Colonialism: Good or Bad
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Colonialism was both a blessing and a curse. The actual takeover of various territories around the world by colonial powers resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and virtual or actual slavery for many of the conquered peoples. In addition many of the conquered territories saw their resources exploited and ways of life drastically changed.
If you want an example of how drastically colonialism changed a nation Malaya is a good example. Not only were its resources (tin being the most important at the time) stripped, but its population was changed as well. To the original Malay population was added hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Indian laborers who were first used in the tin mining operations and then used to cultivate and harvest crops like oil palm and rubber (neither of which was a crop that existed prior to colonialism). The legacy of this colonial change can be clearly seen in modern day Malaysia. This pattern of exploitation and drastic change was repeated in most colonized areas.
On the positive side, colonialism eliminated internecine warfare in every region that was colonized. It also forced political unity on regions that had none. This can be clearly seen in Africa which before colonization consisted of thousands of tribal units, many of which were constantly at war with their neighbours. Colonialism achieved in just a few decades in Africa and other areas a level of unity that took Europe hundreds of years to achieve. Colonialism also resulted in major improvements in basic infrastructure through the building of roads, railroads, ports and the establishment of numerous industries that exist to this day. Adding to this were the coinstruction of schools, hospitals, and health clinics.
In short, for some colonized people; especially those colonized by backward nations such as Portugal, colonialism was a disaster. For others like India under the British many benefits were conferred on the nations. What has to be asked is whether the benefits received are outweighed by the humiliation and pain of being subjugated for a century or so.
If you want an example of how drastically colonialism changed a nation Malaya is a good example. Not only were its resources (tin being the most important at the time) stripped, but its population was changed as well. To the original Malay population was added hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Indian laborers who were first used in the tin mining operations and then used to cultivate and harvest crops like oil palm and rubber (neither of which was a crop that existed prior to colonialism). The legacy of this colonial change can be clearly seen in modern day Malaysia. This pattern of exploitation and drastic change was repeated in most colonized areas.
On the positive side, colonialism eliminated internecine warfare in every region that was colonized. It also forced political unity on regions that had none. This can be clearly seen in Africa which before colonization consisted of thousands of tribal units, many of which were constantly at war with their neighbours. Colonialism achieved in just a few decades in Africa and other areas a level of unity that took Europe hundreds of years to achieve. Colonialism also resulted in major improvements in basic infrastructure through the building of roads, railroads, ports and the establishment of numerous industries that exist to this day. Adding to this were the coinstruction of schools, hospitals, and health clinics.
In short, for some colonized people; especially those colonized by backward nations such as Portugal, colonialism was a disaster. For others like India under the British many benefits were conferred on the nations. What has to be asked is whether the benefits received are outweighed by the humiliation and pain of being subjugated for a century or so.
How about if we colonize the north by opening up harbors for seals and edible whales for Inuit to hunt and then trade for what they catch and be assholes about telling them that if they kill everything we won't buy it?
Oh... sorry... I forgot about how if the seals and whales are killed by oil spills from broken Athabaskan tar-sand slurry-ponds breaking and spilling into the Mackenzie drainage system it would be a conflict of interest.
Oh... sorry... I forgot about how if the seals and whales are killed by oil spills from broken Athabaskan tar-sand slurry-ponds breaking and spilling into the Mackenzie drainage system it would be a conflict of interest.
Maritime Colonization had proven to be a pointless venture in retrospect of the United States, Latin America (Napoleonic Wars), and later the Dominions in Canada and Australia.
Which I think is a lesson that the United States itself will learn once their fleets are utterly destroyed and they have no means of communication nor connection to their military bases and "allies" (more accurately satellites) in Europe, Asia and Africa.
We should had learned from the Russians and the Chinese. The Russians still have their Empire in Europe, Urals and Siberia. And the Han; whose civilization started at the Yellow River, still hold immense colonial holdings in Eastern Asia!
