Colonialism: Good or Bad
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Agreed, completely. Much of the strife in the world today can be traced to certain aspects of colonialism. The borders of most African and Middle Eastern states, for instance, have nothing to do with traditional boundaries or tribal/cultural territories, they're lines drawn by colonial powers for their own convenience. Thus we have a nation like Iraq containing three geographically separate and culturally very distinct groups, Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, who don't get along very well.
edited to correct a typo. Jeez I hate it when I do that...
edited to correct a typo. Jeez I hate it when I do that...
Exactly, putting different ethnic and cultural groups that don't like each other is dangerous. Not just in Iraq but in Nigeria, Rwanda, and other places as well.
However, also the creation of systems like the caste system in India and the tribal system in Africa didn't help.
And then the hierarchical system of White European first, then another then another, then finally black and the ideology of Survival of the Fittest.
RE: Colonialism: Good or
I don't think its quite that clear cut. During the independence movement in French West Africa, there was strong, though not majority support to keep French West Africa a single country as opposed to breaking it up into 11 different nations even though there were many different tribes in the territory. The reason why this had support was that a larger country would be more economically viable and less likely to be taken advantage of.
I don't think its quite that clear cut. During the independence movement in French West Africa, there was strong, though not majority support to keep French West Africa a single country as opposed to breaking it up into 11 different nations even though there were many different tribes in the territory. The reason why this had support was that a larger country would be more economically viable and less likely to be taken advantage of.
Are you sure it wasn't the ones who would rule this huge nation that wanted to keep it together because they would lose power if it is split into different countries. I am sure they were looking at their interests.
Look at India and pakistan, throughtout colonialism and before it was this one huge country. However, the strains were put on it by colonial rule because the Muslims wanted there own nation because they would have been marginalized by the Hindus. Therefore, even as Hindus wanted this great pan-India it wasn't workable and it seperated.
RE: Colonialism: Good or
I think that's a good point. But that was driven by religion more so than tribalism. You could make an argument that India and Pakistan are good arguments that different tribes can peacefully co-exist (for the most part) within one country. There are hundreds of different languages spoken in India alone, if I'm not mistaken.
I think that's a good point. But that was driven by religion more so than tribalism. You could make an argument that India and Pakistan are good arguments that different tribes can peacefully co-exist (for the most part) within one country. There are hundreds of different languages spoken in India alone, if I'm not mistaken.
Agreed. Now how can we get out of a post-colonial world. Because it has seemed to transfer from colonies to over-seas dependencies and now you have corporations and economic colonialism in the way of the WB and other organizations and Free-Trade.
Nitzomoe the only way I could see that colonialism is good, in any sense of the word is through the exchanges of culture and food and spices, etc, etc exchanged from one area in the world and adopted into another one.
However, you would have to exclude slavery, and movement of people against their wills and other nasty stuff of colonialism to get to that conclusion.
However, you would have to exclude slavery, and movement of people against their wills and other nasty stuff of colonialism to get to that conclusion.
Jersay said:
Foreign investment is beneficial to all parties (most of the time). That's why there is no "economic" colonialism today.
But there is. A nation, a small or impoverished nation cannot move away from a form of capitalism or economic system that might be sinking there national economy because of international conditions.
The USA have embraced colonialism forever. When Roosevelt Roughriders invaded Mexico to protect their business "Coca-Cola" it was applauded by the US and is still celibrated. Roosevelt went on to become President.
Along with US colonialism came their invention "Gun Boat diplomacy". It is in the American Physic that this action is their right and often run under a save the world flag. They help people to death!
The CIA intervention into Guatemala to unseat the legitimate government in order to protect "Fruitco" the only money making industry in that Country, which was about to be nationalized.
Then you have Iraq pure colonialism pure and simple and they are still trying to find the moral high ground to do it.
Which brings me to Harper who was going to send my kids out on this adventure. I can never forgive him for that! And, he is capable to starting a new, Canadian colonialism probably in the Mediterrian.
