NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that is what I call an interesting development.

France Orders Positive Spin on Colonialism (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051021/ap_on_re_eu/france_gilding_history)

PARIS - France, grappling for decades with its colonial past, has passed a law to put an upbeat spin on a painful era, making it mandatory to enshrine in textbooks the country's "positive role" in its far-flung colonies.

But the law is stirring anger among historians and passions in places like Algeria, which gained independence in a brutal conflict. Critics accuse France of trying to gild an inglorious colonial past with an "official history."

At issue is language in the law stipulating that "school programs recognize in particular the positive character of the French overseas presence, notably in North Africa."

Deputies of the conservative governing party passed the law in February, but it has only recently come under public scrutiny after being denounced at an annual meeting of historians and in a history professors' petition.

An embarrassed President Jacques Chirac has called the law a "big screw-up," newspapers quoted aides as saying. Education Minister Gilles de Robien said this week that textbooks would not be changed. But the law's detractors want it stricken from the books — something the minister says only parliament can do.

The measure is one article in a law recognizing the "national contribution" of French citizens who lived in the colonies before independence. It is aimed, above all, at recognizing the French who lived in Algeria and were forced to flee, and Algerians who fought on the side of France.

Unlike other colonies, Algeria, the most prized conquest, was considered an integral part of France — just like Normandy. It was only after a brutal eight-year independence war that the French department in North Africa became a nation in 1962, after 132 years of occupation.

Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has equated the law with "mental blindness" and said it smacks of revisionism. The Algerian Parliament has called it a "grave precedent."

The friction comes as France and Algeria work to put years of rocky ties behind them with a friendship treaty to be signed this year.

"Morally, the law is shameful," said University of Paris history professor Claude Liauzu, who was behind the petition, "and it discredits France overseas."

France was once a vast empire, including large holdings in Indo-China and Africa. It unraveled in the 1950s and 1960s, mostly calmly.

However, France suffered ignominious defeats in Indo-China and Algeria. Paris only called the Algerian conflict a "war" in 1999. Throughout the fighting, and for decades thereafter, France had referred only to operations there to "maintain order."

In colonial times, French textbooks typically depicted the French presence in the colonies as that of benevolent enlightenment, with a clear mission to civilize.

The newspaper Liberation this week published drawings from "France Overseas," an illustrated colonial Atlas of 1931 that showed "before" and "after" drawings, one a sketch of Africans cooking and eating another human being, the second a school house on a well-manicured street with a French flag flying overhead.

The Association of History and Geography Professors has asked that politicians "end the practice of manipulating history" and abrogate the law.

The separate petition by history professors gathered 1,000 signatures in three weeks, said Liauzu.

"We're in a rather crazy situation," he said. "They say the law won't be applied but it's up to lawmakers to cancel it."

Beyond the real concerns over the political manipulation of historic events, there is another danger of falsely misrepresenting French colonization, Liauzu said.

"France is a country profoundly marked by immigration" with the majority of French from immigrant stock, Liauzu said. By failing to tell the truth, children of today's immigrants "are deprived of any past."

Oh, it's France. Are you surprised? I'm waiting for all the other former colonial powers to come out with something similar. Just a matter of time, really.

I hope Belgium doesn't do the same.


>King Leopold II:eek: :sniper:Me<

Oh, it's France. Are you surprised? I'm waiting for all the other former colonial powers to come out with something similar. Just a matter of time, really.

Does that include US portraying as positive its colonialist stance on the Philipines and Puerto Rico?

Does that include US portraying as positive its colonialist stance on the Philipines and Puerto Rico?

The US always portrays itself in a positive light.

We could have just let the Japanese rule the Phillipines, you know.

It's just that after all the hot air we've heard from Europe over the past few years about how good they are at foreign affairs, diplomacy, and all that - it's "surprising" ;) to hear that France has to alter its history.

After all, if we're to believe what they've been telling us, they know what they're doing, right?

Maybe people will now accept that France isn't some evil left-wing country. It's an evil right-wing country. :-)

Àh yes, maybe we got the experience how things must not be done. As for this action...