To that extent, the Spaniards in particular would had been far more successful had they placed less effort in the Americas and instead focused on their neighbour Portugald and Morocco; to the extent like the Russians, there probably would be a powerful Spain from Galicia to Tunisia.
Much like Maritime expansion; in England, had shifted attention away from conquest in France and dynastical expansion into the Holy Roman Empire and Scandinavia. All the effort that had been wasted into building up the United States; could had instead, gone towards Imperial Ambition in the Normandy, the Low Countries, et al.
Which I think is a lesson that the United States itself will learn once their fleets are utterly destroyed and they have no means of communication nor connection to their military bases and "allies" (more accurately satellites) in Europe, Asia and Africa.
We should had learned from the Russians and the Chinese. The Russians still have their Empire in Europe, Urals and Siberia. And the Han; whose civilization started at the Yellow River, still hold immense colonial holdings in Eastern Asia!
To that extent, the Spaniards in particular would had been far more successful had they placed less effort in the Americas and instead focused on their neighbour Portugald and Morocco; to the extent like the Russians, there probably would be a powerful Spain from Galicia to Tunisia.
Much like Maritime expansion; in England, had shifted attention away from conquest in France and dynastical expansion into the Holy Roman Empire and Scandinavia. All the effort that had been wasted into building up the United States; could had instead, gone towards Imperial Ambition in the Normandy, the Low Countries, et al.
This post makes absolutely no sense at all.
Colonialism is an expansionist policy, so unless you are suggesting that people/communities somehow spontaneously sprouted out of the soil, every place on the planet was subject to some form of expansionist policy.
Colonialism's bad, n'kay!
Actually, despite it's critics, I doubt many of the colonized would willingly return to their previous existence. Take the aboriginals in North America. Their romanticizing of the past aside, not many are willing to turn the clock back in any real way. Colonization is the quickest way to bring the least developed into the modern world. I understand that some don't want this and that it is not our place to force them however, my kids don't want to go to school either. Some folks just don't know whats good fer um.
Actually, despite it's critics, I doubt many of the colonized would willingly return to their previous existence. Take the aboriginals in North America. Their romanticizing of the past aside, not many are willing to turn the clock back in any real way. Colonization is the quickest way to bring the least developed into the modern world. I understand that some don't want this and that it is not our place to force them however, my kids don't want to go to school either. Some folks just don't know whats good fer um.
Not really. See the bottom of the page. "Similar Threads" Woo Hoo. Is colonial furniture a good investment, etc.
Where in the world does colonialism exist today by force of arms? Most of the problems of in today's world is because of colonialism. Not many old Imperialist countries were able to release their colonies without some sort of revolt against the mother country itself or amongst themselves after independence. Colonial empires as we knew them are over.
Colonialism is imperialistic terrorism. There is no excuse for it.
Defend colonialism? Might as well defend what Hitler and Stalin did.
Defend colonialism? Might as well defend what Hitler and Stalin did.
It's a moot point - pretty well all the land in the world is already "owned" by someone.
It's a very fine line between commenting on those nations that maintained formal policies on colonialism and those societies that simply increased their "borders" by virtue of simple expansion by some of their peoples.
Iraq. American imperialism is usually by proxy by ousting elected governments and replacing them with puppet governments like Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, many south and central American governments, etc.
Now we have a different style of colonialism but it is still colonialism.
You could also point at the Chinese as well. There are a number of groups (including the Nepalese) that maintain Chinese dominion over their lands is illegal and old style imperialism.
As to whether or not Colonialism is bad or not, in most cases its akin to asking whether something like the Reformation or a phenomenom like a mini- ice age was good or bad: its a historical fact now not a policy most gov'ts would care to engage in. I think our present mindsets do pose interesting questions for if/when we are ever able to colonize other worlds, such as is approached in a lot of science fiction: will we or won't we place our needs as a priority over other species.
Lets not forget Tibet. Good point, we just might create Colonial empires in space if not become part of one. ScFi Movies, stories etc. mostly point in that direction.
Colonialism is colonialism, the meaning hasen't changed.