Was Colonialism a good thing?

[grebe925]

When I was young and growing up in India 60s and 70s I used to hear my Dad berate the rulers of newly independent India and longing for the good old days of British rule. Being fed on a constant diet of post-independence patriotism in school, I used to laugh at him but, over the decades, I am wondering if there was an element of truth to his views on British rule. Most of the newly minted leaders of post-colonial rule were in essence British in their outlook (many, like Gandhi, were in fact a product of the British education system) but when they took over they just couldn't keep a lid on old loyalties based on tribal, feudal, religious, caste and various other relationships. This is the basic reason why countries like Zimbabwe and Yemen have spun out of control and various others like Kenya and Pakistan are on the verge of doing so. As an Indian, I think it's only Gandhi's work in forcing Indians to look at and correct their own shortcomings that has kept such fissiparous tendencies at bay.

The reason I bring this up is the following article in the London Times where a former Yemeni guerrilla expresses remorse for driving out the British. One phrase is quite telling: the British “taught us how to live”. There are many layers to this story and it's quite a fascinating read.

‘We regret driving out the British,’ say Aden’s former rebels

 

[SamurAchzar]

Colonialism was beneficial on the individual level - I'm sure part of the reason you see so many Indians successfully integrating into Western countries, in technological fields, and India becoming a technological powerhouse is because of the legacy the British have left behind, even if only in terms of bridging the language gap.

On a global level, it was bad, very bad. Many cultures which were not yet ready for Western values were forced into them, and the technologies trickling from the colonizing countries brought these countries out of balance. It can be seen in terms of out of control industrialization, corruption, transportation, and of course the widespread of weapons.
Without colonization, tribes in Africa wouldn't have AK47 to wield against each other, they'd still be using spears, if at all fighting.

In terms of politics, you had three ways colonization played out, none to the benefit of the population:
1. Constant meddling, providing arms to puppet regimes which were free to abuse the population;
2. Attempt at granting the natives self governance which pretty quickly deteriorated into bloodshed;
3. Corrupt regimes installed by the colonizers

Many countries were given too much, too early, resulting in massive abuse. Out of all the examples I can think of, India came out the brightest.

I'm not only referring to classic British colonization - Soviet influence plays too. Without Soviet arms and support, the Middle Eastern conflict with Israel would have probably ended long ago, and of course you have the US adventures in Iraq (which I naively supported back in 2003. I still think US had good intents, but the population is self destructive).

And if nothing else, colonization gave these failed states more excuses to cling on trying to explain why they suck so badly in the 21st century.

So no, colonization was not a good idea. British colonization might have worked if played to the end, but the brits fled, leaving destructive vacum behind them.

 

[Jaskalas]

Was Colonialism a good thing? That will depend on your perspective.

As an American I believe in the right of a people to determine their own future. It is my understanding that Colonialism stood in the way of self determination. Those who made life or death decisions for your people were not accountable for their actions. Worse than that, they did not even feel the consequences for themselves.

At least now, for better or worse, your leaders must live with the decisions they make. While that does not guarantee good decisions, it at least gives you a fighting chance.

 

[sandorski]

It certainly was a mixed bag. On one hand those who were Colonized had little to no say in it, which usually resulted in Violence and Oppression. On the other hand the amount of Technological and other know-how transferred in a short time was quite beneficial.

The 2 sides seems to be the biggest problem for the former colonized, such as Africa. Resentment runs deep and all too often clouds peoples judgment to such a degree that they can't take advantage of the benefits that the Colonists ways brought to them.

 

[WelshBloke]

Colonialism was beneficial on the individual level - I'm sure part of the reason you see so many Indians successfully integrating into Western countries, in technological fields, and India becoming a technological powerhouse is because of the legacy the British have left behind, even if only in terms of bridging the language gap.

On a global level, it was bad, very bad. Many cultures which were not yet ready for Western values were forced into them, and the technologies trickling from the colonizing countries brought these countries out of balance. It can be seen in terms of out of control industrialization, corruption, transportation, and of course the widespread of weapons.
Without colonization, tribes in Africa wouldn't have AK47 to wield against each other, they'd still be using spears, if at all fighting.

In terms of politics, you had three ways colonization played out, none to the benefit of the population:
1. Constant meddling, providing arms to puppet regimes which were free to abuse the population;
2. Attempt at granting the natives self governance which pretty quickly deteriorated into bloodshed;
3. Corrupt regimes installed by the colonizers

Many countries were given too much, too early, resulting in massive abuse. Out of all the examples I can think of, India came out the brightest.