See it as a typical French thing to do. Their pretty nationalistic, "Proud" of their own history etc. (if you can be proud on a few things the French and other colonials have done.

The US always portrays itself in a positive light.

We could have just let the Japanese rule the Phillipines, you know.

It's just that after all the hot air we've heard from Europe over the past few years about how good they are at foreign affairs, diplomacy, and all that - it's "surprising" ;) to hear that France has to alter its history.

After all, if we're to believe what they've been telling us, they know what they're doing, right?

I was refering the half a million Philipinos you could have let live between 1899 and 1913,

And Europe IS good at foreign affairs; Have you ever wondered why former colonial countries latch so much to their old metropoles, even after we for all effect, abused them and explored them for centuries?

Right wing of France is still, thank God I'd say if I were teist, more leftist than the actual left wing of USA, the Holy Land of the rich bastards of the right wing.
:p

About the actual issue, well, that's how the memory and twisted nationalism work. It is nicer to think that they weren't all that bad.

I was refering the half a million Philipinos you could have let live between 1899 and 1913,

And Europe IS good at foreign affairs; Have you ever wondered why former colonial countries latch so much to their old metropoles, even after we for all effect, abused them and explored them for centuries?

Any source for your 500,000 Filipino statistic?

I was refering the half a million Philipinos you could have let live between 1899 and 1913,

And Europe IS good at foreign affairs; Have you ever wondered why former colonial countries latch so much to their old metropoles, even after we for all effect, abused them and explored them for centuries?

That's not the spin I got from people I met in Morocco, Algeria, Jordan, Kenya, Somalia, and Egypt.

They continued to have relations because from an economic standpoint, they didn't have any choice.

Oh, and as for former Belgian colonies, they REALLY love them - the Belgians apparently excelled at burning all the land records, all the deeds, all the education records, and anything of bureaucratic value in running the country before they left their colonies.

I was refering the half a million Philipinos you could have let live between 1899 and 1913,

And Europe IS good at foreign affairs; Have you ever wondered why former colonial countries latch so much to their old metropoles, even after we for all effect, abused them and explored them for centuries?

Half a million Filipinos is bad, but how many Angolans and Mozambicans has your country killed?

I say it's fair enough. Most nations put themselves in a positive light in school history books. As that previous poster said, America's no different. I seriously doubt that your textbooks tell the kids all about the massacres of Native Americans. I think France have every right to do it, they're probably sick of liberal elements constantly guilt-tripping their society like what happens over here.

I was refering the half a million Philipinos you could have let live between 1899 and 1913,
Only difference here is we haven't put a law on the books mandating a spin on the history.

And Europe IS good at foreign affairs; Have you ever wondered why former colonial countries latch so much to their old metropoles, even after we for all effect, abused them and explored them for centuries?
Because you have money, power, and influence that the fledgling countries need or because of the turbulent state of transition these countries are left in by the european power they find it necessary to cling to them to restore order or economic stability.

Any source for your 500,000 Filipino statistic?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine-American_War

EDIT - Oh, and as a diehard Francophile and Europhile, I'm ashamed of France right now. Positive spin my ass. Colonialism was nothing pretty, and the sooner countries come out and accept that, the better.

I say it's fair enough. Most nations put themselves in a positive light in school history books. As that previous poster said, America's no different. I seriously doubt that your textbooks tell the kids all about the massacres of Native Americans. I think France have every right to do it, they're probably sick of liberal elements constantly guilt-tripping their society like what happens over here.

See, you defend wrong actions by saying someone else does them too. That doesn't work. Twisting history and lying to own youth is ALWAYS wrong, and is doesn't get any better if they do it in the States too.

I say it's fair enough. Most nations put themselves in a positive light in school history books. As that previous poster said, America's no different. I seriously doubt that your textbooks tell the kids all about the massacres of Native Americans. I think France have every right to do it, they're probably sick of liberal elements constantly guilt-tripping their society like what happens over here.