Along with US colonialism came their invention "Gun Boat diplomacy". It is in the American Physic that this action is their right and often run under a save the world flag. They help people to death!
The CIA intervention into Guatemala to unseat the legitimate government in order to protect "Fruitco" the only money making industry in that Country, which was about to be nationalized.
Then you have Iraq pure colonialism pure and simple and they are still trying to find the moral high ground to do it.
Which brings me to Harper who was going to send my kids out on this adventure. I can never forgive him for that! And, he is capable to starting a new, Canadian colonialism probably in the Mediterrian.
cyberclark said:
Excuse me.
Teddy and the Roughriders fought against the Spanish in CUBA, not Mexico. Coca-Cola had nothing to do with it.
If Iraq was colonialism, there would not have been free and open elections. Plain and simple.
Canada is going to invade some place in the Mediterranean? I don't think we could find a place our military could handle.
I would say bad.
Colonialism has destroyed far too many cultures across the world and in many cases is the reason for countries moving from a self-sustaining environment, to a trading partner with the greater powers which ultimately put them on the bad end of the trades usually anyways. Not good.
Colonialism has destroyed far too many cultures across the world and in many cases is the reason for countries moving from a self-sustaining environment, to a trading partner with the greater powers which ultimately put them on the bad end of the trades usually anyways. Not good.
Had Canada and the US never been colonized:
1. They would not even exist as nations today.
2. North America would be covered by separate nations based on traditional indigenous lands.
3. With each country having its own language and customs, etc. some form of organization equal to the EU, Organization for African Unity, etc. would likely have come about to promote more collaboration.
4. English-speaking tourists wouldn't be spanning the world speaking 'Loud-and-slow' in a condescending manner.
5. There would be no conflict between French Canadian, English Canadians, and First Nations and Inuit over land rights.
6. Immigrants to this land would be expected to integrate to the indigenous language and culture, not a Europeanized one.
7. Without the distraction that comes from trying to preserve their culture in the face of difficult odds, the First Nations would have focused more on developing and advancing rather than just preserving their culture, with universities, research and development etc. going on in those languages today.
1. They would not even exist as nations today.
2. North America would be covered by separate nations based on traditional indigenous lands.
3. With each country having its own language and customs, etc. some form of organization equal to the EU, Organization for African Unity, etc. would likely have come about to promote more collaboration.
4. English-speaking tourists wouldn't be spanning the world speaking 'Loud-and-slow' in a condescending manner.
5. There would be no conflict between French Canadian, English Canadians, and First Nations and Inuit over land rights.
6. Immigrants to this land would be expected to integrate to the indigenous language and culture, not a Europeanized one.
7. Without the distraction that comes from trying to preserve their culture in the face of difficult odds, the First Nations would have focused more on developing and advancing rather than just preserving their culture, with universities, research and development etc. going on in those languages today.
I don't see how you can be certain about that.
As an aside, this is the third or fourth necro thread in the past week. Strange...
Exactly. Without colonization:
1. Africa's borders would never all have been redrawn by the colonizers.
2. Divide and conquer strategies whereby colonizers purposely pit ethnic groups against each other would never have occurred, thus possibly averting some modern hatreds today stemming from that era.
3. Most African school children would likely be taught in a language they understand rather than a foreign one, and thus learn more.
5. With fewer Africans learning the former colonizers' languages and cultures, but theirs rather, there would likely be less of a brain drain today.
So yes, I fully agree that without colonization, North America would likely have been like Africa... and Europe too, where there too national boundaries are more reflective of natural ethnic boundaries in most cases, and where in most countries the indigenous language and culture is taught rather than one from overseas, and with the local language and culture taught in school, less brain drain, etc. etc. etc
So yes, I fully agree with you.
And we'd never have have the truth commission and the residential school issue in Canada either.
OK, it's a likelihood. Or it may have joined along Indonesian lines, whereby a new pan-North-American culture would be created based on local cultures.