I'm not only referring to classic British colonization - Soviet influence plays too. Without Soviet arms and support, the Middle Eastern conflict with Israel would have probably ended long ago, and of course you have the US adventures in Iraq (which I naively supported back in 2003. I still think US had good intents, but the population is self destructive).

And if nothing else, colonization gave these failed states more excuses to cling on trying to explain why they suck so badly in the 21st century.

So no, colonization was not a good idea. British colonization might have worked if played to the end, but the brits fled, leaving destructive vacum behind them.

Oh I think the USA turned out alright in the end as well. :whiste:

 

[sandorski]

Oh I think the USA turned out alright in the end as well. :whiste:

That's kind of an Apples/Oranges comparison though. The Colonists completely overwhelmed the Native population, unlike India, Africa, and some other places. The US, Canada, and Australia are all examples of simply transplanting Europe elsewhere and not of how Native populations progressed as the dominant Population Before/After Colonial times.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Colonialism was good for Europeans to continue genocidal practices, especially the British Empire. That's about it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Oh my fucking god. This is like asking if the Holocaust was a good thing.

 

[CanOWorms]

It certainly was a mixed bag. On one hand those who were Colonized had little to no say in it, which usually resulted in Violence and Oppression. On the other hand the amount of Technological and other know-how transferred in a short time was quite beneficial.

The 2 sides seems to be the biggest problem for the former colonized, such as Africa. Resentment runs deep and all too often clouds peoples judgment to such a degree that they can't take advantage of the benefits that the Colonists ways brought to them.

Most colonialism strategies involved prevention of technological and industrial development. Any "transfer" of technology was primarily for the promotion of military and political activities (enslavement, genocides, incuding man-made famines, etc.)

 

[theflyingpig]

Colonialism brought civilization to uncivilized places. Basically it got most of the world on the same page, economically, scientifically, and culturally. Really it was the natural progression of things. To argue against colonialism is just foolish. Some civilizations are strong and some are weak. The strong conquer the weak. That is the way of nature. That is the way things should be. Everyone knows this.

 

[CanOWorms]

Colonialism brought civilization to uncivilized places. Basically it got most of the world on the same page, economically, scientifically, and culturally. Really it was the natural progression of things. To argue against colonialism is just foolish. Some civilizations are strong and some are weak. The strong conquer the weak. That is the way of nature. That is the way things should be. Everyone knows this.

Rome was sacked by barbarians.

 

[Zebo]

There are three types of colonization that went down. Some good some bad and some in between. Some had mixture and morphing of all three. As usual no simple answers.

Defensive colonization - such as conquering the Maghreb so Ottoman and Barbary Corsairs would stop seizing all Mediterranean traffic and euros could settle on coasts again without worries of finding themselves on Aleris slave markets. GOOD

Settler colonialism involved a large number of colonists seeking fertile land to farm. This taught new methods to locals was generally peaceful but had some exploitation. Think of it as illegal immigrants. MEDIUM.


Exploitation colonialism - treat locals like slaves, kill who resist, extract resources etc. BAD.

 

[theflyingpig]

Rome was sacked by barbarians.

After Rome had become weak.

 

[CanOWorms]

After Rome had become weak.

You don't seem to understand my statement.

 

[theflyingpig]

You don't seem to understand my statement.

You don't seem to understand how to post. If you cannot make clear and coherent posts, then you are simply trying to mask your foolishness with obscurity. Everyone knows this.

 

[Craig234]

People defended slavery by comparing the benefits to leaving the slaves in Africa.

There are benefits to exploitation - and prices, including freedom.

In a perfect world, the end of colonization would include 'real independance' for nations to develop.

But in the real word, it usually doesn't.

The primary goal of colonization was the exploitation of a nation's resources cheaply. On the other hand, the primary goal of post-colonial poicy is the exploitation of a nation's resources cheaply.

The methods change.The tradeoffs change. The costs to the dominant nations - colonial forces, rebellious wars - change.

Not many have much of a clue about the policies. The CIA isn't acting to ensure malleable corporate-serving governments around the world, it's collecting data for its factbook.

 

[Craig234]

Oh my fucking god. This is like asking if the Holocaust was a good thing.

It turned centuries, millenia, of anti-Jewish bigotry and hatred into global sympathy for the first time. It resulted in their being given their old homeland after thosand of years without one.