I heard about the massacres of Native Americans in my high school textbook here in the US - in the 1970s.

My children have seen the same information - even in elementary school in a different district - today.

You should see the treatment that Christopher Columbus gets. You would think the guy was two shades more evil than Hitler and Stalin combined.

And there's an endless torrent of material in schools nowadays about how great African-Americans are - my daughter's high school textbook for history has the African-Americans outnumbering the white 3 to 1 in terms of accomplishments (I went through the book and counted out of curiosity).

We're up to our necks in political correctness here.

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine-American_War

EDIT - Oh, and as a diehard Francophile and Europhile, I'm ashamed of France right now. Positive spin my ass. Colonialism was nothing pretty, and the sooner countries come out and accept that, the better.

How about a more reliable source?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillipine-American_War

You're quoting wikipedia for a casualty number?

Wikipedia, without another site to back it up, is not reliable for numbers. Do you have any other websites?

You're quoting wikipedia for a casualty number?

Wikipedia, without another site to back it up, is not reliable for numbers. Do you have any other websites?

I think the number is irrelevant. Or are you denying that the American rule through those years was cruel, bloody and unjustified?

That's not the spin I got from people I met in Morocco, Algeria, Jordan, Kenya, Somalia, and Egypt.

They continued to have relations because from an economic standpoint, they didn't have any choice.

Oh, and as for former Belgian colonies, they REALLY love them - the Belgians apparently excelled at burning all the land records, all the deeds, all the education records, and anything of bureaucratic value in running the country before they left their colonies.


a) Exactly, we are so great in diplomacy we didn't even gave them a choice.
b) Hell no, my country was better than Belgium :(

Half a million Filipinos is bad, but how many Angolans and Mozambicans has your country killed?

That is a difficult question. We didn't killed that many Angolans and Mozambicans (seriously), we just enslaved millions of them.
Now the Indians in south America, major genocide, no one ever counted..

Only difference here is we haven't put a law on the books mandating a spin on the history.


Because you have money, power, and influence that the fledgling countries need or because of the turbulent state of transition these countries are left in by the european power they find it necessary to cling to them to restore order or economic stability.

a) In how many US history books is the massacre of hundreeds of thousands of philipinos stated, and in how many books do you accept that you are also, a colonialist country?

b) HEY! Don't look at us, my country actually fought for twelve years in a territory of the size of Europe, having half the current gdp we have today, in order to stay there! They wanted us out, their problem if they didn't considered the aftermath.

I think the number is irrelevant. Or are you denying that the American rule through those years was cruel, bloody and unjustified?

He gave a number, I asked for a source. Standard debating practice.

You're quoting wikipedia for a casualty number?

Wikipedia, without another site to back it up, is not reliable for numbers. Do you have any other websites?

Here's Encarta - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566463_4/Spanish-American_War.html

"Tensions arose between U.S. troops and Filipino insurgents even before the treaty was ratified. Two days before the treaty was signed, a U.S. sentry shot a Filipino soldier who had been trying to cross a bridge in Manila. Hostilities soon escalated, marking the beginning of bloody war between the United States and Filipino rebels that would last more than two years. Although the Filipino troops were armed with old rifles and were badly outmatched in open combat, they waged an effective form of guerrilla warfare, using the country’s rough terrain to assist them in battling the better-armed U.S. troops.

Between 200,000 and 600,000 Filipinos died during the war against the United States. Most of them were civilians, killed more often by famine and disease brought on by the warfare than by actual fighting. The war destroyed livestock and interrupted farming activity, seriously reducing agricultural output and creating food shortages. Fewer than 5000 U.S. soldiers died during the conflict.

The insurrection was largely subdued by 1901, when Filipino rebel leader Emilio Aguinaldo surrendered, swore allegiance to the United States, and called on other rebels to lay down their arms. U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt declared an end to the war in 1902, but rebel resistance continued in parts of the Philippines until 1903. The United States controlled the Philippines until after World War II (1939-1945); the Philippines was granted complete independence on July 4, 1946."

