12-08-2005 21:27									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I think some might wish to reread Diamond's GG&S before blythely declaring the 3rd world to be better off today than before colonialism. In most cases, colonialism saw a marked decrease in standard of living and life span for the colonized. Many of those former colonies have yet to recover. .

GGS hardly addresses that, IIRC.

	12-08-2005 21:28									#32
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Why should India be united? If uniting India by force is acceptable, why is uniting Europe by force unacceptable?

Cause most contemporay indians think its a good thing, and in fact blame the Brits for allowing partition.

	12-08-2005 22:32									#33
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Generally, good. In most case native populations were slaughtered only to a slightly larger extent that they would've been slaughtered by their bretheren, and the concept of introducing many technologies, and social engineering to the native peoples, followed by rapidly expanding trade led to an enormous increase in worldwide wealth which helped usher the modern age.

Like I said, "we had to destroy the village to save it". Was it good for a tribe to be nearly exterminated by "their brethren"? Strange argument, we killed them off to steal their lands because "their brethren" weren't quite as efficient as us at killing people. Two wrongs do make a right when defending colonialism... But not to the people wronged twice...

quote: For who's good? That's actually a very good question, but it has an answer. The fact that the people who gained the most of imperialism were the the children of the imperialist people, or other whities doesn't really matter - People are people.

So it wasn't generally good for the people being killed off or removed from ancestral lands?

quote: So, to recap: -Since the morals of most of the natives of the time didn't preclude genocide by conqueror, no actual expectation utilities existed on the issue. -Much more people were allowed to live and flourish in the imperial era than before. -The ethnicity of said people shouldn't have mattered.

So its "good" to kill off people if you can put more people on their land? Ethnicity always matters to the imperial power, thats how "us and them" becomes a tool in the invasion of other peoples lands.

This argument that imperialism ended up improving living conditions is a bogus "justification", imperialists could have stayed at home (then they wouldn't be imperialists of course) and improved their lives and then peacefully introduced technological advancements to the 3rd world in exchange for resource ectraction. We're here to make your life better, resist and we will kill you.

	12-08-2005 22:39									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker imperialists could have stayed at home (then they wouldn't be imperialists of course) and improved their lives and then peacefully introduced technological advancements to the 3rd world in exchange for resource ectraction.

That wouldn't have been possible. The great expansion of capitalism could only occur because of the plunder and pillage of the rest of the world. Capitalism is built on black skins, American genocide, the destruction of Asian economies. It took the treasure of a planet to start the economic system you so revere in one small corner of it.

Ultimately, the world will be better off because of it if the world becomes communist. If all it did was serve to make one corner of the world live like kings for a few centuries before the next dark ages, then it will have been a crime against humanity.

	12-08-2005 23:26									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

This is the precise time to remind yourself of Marx, and the historic inevitability.

	12-08-2005 23:36									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That wouldn't have been possible. The great expansion of capitalism could only occur because of the plunder and pillage of the rest of the world. Capitalism is built on black skins, American genocide, the destruction of Asian economies. It took the treasure of a planet to start the economic system you so revere in one small corner of it.

having written a paper way back in college on the relation of West Indian slavery to the british industrial revolution (which of course is not the same thing as capitalism) i must say that is not at all a settled view in the economic history profession. In fact, in say, the 17th century Netherlands, the trades for grain, metals, and naval supplies with the Baltic region was much more substantial than the trades in spices and other luxuries with the non-European world. And of course the basic institutions of capitalism began to grow in Venice and Genoa BEFORE 1492. The history is simply much more complex than that, as even a nuanced Marxist like Braudel makes clear (or unclear - hes VERY nuanced)


and still no response on the amazing Chinese death rates stand still what if. You know that by your logic, you can probably show that Zionism saved the lives of Israeli arabs, apartheid saved the lives of blacks, etc, since AFAIK in all those places death rates declined over the same period that you cite for China.

