 |
| |
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
First of all, can we finally get countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand out of the equation? These are not cases when colonialism has improved the world. Whether it was Britain or the governments that followed British rule all these countries used the most brutal means to slaughter and marginalize the indigenous people that survived the diseases that Europeans brought with them. Nothing was improved for the native inhabitants, it was simply Europeans filling up 'empty lands'.
quote:
The underlying assumption that the benefits of Western civilization would have come to colonized nations without colonialism may be true -- but how long would it have taken? The world, in large measure, prior to Western imperialism, was run by very primitive governments who were simply not open to democracy, to a free press, to liberal education for all. Look at Iraq. If we hadn't intervened, how long would the people of Iraq have suffered under the cruel boot of Saddam? |
You make these assertions with the opinion that humanism, the rule of law, liberal education, a free press and other benefits of western culture have actually been successfully transferred to most of the cultures that have been colonized which doesn't seem to be true. Most of these countries are no better off then they were in those departments, so no, I don't think colonialism changed things quicker. Most colonial governments were horribly oppressive and these are the lessons they passed on to succeeding governments.
If the west made a concerted effort to transfer the things that are felt to be good about western culture to these areas in a way that would have respected native cultures and allowed them to merge these ideas into cultural creations of their own then I believe we would have a much different world, not perfect, but different. Of course this is pie in the sky star trek thinking but no less ridiculous then arguements that try to pass off the benefits that colonialism brought as worth all the pain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:27
|
|
Things in India got worse under Britain for quite some time. The caste system, for example, was considerably more flexible than we think of it today. The Brits came along, figured it made a good way to keep India under its thumb, and rigified their society.
Indian cloth manufacturing, which was the largest in the world, was almost completely destroyed. Eventually they had to buy all their clothes from Britain. Why do you think Gandhi spining his cloth was such a revolutionary action? The same with Indians making their own salt. India was a very prosperous region, until the British came along. There is a reason Britain and Europe wanted it. It is only now recovering, in large part because it ignored the IMF and had massive state intervention and protectionism.
In the long run, the world is better off for British imperialism, but the effect of it upon those who were colonized was an absolute disaster (especially in those areas where British colonists committed genocide).
BTW, most improvments in food and health and education are post-imperial. The Green Revolution came in the late 60s and early 70s, health care changes are largely a result of antibiotics (which the 3rd World has) and sanitation improvements (which they don't have). Education of Africans and Indians under British rule was limited to members of native elites and fortunate servants. For most of the colonized, it was forbidden.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The movement to decolonize was lead by the United States -- because of Wilson's belief in the right of self-determination. |
I thought i was cause the US had finished off the last
Native resistance in 1908, after that came the right of
of self-determination (for people in other peoples countries that is, Not the Apache eh).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
che:
quote:
Things in India got worse under Britain for quite some time. The caste system, for example, was considerably more flexible than we think of it today. The Brits came along, figured it made a good way to keep India under its thumb, and rigified their society.
|
So the British are responsible for upholding the institutions already present? Seems to me a good argument for the adaptability of the British to an Indian environment. As for rigidifying? This is a tough point to prove. Is the caste system more rigid before the British than after? I would have to say so, especially if you take into account the increased democratisation introduced by the British.
quote:
Indian cloth manufacturing, which was the largest in the world, was almost completely destroyed. Eventually they had to buy all their clothes from Britain. Why do you think Gandhi spining his cloth was such a revolutionary action? The same with Indians making their own salt. India was a very prosperous region, until the British came along. There is a reason Britain and Europe wanted it. It is only now recovering, in large part because it ignored the IMF and had massive state intervention and protectionism.
|
How much of that prosperity before the British came trickled down to the people of India under the Raj? That's the big question you keep skirting.
Secondly, it is true the Brits were protectionist of their manufacturing and cloth industries. But it is a fallacy to say that the British policy of trade with India impoverished the general population. In fact, increased trade benefits both Britain and India.
Finally, Gandhi also said that the Indians were ready to run things on their own. The British trained enough of them so that they could learn to do things themselves.
quote:
In the long run, the world is better off for British imperialism, but the effect of it upon those who were colonized was an absolute disaster (especially in those areas where British colonists committed genocide).
|
 Game set and match.