See, you defend wrong actions by saying someone else does them too. That doesn't work. Twisting history and lying to own youth is ALWAYS wrong, and is doesn't get any better if they do it in the States too.
It's not twisting it as such. Your simply interpreting things differently, rather than outright lying. I think it's a good thing to teach kids to be proud of their country, it's good for national morale.

I heard about the massacres of Native Americans in my high school textbook here in the US - in the 1970s.

My children have seen the same information - even in elementary school in a different district - today.

You should see the treatment that Christopher Columbus gets. You would think the guy was two shades more evil than Hitler and Stalin combined.

And there's an endless torrent of material in schools nowadays about how great African-Americans are - my daughter's high school textbook for history has the African-Americans outnumbering the white 3 to 1 in terms of accomplishments (I went through the book and counted out of curiosity).

We're up to our necks in political correctness here.
Then I'm mistaken. But I don't want to see a situation like that over here. I wouldn't want my children to have to endure a history lesson which is just a lecture on how evil they all are because of what their distant ancestors did, and lecturing them on how much they have to grovel and apologise for the rest of their lives because of it. That's what these liberals want history lessons to consist of.

You're quoting wikipedia for a casualty number?

Wikipedia, without another site to back it up, is not reliable for numbers. Do you have any other websites?

http://www.bibingka.com/phg/balangiga/default.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/philippine-american-war
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=479

Here's Encarta - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566463_4/Spanish-American_War.html


See? This is how you give a figure.

a) In how many US history books is the massacre of hundreeds of thousands of philipinos stated, and in how many books do you accept that you are also, a colonialist country?
I don't remember much about highschool history so I can't tell you exactly about what the history books said about the philipines. Also yes I accept that my country had colonies but screwed them up significantly less then Europes colonies.

b) HEY! Don't look at us, my country actually fought for twelve years in a territory of the size of Europe, having half the current gdp we have today, in order to stay there! They wanted us out, their problem if they didn't considered the aftermath.
Oh yea blame it on the victims. European countries forcibly took over Africa, redrew the borders, took resources, and destroyed cultures and your excuse for the monumental fuck up there is that the colonies didn't consider the aftermath? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

I wouldn't want my children to have to endure a history lesson which is just a lecture on how evil they all are because of what their distant ancestors did, and lecturing them on how much they have to grovel and apologise for the rest of their lives because of it. That's what these liberals want history lessons to consist of.

Agreed. Personally, I think history books should always show the good and the bad, rather than just one or the other.

I don't remember much about highschool history so I can't tell you exactly about what the history books said about the philipines. Also yes I accept that my country had colonies but screwed them up significantly less then Europes colonies.


Oh yea blame it on the victims. European countries forcibly took over Africa, redrew the borders, took resources, and destroyed cultures and your excuse for the monumental fuck up there is that the colonies didn't consider the aftermath? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

a) "screw them up significantly"
European countries did as much damage in their colonies has the US did expanding west, against the Indians.

b) Yea, they didn't consider the aftermath. Life isn't all peachy, they wanted independence, they got it, and you know what they started after it? Civil war. And don't blame it on us that they started to get divided on political issues: In both Angola and Mozambique, civil wars started along political lines, not cultural lines.

It's not twisting it as such. Your simply interpreting things differently, rather than outright lying. I think it's a good thing to teach kids to be proud of their country, it's good for national morale.

Bullshit. It fascist to teach children "to be proud of their country" by denying that French colonialism fucked up pretty much everything it touched, causing a situation in which different tribes are forced into countries without any sense, as the borders were drawn in European cabinets without even aknowledging the existense of these. Of course, the kids should not be made to feel quilty, but they should know what happened, not what their government feels is best for national morale.

a) "screw them up significantly"
European countries did as much damage in their colonies has the US did expanding west, against the Indians.
True but we are talking about colonies here. The raw deal the American Indians got is for another conversation.

b) Yea, they didn't consider the aftermath. Life isn't all peachy, they wanted independence, they got it, and you know what they started after it? Civil war. And don't blame it on us that they started to get divided on political issues: In both Angola and Mozambique, civil wars started along political lines, not cultural lines.
Jeez and I wonder why these political civil wars started? Poor leadership because the colonial powers just thrust it upon someone as they jumped ship? A poor economy caused by the systematic pillaging and rape of the land? European countries fucked up Africa and just left it alone like a ticking time bomb. You can not honestly say well we came and conquered them, changed their cultures/lifestyles, controled their economic means which was uterly screwed when we left, and expect us to believe that its the colonies fault for this stuff.