	12-08-2005 23:37									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That wouldn't have been possible. The great expansion of capitalism could only occur because of the plunder and pillage of the rest of the world. Capitalism is built on black skins, American genocide, the destruction of Asian economies. It took the treasure of a planet to start the economic system you so revere in one small corner of it. Ultimately, the world will be better off because of it if the world becomes communist. If all it did was serve to make one corner of the world live like kings for a few centuries before the next dark ages, then it will have been a crime against humanity.

theres a third possibilty thats much more likely, which is that the rest of the world undergoes capitalist industrialization.

	12-08-2005 23:45									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker This argument that imperialism ended up improving living conditions is a bogus "justification", imperialists could have stayed at home (then they wouldn't be imperialists of course) and improved their lives and then peacefully introduced technological advancements to the 3rd world in exchange for resource ectraction. We're here to make your life better, resist and we will kill you.

two problems with that.

1. In many parts of the world, the situation was simply too disorderly for that kind of exchange to work. Whichever tribe tried to enrich itself from resource extraction and trade was likely of find itself a juicy target for its neighbors. Alternatively, where there were stronger states, they were often too conservative to adopt new technologies, fearing (often rightly so) that the new technologies would lead to social changes they could not control. Note Japan, the premier case of adoption of western tech without conquest, largely did so out of fear of conquest.

2. The contest AMONG european states for influence. For much of the 19th century, Britain, in particular opposed the extension of European sovereignty, esp in africa, and in China. Direct rule was costly, and you could, at least in many places, trade without it. But Britain had the best industry, and lowest costs, and could outcompete other europeans in most markets. Countries like France, Belgium, and Germany (and Russia in central asia, IIRC) were inclined to directly occupy countries, in order to establish tariff barriers, which would keep British goods out. Britain had to either join the carveup, or see its industry excluded from all these markets, to the benefit not of the locals, but of Britains european rivals.

	13-08-2005 00:13									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: That wouldn't have been possible. The great expansion of capitalism could only occur because of the plunder and pillage of the rest of the world. Capitalism is built on black skins, American genocide, the destruction of Asian economies. It took the treasure of a planet to start the economic system you so revere in one small corner of it.

Stealing other people's resources isn't capitalism.

quote: Ultimately, the world will be better off because of it if the world becomes communist.

Communism relies on stealing other people's resources.

quote: 1. In many parts of the world, the situation was simply too disorderly for that kind of exchange to work. Whichever tribe tried to enrich itself from resource extraction and trade was likely of find itself a juicy target for its neighbors.

Dis-order is not created by trade, its created by warfare and colonialism was about warfare. If a region was in dis-order, trade had a stabilising effect.

Why are we even debating whether or not colonialism was good or bad, it may have been good for the colonists but it was bad for the people who had their lands stolen. This is about the Cold War as an extension of colonialism and how western corporations, governments, and media lied to us.

	13-08-2005 00:18									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

We dont justify slavery by pointing out how American blacks are now better off than black Africans. Who knows how well off Africans may be had slavery and colonialism never existed. But this much is clear, I'm better off if no one steals my land - it doesn't matter how I choose to live my life, lacking material wealth or embracing it is irrelevant.

	13-08-2005 00:23									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker


"Dis-order is not created by trade, its created by warfare and colonialism was about warfare. If a region was in dis-order, trade had a stabilising effect. "


I didnt say disorder was created by trade. I said (or implied) that trade required order. And in many places warfare (and other forms of disorder) existed prior to colonialism.


"Why are we even debating whether or not colonialism was good or bad, it may have been good for the colonists but it was bad for the people who had their lands stolen."

In some places, southern africa, the americas, etc colonialism was associated with the theft of native lands. In a great many places local landholding patterns survived under colonialism, or were disrupted by policies that were not theft.


" This is about the Cold War as an extension of colonialism"

except colonialism was in retreat during the period of the cold war. The relationship of the western side to particular domestic policies on landholding (and other matters)in the excolonial worlds simply seems to be more complex than youve allowed for.


" and how western corporations, governments, and media lied to us"

Its hard to establish that without first establishing the facts.