They are thriving like they haven't been in thousands of years, directly attributable to Hitler's actions, not what they did.

They should thank him.

Sorry for the perverse anddisgusting argument, but that's the price of parodying people like theflyingpig.

 

[Zebo]

snip

Without colonization, tribes in Africa wouldn't have AK47 to wield against each other, they'd still be using spears, if at all fighting.
.

LOL if there is one constant in the annals of history is humans fight. Are you implying the west introduced Africans to fighting? Oh and lets not forget who colonized 900 years before Euros set foot on Africa, the Arabs. Berbers still today can't name their children Berber names nor is Berber allowed to be taught in school, Arabic only- colonization is alive and well see Darfur..

 

[Ozoned]

It turned centuries, millenia, of anti-Jewish bigotry and hatred into global sympathy for the first time. It resulted in their being given their old homeland after thosand of years without one.

They are thriving like they haven't been in thousands of years, directly attributable to Hitler's actions, not what they did.

They should thank him.

Sorry for the perverse anddisgusting argument, but that's the price of parodying people like theflyingpig.

Uhhhhh, without colonialism, we could still have ended up where we are. The same thing can be applied to your hitler begat the current Jewish state of being perversion.

 

[Zebo]

I'd like to respond to the article, with regard to Yemen - in fact a country infested with Islam and what that means - can only mean failure.

Economic success involves hard work, and innovation.

Hard work is prevented by Inshallah Fatalism permeating Islamic culture. You may work hard or not, deosnt matter because, Allah can take it all away, or reward you, on a whim. He will, inshallah , provide, or, inshallah, not provide. Naturally the human will choose path of least resistance. Spend some time in Arabia and you'll quickly see every other sentence "inshallah" is used.

As to innovation, Islam is dead set against it. For one thing you must have a willingness to keep one's mind and heart open to new things. This is not possible when the Koran has the total regulation of life, explanation of the universe and everything necessary is contained within it's pages. Then works that contradict Koran, and therefore blasphemous, and therefore subject to losing your head, are prohibited.

No books, The Thucydides, The Aristotles, The Hobbes, The Lockes, The Humes, The Montesquieus and millions of other works that devolped western thought to the greatest world has ever seen are found in these cultures - for they are blasphemy.

 

[Craig234]

Uhhhhh, without colonialism, we could still have ended up where we are. The same thing can be applied to your hitler begat the current Jewish state of being perversion.

You missed the point. My post had nothing to do with colonialism but answered another question.

 

[SamurAchzar]

LOL if there is one constant in the annals of history is humans fight. Are you implying the west introduced Africans to fighting? Oh and lets not forget who colonized 900 years before Euros set foot on Africa, the Arabs. Berbers still today can't name their children Berber names nor is Berber allowed to be taught in school, Arabic only- colonization is alive and well see Darfur..

Oh sure they would, but probably not full scale civil wars. You have to ask yourself what prompted that - I'll tell you what: money, alcohol, drugs, and a long line of white men willing to take natural resources off their hands in exchange for arms.
Their dictators are downright the product of the West. Look at Robert Mugabee - he's no scantly clad African tribesman. And he's the better of the lot.

 

[Zebo]

Oh sure they would, but probably not full scale civil wars. You have to ask yourself what prompted that - I'll tell you what: money, alcohol, drugs, and a long line of white men willing to take natural resources off their hands in exchange for arms.
Their dictators are downright the product of the West. Look at Robert Mugabee - he's no scantly clad African tribesman. And he's the better of the lot.

Chinese are doing it now for the most part. Race has nothing to do with anything. As usual when societies cast off superstition and their desert mystics and start schooling, openness, what goes into real creation they are bound to be most advanced. The primitive cultures want the tools of the advanced, arms being one.

 

[Atheus]

Colonialism brought civilization to uncivilized places. Basically it got most of the world on the same page, economically, scientifically, and culturally. Really it was the natural progression of things. To argue against colonialism is just foolish. Some civilizations are strong and some are weak. The strong conquer the weak. That is the way of nature. That is the way things should be. Everyone knows this.

I would say that's the way things were rather than the way they should be...

The reason the British (etc) took over the world is because they could, not because they were any more bloodthirsty than anyone else, or any more immoral. If the japanese (to pick one randomly) or anyone else could have done it they would have. People just didn't think like we do now.

Nobody can tell how the world would have turned out without coloinialism, but right now (partly because of the exploitation of the past) we are in a position to do things a different way.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Colonialism is good as long as it is Christ based.