Does that include US portraying as positive its colonialist stance on the Philipines and Puerto Rico?
The difference is that we're well liked in the Philipines and Puerto Rico's people keep voting to maintain their status as part of the USA.

a) "screw them up significantly"
European countries did as much damage in their colonies has the US did expanding west, against the Indians.

b) Yea, they didn't consider the aftermath. Life isn't all peachy, they wanted independence, they got it, and you know what they started after it? Civil war. And don't blame it on us that they started to get divided on political issues: In both Angola and Mozambique, civil wars started along political lines, not cultural lines.

If you have to found a nation, and government, without any actual basis, of course you end up with a civil war. That's what happens. Especially in times like the 70's, when the battle of the two super powers affected to the whole world.
Colonial powers are responsible, as if the African nations would have let to freely develop from the tribal system to more consentrated nation system, like in Europe during the same time (from feudalism to nations and states, and further, 1500-1980), they wouldn't have been forced to get their nations running basically out of nowhere.

PARIS - France, grappling for decades with its colonial past, has passed a law to put an upbeat spin on a painful era, making it mandatory to enshrine in textbooks the country's "positive role" in its far-flung colonies.

But the law is stirring anger among historians and passions in places like Algeria, which gained independence in a brutal conflict. Critics accuse France of trying to gild an inglorious colonial past with an "official history."

At issue is language in the law stipulating that "school programs recognize in particular the positive character of the French overseas presence, notably in North Africa."

."

Heck, without French colonialism, we wouldn't have the novel "Beau Geste" or all of those cool Foreign Legion movies.

We would still have the westerns.... :rolleyes:

As a Frenchman, if this goes through, I will be thoroughly ashamed of my country. But it won't go through.

True but we are talking about colonies here. The raw deal the American Indians got is for another conversation.


Jeez and I wonder why these political civil wars started? Poor leadership because the colonial powers just thrust it upon someone as they jumped ship? A poor economy caused by the systematic pillaging and rape of the land? European countries fucked up Africa and just left it alone like a ticking time bomb. You can not honestly say well we came and conquered them, changed their cultures/lifestyles, controled their economic means which was uterly screwed when we left, and expect us to believe that its the colonies fault for this stuff.

a) The effects are the same, or even worse, has we actually left people alive without having to lock them up in reservations.

b) In Angola, for example, those political wars started because those fresh colonies were caught in the middle of the cold war; Unita and MPLA (right wing and left wint political forces, allied against us) quickly started to fight against themselves, after they kicked our butts. Their leadership wasn't poor, in fact it was quite competent; Anything less and they would have lost the war. On the other hand, it was on the period of 1960-1974 that Angola had its greatest development, agricultural and industrial wise, has being rebelious, suddently the metropolis started to dedicate alot more attention to them, in order to "conquer their hearts and minds". So yea, I Honestly say that they fucked up after we left them - They had a huge country, with an excelent agricultural basis to start with, a unifying culture (curiously, they ALL speak the same language, an heritage that we left was cultural union), and they fucked it up, by allowing petty bickering and politics stand in their way.
Thinking backwards; If it was because of ethnic and cultural division, poverty and colonialism, why have they finally found peace, after 20 years of civil war (Both Angola and Mozambique have peace for 5 and 10 years, respectively, though by the end years, UNITA wasnt really a fighting force, just a de-stabilizing one).

