NationStates Jolt Archive

Is imperialism a blessing? A curse? Both? Neither?

In theory a blessing, in reality, usually a curse.

I think it can be a blessing or a curse, but usually it's a blessing. Compare Africa under European rule to Africa today, for example. Virtually all the nations in Africa are brutal, totalitarian dictatorships full of rampant nepotism, gangsterism, terrorism, and corruption, where the rulers live like emperors yet the masses starve to death.

It can be a blessing for some and a curse for others.

I think it can be a blessing or a curse, but usually it's a blessing. Compare Africa under European rule to Africa today, for example. Virtually all the nations in Africa are brutal, totalitarian dictatorships full of rampant nepotism, gangsterism, terrorism, and corruption, where the rulers live like emperors yet the masses starve to death.
Right- and the rulers never lived like emperors while the masses starved when the rulers were Europeans. It's an invalid comparison, as European rule utterly demolished Africa. The fair comparison would be Africa BEFORE European 'intervention'.

I picked "no opinion," simply because imperialism no longer serves a purpose as there's nowhere left to colonize on Earth.

Those who say it is always evil are being close minded and not thinking of history. Was Roman imperialism always "evil?" Did Rome not assist and support the nations they conquered. Was British imperialism horribly "evil?"

Granted neither examples are completely "good" either. There is no black or white on the subject, and as usual, radicals are completely off base.

I think it can be a blessing or a curse, but usually it's a blessing. Compare Africa under European rule to Africa today, for example. Virtually all the nations in Africa are brutal, totalitarian dictatorships full of rampant nepotism, gangsterism, terrorism, and corruption, where the rulers live like emperors yet the masses starve to death.

Ah yes, so the glorious aryan race should take control of Africa. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, so the glorious aryan race should take control of Africa. :rolleyes:

I didn't say that. I'm simply saying that imperialism can be a good thing. Compare India, Zimbabwe, etc. today to what they were like under British rule, for example.

Ah yes, so the glorious aryan race should take control of Africa. :rolleyes:

What would they do with it. Look at their countries now, they've degenrated to anarchy, or dictatorship. At least their was stabillity and economic growth under the Europeans.

Read the post "win your own freedom" it's pretty good.

I didn't say that. I'm simply saying that imperialism can be a good thing. Compare India, Zimbabwe, etc. today to what they were like under British rule, for example.
That would be arguing AGAINST imperialism. The effects of decades or centuries of outside rule don't go away when your oppressors pack up and go home.

Ah yes, so the glorious aryan race should take control of Africa. :rolleyes:

Look at the bright, shining beacons of freedom that most African nations are now, with their massive debt, widespread starvation and disease, non-existent human rights, nepotism, corruption, tyranny, genocide, civil war, racial violence, etc. Maybe imperialism isn't always entirely bad, eh?

I didn't say that. I'm simply saying that imperialism can be a good thing. Compare India, Zimbabwe, etc. today to what they were like under British rule, for example.

What are you talking about? The British destroyed India's economy, especially in the areas of manufacturing so as not to compete with Britain. Now it is one of the world's fastest growing economies. Africa and other areas colonized by foreign powers were divided up with little concern for ratonal boarders, or in other cases deliberately pitting differnt ethnic groups against each other.

Look at the bright, shining beacons of freedom that most African nations are now, with their massive debt, widespread starvation and disease, non-existent human rights, nepotism, corruption, tyranny, genocide, civil war, racial violence, etc. Maybe imperialism isn't always entirely bad, eh?
Right- and guess where those tendencies come from? How many of these nations had massive debt, civil wars, or racial violence and genocide on anywhere NEAR the scale they did before the imperalists stepped in? All you're arguing is that abruptly leaving a nation you've utterly messed up isn't going to cause it to become wonderful overnight.

What are you talking about? The British destroyed India's economy, especially in the areas of manufacturing so as not to compete with Britain. Now it is one of the world's fastest growing economies. Africa and other areas colonized by foreign powers were divided up with little concern for ratonal boarders, or in other cases deliberately pitting differnt ethnic groups against each other.

The British built railroads, improved education, introduced new methods of telecommunication and travel, etc.

Right- and guess where those tendencies come from? How many of these nations had massive debt, civil wars, or racial violence and genocide on anywhere NEAR the scale they did before the imperalists stepped in? All you're arguing is that abruptly leaving a nation you've utterly messed up isn't going to cause it to become wonderful overnight.

Imperialism didn't leave nations 'utterly messed up' (except in some cases, of course). Again, compare Rhodesia and South Africa under imperialism to Zimbabwe and South Africa today.

Right- and guess where those tendencies come from? How many of these nations had massive debt, civil wars, or racial violence and genocide on anywhere NEAR the scale they did before the imperalists stepped in? All you're arguing is that abruptly leaving a nation you've utterly messed up isn't going to cause it to become wonderful overnight.