	13-08-2005 03:45									#42
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark The history is simply much more complex than that, as even a nuanced Marxist like Braudel makes clear (or unclear - hes VERY nuanced)

Nuance never goes over terribly well on an internet forum. Bats and bricks must be used.

quote: and still no response on the amazing Chinese death rates stand still what if. You know that by your logic, you can probably show that Zionism saved the lives of Israeli arabs, apartheid saved the lives of blacks, etc, since AFAIK in all those places death rates declined over the same period that you cite for China.

Zionism, without a doubt, improved the lives of Israeli Arabs, even if they aren't as good as Israeli Jews. There is a reason Abdullah and Faisal wanted the Israelis to be part of a greater Syria/Jordan.

I think, however, you'd find that the lives of Africans under Apartheid did not improve substantially. I can't cite a source, but I recall reading that the life expectancy of Africans under Apartheid was abysmal, and certainly much lower than Africans had before being annexed (especially the Hottentots). Colonialism was an unmitigated disaster for the colonized.

There is no guarantee that a capitalist China would have improved the living standards of the average Chinese. All we can do is speculate as to what might have happened, and that would be utter fantasy, regardless of what we thought up. You can't look at the other economies of the region as examples, because their growth was predicated on the existence of the PRC and the threat it posed to the various ruling classes of the Asian-Pacific Rim.

The existence of the USSR made life better for Western Europeans and Americans, who, in order to stave off the threat of revolution, created welfare programs, pensions, social security, legalized unions, etc. All this is under attack and diminishing everywhere in the world now that the Communist threat has abated.

	13-08-2005 03:55									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Stealing other people's resources isn't capitalism.

You say that after the fact. In any event, I said the growth of capitalism was predicated on the theft of other's property. Capitalism requires a certain level of wealth to prime the engine, so to speak. That priming came from plundering the planet.

quote: Communism relies on stealing other people's resources.

My heart weaps. Every social system that has hitherto existed relied on the theft of property or unpaid labor, even capitalism. Capitalism merely mystifies and clouds that relationship with a contract.

quote: Dis-order is not created by trade,

BS! Spanish silver flooding into the Ottoman Empire created thirty years of disorder through massive inflation. Look at the effects of the British opium trade in China.

	13-08-2005 04:41									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The dis-order in China was a result of the emporer trying to shut down the opium trade. Link to silver causing dis-order in Turkey?

Your heart weaps? You should like colonialism, it has so much in common with communism. Capitalism is not colonialism or mercantlism, the two forces behind European expansion. Where in the definition of capitalism does it say theft is necessary? If you want to blame capitalism for colonialism because the former followed the latter, then communism and every future system is tainted by the past.

	13-08-2005 04:49									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

You guys were so close. You could have united in a glorious battle against imperialism, as brothers. But alas, yet another cap-com thread emerges.

	13-08-2005 04:55									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker The dis-order in China was a result of the emporer trying to shut down the opium trade.

The disorder in China resulted in the Emperor trying to shut down the opium trade, and that led to war.

quote: Link to silver causing dis-order in Turkey?

Read any book on the Ottoman Empire, specifically the period between 1590 and 1620.

quote: Capitalism is not colonialism or mercantlism, the two forces behind European expansion. Where in the definition of capitalism does it say theft is necessary?

What definition of capitalism? The one you Randroids came up with after the fact? Capitalism is not colonialism, no. But there is such a thing as capitalist colonialism, and colonialism was driven by capitalism, and vice versa. Mercantalism was a governmental policy, not an economyic system, and it corresponded to the first stage of capitalism, which was based on trade, i.e., merchants. Hence the name.

See, your problem is you want to look to a book for your definition of social reality, rather than looking at the actual history and creating a definition from that. Capitalism is the society that happened and the society we live in.

quote: If you want to blame capitalism for colonialism because the former followed the latter, then communism and every future system is tainted by the past.