The difference is that we're well liked in the Philipines and Puerto Rico's people keep voting to maintain their status as part of the USA.

And Angolans love us, ditto for Mozambicans. Hell, some of them are my college colleagues, and they are great people o.od
I've got Portuguies friends working in Mozambique, if you want, send me a private message (if possible in these boards), and ill give you their contact, so that you can find for yourself how we are liked or not.
And about Puerto rico's people keeping voting to maintain their status as part of the USA.. well, I could use that other guy's argument that they only like you because of economical dependence (which i disagree, both for you americans and for Europeans)

If you have to found a nation, and government, without any actual basis, of course you end up with a civil war. That's what happens. Especially in times like the 70's, when the battle of the two super powers affected to the whole world.
Colonial powers are responsible, as if the African nations would have let to freely develop from the tribal system to more consentrated nation system, like in Europe during the same time (from feudalism to nations and states, and further, 1500-1980), they wouldn't have been forced to get their nations running basically out of nowhere.

Neither India, nor Pakistan had an actual basis to start has countries, yet they didn't start in a civil war when they got their independence. And they didn't had to run their countries out of nowere, they had the infrastructure, and in most cases, the political leadership to move on, but they didn't.

b) In Angola, for example, those political wars started because those fresh colonies were caught in the middle of the cold war; Unita and MPLA (right wing and left wint political forces, allied against us) quickly started to fight against themselves, after they kicked our butts.

Oh please - you have the US and former USSR and Cuba to blame for that mess.

And don't forget Shell Oil!

Oh please - you have the US and former USSR and Cuba to blame for that mess.

And don't forget Shell Oil!


I think shell was innocent :p

Agreed. Personally, I think history books should always show the good and the bad, rather than just one or the other.

Ahh yes in a perfect world huh. The sad truth of the matter is it's usually if not always the winners that write the history books. So, while we do get an account of the conflict, we rarely ever know the real scope of the "bad things" the winners did to be the winners. They write them to suit their own agenda's and make themselves look good. Sad, but true. I mean how many generations really believed that it was the Native Americans who were the savages before the truth came out that it was the other way around? More than I care to count.

I think shell was innocent :p

Shell Oil wins no matter who wins the war in Angola!

Ahh yes in a perfect world huh. The sad truth of the matter is it's usually if not always the winners that write the history books. So, while we do get an account of the conflict, we rarely ever know the real scope of the "bad things" the winners did to be the winners. They write them to suit their own agenda's and make themselves look good. Sad, but true. I mean how many generations really believed that it was the Native Americans who were the savages before the truth came out that it was the other way around? More than I care to count.

I love the way the "truth" has come out so far - swinging so hard the other way that it is no longer the truth, either.

My daughter's history book from school is a classic example.

There are two chapters on the Civil War. You never find out anything that Abraham Lincoln did or said - you only discover that he was President at the time - you never know the names Grant or Lee, even though they describe a few battles. If this was the only book you ever read, you would think that African-Americans in the North started the war, and won it nearly all by themselves, despite the fact that Lincoln was President - in fact, it almost reads as if it were all in spite of Lincoln.

Sorry. Had to make my daughter read the Carl Sandburg version, and a few other references, just to get things straight.

I love the way the "truth" has come out so far - swinging so hard the other way that it is no longer the truth, either.

As much as I dislike agreeing with you..lol you do make a valid point. :D

When I went to school in Pennsylvania we got the hard truth about American history. We had this 5'6' 250 pound blacksmith for a history teacher. Long grey beard and carried a sword. But he got down to the basics and broke it all down, in the truth. He sugar coated nothing about our history and the wars that where fought. He picked apart Last Stand Hill and and the 7th Cavalry. The use of nerve gas in WW1, the crimes of WW2. It was like that in many of the schools I went to across the country. They where very candid about it.

And I was going to make another thread about why do the nations of Europe say American Colonialism is bad yet they all have done it? Is it suddenly because the shoe is on the other foot now? But I was beaten to it.

