest of the countries(India excepted) have reverted to tribalism and chaotic instability..

So, while I disagree with the concept of colonialism I do feel it gave some backward countries a quicker chance to enter the modern world and possibly prosper/ For example. Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, India,

[Dagda]

It depends on your perspective. Your own country of Scotland placed massive pressure upon the English to join together as a single unit because of the massive benefits to Scots, particularly in terms of trade. Few towns, for example, did better than Glasgow out of Atlantic trade.

For the record, I'm a nationalist.
Also, your history is wrong. Although Scotland did well out of union, Scotland did NOT want to join. After union, there were years of mass riots and the act only ever passed because the unelected assembly of lords saw it as there option after the disasterous Darian Adventure.

[Chris the Chees]

Also, your history is wrong.

The masses certainly were, initally, against the union (though not later); but they didn't count. The only opinion that did count came from the upper orders of Scottish and English society, and they most certainly did want union and the former were directly responsible for it.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Chris the Chees The masses certainly were, initally, against the union (though not later); but they didn't count. The only opinion that did count came from the upper orders of Scottish and English society, and they most certainly did want union and the former were directly responsible for it.

Ah the joys of the franchise of the few

The surity of our betters being able to do what they thought was a "good" thing for the masses

Back to colnial epressions and empires .... do we not think that in these days of global trading and companies new empires are being carefully forged regardless of nation states and that some countries are using trade to drain the skills and resources of others?

[SoylentGreen]

Arawn-ap-Hywelnew empires are being carefully forged regardless of nation states

Yea, you just keep on believing that your corrupt capitalist empires will continue regardless of the socialist nation states like China and New Zea land's carefully forged FTAs.

that some countries are using trade to drain the skills and resources of others?

No, countries use trade to exchange skills and resources according to demand and supply. It's only corrupt capitalist empires like Nike or Walt Disney that use sweat shops .

[BobbyO]

The British Empire was not a force for good in southern Asia. Its results are there for all the world to see. In order to maintain the empire, they had to divide to rule. Now we have endless conflict between India and Pakistan that could become nuclear in nature.

India and pakistan divided as a result of the END of the British Empire. Looking at it that way, those concerns of yours would be non-existent if England did not withdraw.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: BobbyO India and pakistan divided as a result of the END of the British Empire. Looking at it that way, those concerns of yours would be non-existent if England did not withdraw.

They divided after the British left because of resentments fostered by the British during their rule. How could they divide DURING British rule? The British were ruling then. Errrr! Duh!

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: lsbskins1 They divided after the British left because of resentments fostered by the British during their rule. How could they divide DURING British rule? The British were ruling then. Errrr! Duh!

They didn't 'divide' after the British left, they were never 'one' in the first place.

[lsbskins1]

From here - India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Finally, on 15 August 1947, India gained independence from British rule, but was partitioned with independent governments for the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan in accordance to wishes of the Muslim League, along the lines of religion to create the Islamic nation state of Pakistan.[30] "


Please explain how you "partition" something that was never one?

[Chris the Chees]

Prior to the arrival of the British, India, as a single state had never existed. The partition, was the break up of a colony, not of a nation as was the case in Ireland.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Prior to the arrival of the British, India, as a single state had never existed. The partition, was the break up of a colony, not of a nation as was the case in Ireland.

A distinction I will grant you. But, the ideal had been to have the Hindu and Muslim peoples of the same basic region and of the same ethnic, if not religious, heritage, form one nation. But because of the hatreds inflamed and encourged by the "Colonial Masters", this became an impossible task. So, my point stands.

[Dagda]

of the same ethnic, if not religious, heritage, form one nation

India, even in its present form, is not of the same ethical standing. There are hundreds of diffrent distinct races spread from one side of India to the other. They have much in common, but are diffrent.
However, this common ground is strong enough to unite the old Raj, I belive.

[Chris the Chees]

But because of the hatreds inflamed and encourged by the "Colonial Masters", this became an impossible task

You make the assumption that the various small states in the area we now know as India and Pakistan did not already hate each other, and that racial and rleigious tensions did not already exist creating a rift within the society.

Your point doesn't stand at all.

[lsbskins1]

Take a look here - Exit Wounds: Books: The New Yorker

I am saying the British exploited and worsened conflicts, not that they created them from whole cloth. I am saying that were it not for colonial policies, and the British need to find a way to let go of the tail of the tiger it helped to enrage, that we would likely live in a world much less in danger. How does that point not stand?

[BobbyO]

I am saying the British exploited and worsened conflicts, not that they created them from whole cloth. I am saying that were it not for colonial policies, and the British need to find a way to let go of the tail of the tiger it helped to enrage, that we would likely live in a world much less in danger. How does that point not stand?

[/quote]


How could the British have worsened the conflicts as the great conflicts occurred AFTER they left?