I have no problem with that. I'm not the one who thinks his ideal society is pristine and without blemish. Marx himself said, the future society will be shaped by what proceeds it. We will enter socialism with all the prejudices and social consciousnesses created in capitalist society. It will take time for the new society to overcome that. Oh well. No one said socialism was easy. In fact, this historical experience shows us it's pretty freakin hard, and easy for things to go terribly wrong.

	13-08-2005 04:58									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP You guys were so close. You could have united in a glorious battle against imperialism, as brothers. But alas, yet another cap-com thread emerges.

I think we can agree that imperialism sucks with teeth and needs to be fought. I'm actually surprised that Berz looks upon America's conduct in the Cold War as imperialism. But hey, I'm not gonna look a gift horse in the mouth. Go Berz!

	13-08-2005 04:58									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

See? Isn't that nicer? Lets all sing.

	13-08-2005 05:01									#49
	Le Internationale Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Arise ye workers [starvelings] from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth [forthwith] the old tradition [conditions]
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.

No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we'll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They'll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.

No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E'er the thieves will out with their booty [give up their booty]
And give to all a happier lot.
Each [those] at the forge must do their duty
And we'll strike while the iron is hot.

	13-08-2005 05:02									#50
	Bandiera Rossa Enter the AD-FREE zone

Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa,
Bandiera rossa, Bandiera rossa
Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa,
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Evviva il comunismo e la libertà.

Degli sfruttati l’immensa schiera
La pura innalzi, rossa bandiera.
O proletari, alla riscossa
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Il frutto del lavoro a chi lavora andrà.

Dai campi al mare, alla miniera,
All’officina, chi soffre e spera,
Sia pronto, è l’ora della riscossa.
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Soltanto il comunismo è vera libertà.

Non più nemici, non più frontiere :
Sono i confini rosse bandiere.
O comunisti, alla riscossa,
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Evviva Lenin, la pace e la libertà.

	13-08-2005 05:49									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard . Just in case you want to know , India's share of the world economy at time the British came to India : 22 % . Europe's share at the same time : 23 % .

I'd love to see how that was calculated.

	13-08-2005 16:13									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark In fact, in say, the 17th century Netherlands, the trades for grain, metals, and naval supplies with the Baltic region was much more substantial than the trades in spices and other luxuries with the non-European world.

It would have been difficulty for the United Provinces to trade abroad for spices or silks or porcelain without the ships to carry it in, or indeed the ships required to defeat Spain- as at Leyden for instance.

Spain's decline was accomplished also by the Dutch becoming carriers of Spanish goods.

Antwerp (which had been an entrepot port for the Spanish) also silted up, which led to a transference of trade north.

English trade with the Baltic was also important, as wood supplies and tallow (both essential for expanding navies both merchant and military) came from there.

	14-08-2005 07:25									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sir Og Germany and Italy did it why not India?

Germany and Italy had been united before. India had never, ever been united before the British Raj. It's also quite a big larger than Germany and Italy put together.

	14-08-2005 08:41									#54
	Increase Your PM Length

India had been mostly united several times. India, however, has never been a single people, like the Germans or Italians. Uniting India would be like uniting all of Europe.

	14-08-2005 14:35									#55
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard . Just in case you want to know , India's share of the world economy at time the British came to India : 22 % . Europe's share at the same time : 23 % . When they left India , India's share was : 2 % . "Force for the good . . . . ." ? Really ? Not good for India , at least .

Bullshit!

India's growth rate under the British (1700-1948) = 0.35% a year
India's growth rate in the two preceeding centuries = 0.16% a year

(source: A. Maddison, "World Economic Statistics 1500-2001")

So the growth in incomes was higher during Britian's period of rule than the previous two centuries of 'freedom' (during which, I should add India was neither united or really free)

	14-08-2005 14:46									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I am no expert on India but i have the impression that Indian languages are a lot closer than Europen languages and there aren't such great religious differences.

	14-08-2005 14:49									#57
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara The existence of the USSR made life better for Western Europeans and Americans, who, in order to stave off the threat of revolution, created welfare programs, pensions, social security, legalized unions, etc. All this is under attack and diminishing everywhere in the world now that the Communist threat has abated.