When I went to school in Pennsylvania we got the hard truth about American history. We had this 5'6' 250 pound blacksmith for a history teacher. Long grey beard and carried a sword. But he got down to the basics and broke it all down, in the truth. He sugar coated nothing about our history and the wars that where fought. He picked apart Last Stand Hill and and the 7th Cavalry. The use of nerve gas in WW1, the crimes of WW2. It was like that in many of the schools I went to across the country. They where very candid about it.

And I was going to make another thread about why do the nations of Europe say American Colonialism is bad yet they all have done it? Is it suddenly because the shoe is on the other foot now? But I was beaten to it.


Who said European Colonialism was good? It was awful, full of blood.. but the thing is, don't make us demons, too. I'll give you an example: My country traded thousands of african slaves, if not millions. We were bad. But now, the thing is, how do you think we got those slaves?

I'll tell ya.

It wasnt going after them in Africa, killing the men and taking the children and women as slaves, oh no.

We would buy them. From other Africans. You see, african tribes would fight alot amongst themselves, and take prisioners. We would come to the coast, and trade clothes and stuff like that for slaves. We were mean, but they weren't innocent. And guess when this trade ended? When we started to get inland, and decided that they should live in peace. Yea, that is an arrogant attitude, but it fixed their constant tribal wars.

My country started military action in angola after SEVEN THOUSAND of our colonists were butchered. Civilians. Sure, we ended up killing alot more than 7000 innocent african civilians.. but their hands aren't all white and pure, far from it. No one is righteous, no one is innocent, and it really pisses me off when someone starts playing white vs black scenarious.

No one is righteous, no one is innocent, and it really pisses me off when someone starts playing white vs black scenarious.

I keep saying things like this, and people say I'm an asshole for doing it.

One question. If it where not for European Colonialism. Would Communism have rose to power so quickly through out Asia? Many nations in Asia where under French control ie Vietnam. And they fought their wars for inpendance and won and now look where they are at? Or how bad Europe broke apart China after the Opium wars? So like I said if Europe would have remained out of Asian affairs would Communism spread so quickly?

Finally, one European nation, whoch is incidentally the best, actually embraces its history. To all anti-colonial posters in the thread, I pose the following enquiry. To what greater extent would the colonised nations be regressed from their current state had the imperial powers not elected to assume control? Quite how mcuh more aid would be required per annum had the luminaries that enacted imperial conquest not colonised the world?

I keep saying things like this, and people say I'm an asshole for doing it.

It truly does make any discussion a politically correct minefield though.

Biased history like that is pretty crappy. In British schools, they deliberately try to downplay Britains achievements so as to avoid a nationalist vibe - or at least that happened in the school I went to.

However, it's pretty rich all this criticism coming from Americans, when we were given sources from American text books on Vietnam as an example of a biased source - they portrayed the war as a positive thing, when anyone not blinded by pride knows how bad it was.

One question. If it where not for European Colonialism. Would Communism have rose to power so quickly through out Asia? Many nations in Asia where under French control ie Vietnam. And they fought their wars for inpendance and won and now look where they are at? Or how bad Europe broke apart China after the Opium wars? So like I said if Europe would have remained out of Asian affairs would Communism spread so quickly?

Very hard to say.. this is going to be one of those crappy theoretical exercises, but..

i'd say that if it had not been for European Colonialism, communism would't have spread so easily. I justify this claim with the fact that Communism was in fact, used as an extention of nationalism. Also, most colonial powers were Allies of the US against the USSR, so it was easy for the communists to claim that they could help better than anyone the colonies to "free themselves", thus also spreading their political theories. Almost without exception, Soviet Material and Communist advisors could be found in every colony at war with their metropolis, from Algeria to Vietnam.

Offcourse, if it wasnt for those very colonies, the British wouldnt have had the resources to fight the axis, and blablabla..

History is nice to see what was, and what errors we should not make, but it's awful to tell the "what could have been's"

Maybe people will now accept that France isn't some evil left-wing country. It's an evil right-wing country. :-)
Bah, political correctness is universal in its stupidity.