Imperialism isn't the source of the problem. In most cases, communism is. Look at these pictures of victims of communists in Africa:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/terrorism.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/innocents.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/redfordan.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/mission.htm

www.africancrisis.org/photos16.asp
www.africancrisis.org/photos10.asp
www.africancrisis.org/photos8.asp
www.africancrisis.org/photos9.asp
www.africancrisis.org/photos11.asp
www.home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/photo1.htm

The British built railroads, improved education, introduced new methods of telecommunication and travel, etc.
The British were extinct by that point. I assume you mean the English. Blaming the British for the situation in Zimbabwe is equivalent to blaming the Cherokee for the situation in Liberia.
The English also introduced mass-scale genocide, a whole host of new diseases, a system of centralized government that obliterated virtually the entire culture of every country they touched, high-end racial opression, and a system of economics structured to bankrupt the country's natural resources. It doesn't balance out.

The British were extinct by that point. I assume you mean the English. Blaming the British for the situation in Zimbabwe is equivalent to blaming the Cherokee for the situation in Liberia.
The English also introduced mass-scale genocide, a whole host of new diseases, a system of centralized government that obliterated virtually the entire culture of every country they touched, high-end racial opression, and a system of economics structured to bankrupt the country's natural resources. It doesn't balance out.

I'm not blaming the British. I'm saying that Zimbabwe/Rhodesia was better off under the British.

Imperialism didn't leave nations 'utterly messed up' (except in some cases, of course). Again, compare Rhodesia and South Africa under imperialism to Zimbabwe and South Africa today.
That's EXACTLY how it leaves them utterly messed up. Compare the people of what're now Zimbabwe and South Africa before the Imperialists got there and after they left if you want to see how.

The British were extinct by that point. I assume you mean the English. Blaming the British for the situation in Zimbabwe is equivalent to blaming the Cherokee for the situation in Liberia.


I think you might be suffering from a bit of linguistic confusion here - the British are far from extinct - India was, after all, part of the British Empire, not the English Empire.

Ah yes, so the glorious aryan race should take control of Africa. :rolleyes:
Non sense. Of course not. Just the resources.

I didn't say that. I'm simply saying that imperialism can be a good thing. Compare India, Zimbabwe, etc. today to what they were like under British rule, for example.

What is so bad about India these days?

I think you might be suffering from a bit of linguistic confusion here - the British are far from extinct - India was, after all, part of the British Empire, not the English Empire.
Well, considering that the English didn't annihilate the Scots, Welsh and Irish.....

I think you might be suffering from a bit of linguistic confusion here - the British are far from extinct -
I think he means the celtic Britons. Not the Anglo Saxons.

That's EXACTLY how it leaves them utterly messed up. Compare the people of what're now Zimbabwe and South Africa before the Imperialists got there and after they left if you want to see how.
Nothings changed except for the weapons.

What is so bad about India these days?

I didn't say India was "bad," just that Indians, for the most part, aren't well-off. Millions of people are starving there.

Imperialism isn't the source of the problem. In most cases, communism is. Look at these pictures of victims of communists in Africa:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/terrorism.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/innocents.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/redfordan.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/mission.htm

www.africancrisis.org/photos16.asp
www.africancrisis.org/photos10.asp
www.africancrisis.org/photos8.asp
www.africancrisis.org/photos9.asp
www.africancrisis.org/photos11.asp
www.home.mweb.co.za/sa/savimbi/photo1.htm
Actually it's the fault of the US and Soviet Union. Side effects of the cold war. Their competition for spheres of influence. By supporting cruel dictators (the US) and the Soviets supporting the communist side.

Imperialism isn't the source of the problem. In most cases, communism is. Look at these pictures of victims of communists in Africa:

Whilst capitalist imperial rule in Africa was, of course, blameless:

http://intranet.hackney-lea.org.uk/highwire/lifelines/colonialism/congo/pics/holding%20severed%20hands%20copy.jpg


Note what is being held - cutting off hands was amongst one of the more lenient ways of encouraging the workers to reach the rubber production targets.

Whilst capitalist imperial rule in Africa was, of course, blameless:

Once again, words are put in my mouth.

Compare India, Zimbabwe, etc. today to what they were like under British rule, for example.

I didn't say India was "bad," just that Indians, for the most part, aren't well-off. Millions of people are starving there.

Are you then claiming that there was no starvation under British rule?

Once again, words are put in my mouth.

No, not really, just stating that the legacy of brutality that Africa still endures cannot be traced back solely to communism.

No, not really, just stating that the legacy of brutality that Africa still endures cannot be traced back solely to communism.

Agreed, but communists are responsible for a lot of the violence, civil wars, etc. For example, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Egypt, Libya, etc. (Egypt [under Nasser] and Libya were tools of the Soviet Union).

Agreed, but communists are responsible for a lot of the violence, civil wars, etc. For example, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Egypt, Libya, etc. (Egypt [under Nasser] and Libya were tools of the Soviet Union).
And the US supported those who fought the Soviet supported groups. No matter who they were or what they did. As long as they weren't communist.

And the US supported those who fought the Soviet supported groups. No matter who they were or what they did. As long as they weren't communist.

You make it sound as though the US were anticommunist. No nation on Earth has done more to advance communism than the US has. If you'd like, I could give you a long list of sources supporting this claim.

Agreed, but communists are responsible for a lot of the violence, civil wars, etc. For example, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Egypt, Libya, etc. (Egypt [under Nasser] and Libya were tools of the Soviet Union).