Quoted for truth

	14-08-2005 15:03									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Bullshit! India's growth rate under the British (1700-1948) = 0.35% a year India's growth rate in the two preceeding centuries = 0.16% a year (source: A. Maddison, "World Economic Statistics 1500-2001") So the growth in incomes was higher during Britian's period of rule than the previous two centuries of 'freedom' (during which, I should add India was neither united or really free)

Thanks for the figures, man.

I guess that proves my point vis a vis India, also.


So, did we establish that euro imperialism was a force for good until the 20th century?

	14-08-2005 17:12									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I think some might wish to reread Diamond's GG&S before blythely declaring the 3rd world to be better off today than before colonialism. In most cases, colonialism saw a marked decrease in standard of living and life span for the colonized. Many of those former colonies have yet to recover. That's only part of the story. In the case of India, for example, the Indian textile trade, which was once an exporter to Europe, was destroyed, physically, by the British. Indians were no longer allowed to manufacture textiles, so that Great Britain could sell India textiles instead.

For once , I agree with you . Hand-crafted textiles were banned , because even then we had the capability to swamp the British with high-quality cloth ( hand-woven stuff was much better in quality than anything England could produce industrially at that time ) .

Then British trade laws forced cotton farmers to sell to the British at low rates . Then took the cotton to England , processed it , and sold back the third-rate cloth at high prices , by destroying the indigenous industry .

As the British mills required indigo as a dye , food-crop farming was banned in many areas , and farmers were forced to grow indigo , with the result that the land was rendered barren and the farmer himself did not have enough food to eat ( because he was forced to sell to the British at low rates ) . Farmers who did not comply were . . . .disposed of , in rather unpleasant ways .

The British , to maintain control , instituted the Zamindari system , where one man would be given virtual control of the land on a village or set of villages , and everyone there would not own his own land , and thus was completely controlled by the said Zamindar ( "Zamin" means land , and dar means "one with" , or "owner of" ) . This ensured that farmers could be forced to do anything the British wanted them to do .

( Funnily enough , I come from a family where my grandfather was a Jagirdar , which means "One with a Jagir" , where Jagir means a piece of land ( usually a village or two ) , from which the Jagirdar is entitled to collect revenue . My family's Jagir was two villges . My family decided , during or before my great-grandfather's time , not to rely on tax revenue , and entered the housing/construction/real-estate development business . The grant of land was , however , still theirs . It was decided that all revenue collected would be invested back into the infrastructure of those two villages . Thanks to that decision , my grandfather is still known and respected in those villages , whenever he visits them .

My grandfather still has some of the land records of that period . He went on to become a lawyer , and finally a High Court Judge ( he's retired now ) .

It'll be interesting to see how 'poly reacts to my family history/background . )

	14-08-2005 17:25									#60
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by el freako Bullshit! India's growth rate under the British (1700-1948) = 0.35% a year India's growth rate in the two preceeding centuries = 0.16% a year (source: A. Maddison, "World Economic Statistics 1500-2001") So the growth in incomes was higher during Britian's period of rule than the previous two centuries of 'freedom' (during which, I should add India was neither united or really free)

Are the incomes of Brits profiting from looting India included in that amount ? Because if you treat the East India Company as an Indian company , those figures could be right . I guess those figures include the money Brits made from their loot . . . . . . . . .

Also , as I've said in the previous post , that growth was mostly forced , and at the expense of human lives .

And how does that change the fact that India's share diped from 22 % to 2 % ? How does it change the fact that the Mughal emperor commanded resources ten times more than the richest European king of that time ?

So Az , it definitely does not prove your point vis-a-vis India . Communist Russia experienced growth rates of 110% under Stalin for some short periods of time . But that growth was at the cost of human lives . The Brits did the same thing , only more slowly . Nothing has been established . You apparently have no idea of the sort of stuff the Brits did in India . The atrocities are countless , and are both physical and economic . I can cite more if you want them .



@ Kuciwalker

It was calculated by reverse-engineering land-revenue records from those times .