As for the effects of those colonialised, the British were the first to abolish the slave trade, and did set up educational systems for Indians. Granted these did not reach everyone, but the British needed to train Indians so that they could run many of the colonial operations in India. Feeding the people is another substantial benefit by the British.
quote:
BTW, most improvments in food and health and education are post-imperial. The Green Revolution came in the late 60s and early 70s, health care changes are largely a result of antibiotics (which the 3rd World has) and sanitation improvements (which they don't have).
|
Where do I attribute these improvements to the British? Increased irrigation also improved farm yields, as well as the shipments of grain to areas under famines. All I have to argue is that the situation improved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ozz, I beleive all Native American tribes have self-government. I am not so sure that they are all democracies, though. |
Just making the point that the US was an imperialist
colonial power in it's own right, 1812, 54/50 or fight
the Spanish american wars. Self determination came
convently after the USA had cleared the decks of it's
own wars of expansion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
That's a different point altogether. You have to counterbalance this with the improvements brought by the British, assuming all your points to be true. But are they? |
Well the most obvious affect of european colonization in America and Australia was rampant disease that made most of the populations simply disappear. Next was the removal of the remaining people from their land, either forcefully or by using up the resources natives required for existance either intentionally or unintentionally. This was followed by ridiculous attempts at re-education, the kidnapping of children into european schools of education and forcefully converting the population. Its hard to weigh any supposed improvements on that.
quote:
Completely false. Most brutal? Look at the Spanish colonialisation or the French and Portugeuse in Africa. Far worse than the British in North America. |
Yet not far worse then British treatment of the aborigines. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/s...geno-s07.shtml. In the US the worst of the treatment came after the revolution when diseased blankets and payments for scalps tended to be the norm, all improvements that wouldn't have existed without british colonialism.
quote:
Your argument is not even self-consistent! If there were natives living earlier, then the land cannot be empty. Most of the indigenous peoples rightly assert that they never left the land! If the land were truly empty, I can use this as an argument because to fill empty land is to greatly improve. |
Uh, I put empty in quotes which is meant to mean, while there were natives the colonialists often looked at the lands as empty and saw it as their destiny to fill them. Why would filling empty land be an improvement? I don't see the connection between filled land and improvement, this is simply what happened.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Nay, Banga"mess" is an Indian creation, so is Pakistan for that matter. Same goes for the ME too. Britain didn't
draw the borders, the WW1 allies did. |
The problem started far, far before the Bangladeshi Independence War against Pakistan or even the Partition of British India.
Bengal was an extremely rich area prior to British colonization, certainly one of the richest areas in the world. Clive considered Dhaka comparable to London. The region had very advanced industry for the day, in terms of textiles as well as shipbuilding and metalworking. The region produced high quality cotton. But when the Brits came, they destroyed all the native industry they could since Dhaka textile mills had a comparative advantage over London textile mills. The Brits brought about the de-industrialization of India.
The first major victim of British imperialism (besides Ireland), Bengal, had been converted from one of the richest to one of the poorest regions in the entire world. So, I'd have to say that your assertion that "the longer the British stayed, the less of a basketcase the countries
are today" is bullshit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
This is unavoidable with European contact. At the time, there was not even a germ theory of disease, so it seems unreasonable for the British to avoid what they do not know. |
Hey, if your going to avoid to see the difference between settler colonies like the Americas, Australia, etc and plantation colonies like most others then I'll bring up the disease. After a short time it was quite obvious to europeans what was happening and they often capitalized on this, as they capitalized on the natives weekness with alcohol.
quote:
Key words 'after the revolution'. Not British policy, but American. To cite the evidence of British and not American improvements, we can only look at what they did in the US region prior to the revolution. |
You count the formation of the US as a British improvement but they can disown all the ill effects of this great achievement? It was a British gentleman, George Washington, who ordered the sending of pestilence ridden blankets to the Iroquois, a practise which he learned from serving in the British army, this is the US with all the British institutions of humanity, rule of law and so on and so on that the Brits spread throughout the world?
quote:
Umm, there is also something wrong with your link.
I'm not sure about the British policy with the aborigines, but you qualified your previous statement which was the point I wanted to make. |
Hmm, you're right. Well, you're going to have to trust me on that (I doubt you will) because it was hard enough finding that link.  However, though I did say "most brutal" I have to admit thats just a term I use and not a relative comparison to other colonizers. Bad choice of words.