Well, going back to our hot-poatato - we see that in Zimbabwe we see that now it is not the communists that are the scourge of the people, but the government itself - despite his 'land reforms' we can't really call Mugabe a communist can we? - there comes a point where you just pass over into the 'nutter' category.

You make it sound as though the US were anticommunist. No nation on Earth has done more to advance communism than the US has. If you'd like, I could give you a long list of sources supporting this claim.
Could you?

(Not that I doubt you, just think it could be interesting)

You make it sound as though the US were anticommunist. No nation on Earth has done more to advance communism than the US has. If you'd like, I could give you a long list of sources supporting this claim.
Anti communist? Hell no. Their competition with the Soviets and the armsrace made the arms manufacturers billions.

And the US supported those who fought the Soviet supported groups. No matter who they were or what they did. As long as they weren't communist.

I'm sure Nguyen Van Thieu, Chiang Kai-shek, Augusto Pinochet, Alfredo Stroessner, Anastasio Somoza, Rafael Trujillo, Moise Tshombe, Ian Smith, Lucas Mangope, P.W. Botha, Prince Buthelezi (sp?), Stanislaw Mikoajczyk, Robert d'Aubuisson, Anastasio Somoza, Suharto, Thanom Kittitakchorn, Nguyen Cao Ky, Lon Nol, Boun Oum, Fulgencio Batista, Ferdinand Marcos, the Shah of Iran, and many others would disagree with you on that.

I'm sure Nguyen Van Thieu, Chiang Kai-shek, Augusto Pinochet, Alfredo Stroessner, Anastasio Somoza, Rafael Trujillo, Moise Tshombe, Ian Smith, Lucas Mangope, P.W. Botha, Prince Buthelezi (sp?), Stanislaw Mikoajczyk, Robert d'Aubuisson, Anastasio Somoza, Suharto, Thanom Kittitakchorn, Nguyen Cao Ky, Lon Nol, Boun Oum, Fulgencio Batista, and many others would disagree with you on that.
Pinochet was a communist? Wow. Now thats new.

Could you?

(Not that I doubt you, just think it could be interesting)

1.The Rape of Poland
2.I Saw Poland Betrayed
3.Red Scare or Red Menace? American Communism and Anticommunism During the Cold War Era (I think that was the title)
4.Web of Subversion
5.The Fourth Floor
6.Cuba Betrayed
7.Red Star Over Cuba
8.The Ordeal of Otto Otepka
9.Nicaragua Betrayed
10.The Great Betrayal
11.Background to Betrayal
12.The Insiders
13.None Dare Call it Treason
14.None Dare Call it Conspiracy
15.Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development
16.National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union
17.The Best Enemy Money Can Buy
18.Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent
19.America's Retreat From Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall
20.The Actor
21.The Politician
22.Again, May God Forgive Us
23.The Invisible Government
24.Nixon and the CFR
25.The Shadows of Power
26.Richard Nixon: The Man Behind the Mask
27.Inside the State Department
28.The Untouchable State Department
29.The Assassination of Joe McCarthy
30.The Lattimore Story
31.Who Killed Joe McCarthy?
32.While You Slept...America's Creeping Revolution
33.Wall Street and Franklin D. Roosevelt
34.Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
35.Who Promoted Peress?
36.Why Not Victory?
37.McCarthy
38.McCarthy and his Enemies
39.The Betrayers
40.Ally Betrayed
41.The Secret Race for the A-Bomb
42.Kissinger on the Couch
43.No Wonder We Are Losing
44.The Bleeding of America
45.All the News That Fits
46.The New American magazine, July 14, 1986
47.American Opinion, June 1975
48.The Strategy Of Peace
49.In Their Defense: U.S. Soldiers in the Vietnam War
50.American Opinion, May 1968
51.American Opinion, June 1967
52.American Opinion, May 1966
53.American Opinion, January 1969
54.America's Unelected Rulers: The Council on Foreign Relations

Pinochet was a communist? Wow. Now thats new.

No, I was just refuting your claim that the US supported everyone who opposed the Soviets no matter what, as long as they weren't communist.

No, I was just refuting your claim that the US supported everyone who opposed the Soviets no matter what, as long as they weren't communist.
They did support Pinochet. And Nguyen Van Thieu. And Alfredo Stroessner. And so on. So how excactly did you refute my claim? All you did was confirm it.

No, I was just refuting your claim that the US supported everyone who opposed the Soviets no matter what, as long as they weren't communist.

In which case, would Adolf Hitler have been a better example?

Ok.. don't mind sidetracking from Imperialism in Africa.

But I think they did an okay job in US, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, and Australia:D

LOL, Flaming monk!

They did support Pinochet. And Nguyen Van Thieu. And Alfredo Stroessner. And so on. So how excactly did you refute my claim? All you did was confirm it.

For a time, yes. Eventually, of course, they were stabbed right in the back.

I find it enjoyable, and quite frankly utterly disturbing, at people who shit on imperialism while they embrace it at the same time. They usually don't see their views as being imperialistic, and that's what disturbs me.

bump