Anyway, there are 4 countries that seem to be successful British colonies, helped along because they had a negligable amount of natives after the deprivations of disease, compared to how many failures. I don't think the benefits add up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Hey, if your going to avoid to see the difference between settler colonies like the Americas, Australia, etc and plantation colonies like most others then I'll bring up the disease.
|
gsmoove:
I don't avoid the difference, I simply stated that there are colonies on both sides of the coin. It's a bit farther up in the thread.
quote:
It was a British gentleman, George Washington, who ordered the sending of pestilence ridden blankets to the Iroquois, a practise which he learned from serving in the British army, this is the US with all the British institutions of humanity, rule of law and so on and so on that the Brits spread throughout the world?
|
Well, one down with the scalps.
Did they ship the disease ridden blankets expecting the Iroquois to die? That's the key point, as well as the assertion that this was common British policy.
I thought this was intended to be humanitarian aid, ship them blankets to keep them warm.
quote:
Hmm, you're right. Well, you're going to have to trust me on that (I doubt you will) because it was hard enough finding that link.
|
Lacking evidence, not much I can do.
I can try to find some links to help your position.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Colonialism of any sort didn't improve the world. In most cases it made a huge mess and committed crimes that far outway any side-benefits it might have brought to the country in question. Most of the benefits that people site here are laughable since they were put in place with the aim of european profit above all else. Things like the Suez canal and railroads are laughable as benefits(look how generous we are, we made transport through your country much faster so we can bring goods more quickly to us). Things like sanitation and medicine were only brought to areas where europeans had to live and could have just as easily been transmitted as ideas without colonization.
In fact all of the 'benefits' of colonization could have been brought in a more peaceful and cooperative way to the profit of all involved, though its almost impossible to believe humans would be that evolved, especially in an earlier day and age.  Maybe we'll do it right the next time around when we colonize the stars, assuming we're not colonized first. |
The question isn't "Was British colonialism driven solely by altruism?", so I think people who point out positive benefits are in the right as they are addressing the question at hand.
I find your idea that somehow this could have been done in a peaceful and cooperative way to be the more laughable one. In retrospect perhaps much of the pain could have been avoided, but the cost would have been much slower development on both sides, including btw the development that makes modern Westerners sad about the death, destruction and disruption caused by colonialism. People like to go on about how much of an impact Europeans had on other societies, but it is important to remember that this was a two way street, and other societies were responsible for a lot of the changes that happened in Europe during this time. New World crops alone had a large hand in quadrupling the population of Europe, and Eastern religions and philosophy is still having a large effect on Western philosophy and and religions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
However, without the Brits, I'd say the India subcontinent would remain one whole country instead of splintered into a few.
|
The Indian sub-continent wasn't a single country when the British took over in the late 18th/early 19th century. Some bits of India they conquered but about 1/3 remained as nominally independent kingdoms with their own Maharajahs until 1948. They had to not act against British interests though or the ruler would be "replaced". It is not true to say India was a single united country before the British though.
The one mistake the British (Mountbatten in particular) have no excuse for was putting the predominantly muslim state of Kashmir into India rather than into Pakistan. Otherwise the British maintained and improved the infrastructure and got rid of a lot of the less attractive local customs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
I find your idea that somehow this could have been done in a peaceful and cooperative way to be the more laughable one. In retrospect perhaps much of the pain could have been avoided, but the cost would have been much slower development on both sides, including btw the development that makes modern Westerners sad about the death, destruction and disruption caused by colonialism. |
Sure, I admitted it was laughable, but people keep mentioning the benefits of western culture as if the colonizers actually cared to transmit these things. The British did a fair job of teaching natives about a brand new way of looking at warfare, showed them the perfect example of oppressive government, methods of brutality that rivalled the native culture's if not surpassed. I still don't see the British systematically transmitting the humanitarian or educational merits of western society to all of the native cultures they colonized. You say that colonization did this quicker then more peaceful means would have but what has it done? In most cases the British ruled for centuries and it can't be clearly said that in most cases they left the natives better off then when they came.
Obiwan,
Wow, thanks for finding the link. Much respect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As I recall, the Brits didn't have a whole lot to do with Kashmir; they were trying to get out as quickly as they could, so they left the issue to be settled by whoever else wanted it. Naturally, the result wasn't at all pleasant. |
The same thing with Israel or Palestine as it was. The British ruled with the optimism that they could do no wrong and somewhat good intentions, but when it seemed that there was no good solution to the mess they made they booked and let the cards fall where they may. This is a perfect example of the 'benefits' of British colonization.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-04-2003 02:55
|