NationStates Jolt Archive

I analyze Africa, run-down Asia, and a ruined Latin America, and I see something that I haven't really heard often in articles or essays or magazines or news reports: it's our fault.

Yes, we, whites, have ruined entire cultural continents. How? We contaminated the natural development of sovereign cultures which weren't ready for our level of technology. We brutalized, enslaved, exploited, colonized, displaced, and conquered other human beings in our quest for power.

When we invaded Africa, the natives were still effectively in the stone age. They hadn't the resources, crops, animals, or climate to develop a civilization comparable to European civilization. We introduced firearms and a plethora of other items which completely transformed African society. And then we colonized their lands. We conquered them, and divided their lands. And when we left, due either to native uprising, or political pressure, their borders were so utterly changed, and there was such a mix of cultures and ethnicites completely alien to each other, that it's no wonder so many wars of strife sprung up throughout Africa. Today, Africa is a sad example of cultural contamination. We drew imaginary borders, and expected them to just get along, without realizing how destructive we were to the natural balance of Africa.

In Latin America, we conquered the stone age Incans and the Aztecs. Our firearms defeated their vast armies, in the few battles there were, and our diseases conquered their continent. We enslaved them, and treated them like animals. And when Latin American provinces became independent nations, there was such a division between the natives and the Spaniards that the nations had no economic balance. Today, Mexico has a roughly 40% unemployment rate. It's a third-world nation, and completely run-down. Yet, the Aztec Empire, though primitive, was hardly run-down. It had a rich culture and great power for its technological level, until we ruined their natural development, and upset the balance.

And in Asia, we introduced primitive cultures to weapons they hadn't dreamt of, and one in particular, Japan, became one of the most aggressive nations of the past century, bringing war to many nations in its quest for power. China dwindled, as it had been, and even more, since the Europeans exploited China and stole their territory. China's balance collapsed, and it fell into decades of chaos.

The original concept of cultural integrity comes, at least for me, from a Star Trek notion of the Prime Directive, a pledge of non-interference in the natural development of other cultures. Either a culture fails due to inefficiency and lack of balance, or it develops into a developed nation, such as many nations in the West. Had the native Americans been given time, I don't doubt that the Aztecs could have built railroads, developed human concepts of liberty, and the works, but they didn't get the chance because of European aggression.

Colonial powers can be blamed for doing nothing to prepare their people for independence, but they cannot be blamed for the state those people are in now. You can't blame colonialism forever.

Colonial powers can be blamed for doing nothing to prepare their people for independence, but they cannot be blamed for the state those people are in now. You can't blame colonialism forever.

I agree that you cannot blame colonialism forever, but you can blame colonialism for not preparing the people, and you can blame colonialism for the rape and exploitation of the nations which were ruled by European colonialism.

I actually doubt the ability of the Aztecs to develop themselves independently, mainly because of the structure of their culture. They contributed very little to any kind of technological or social development, and most of what they did have was obtained through conquest rather than invention. Other civilizations, like the Inca or the Maya could have developed technologically but I seriously doubt the Aztecs could have.

Even if they did, it might have prolonged technological evolution in the Americas by centuries or even millenia; the product of this might have been India or China becoming the technological leader or Africa retaining the assets that would have been lost if the slave trade had developed like it did in the New World.

The Americas and Europe would have still advanced, but the world would still change dramatically. Personally, I feel cultural contamination is a good thing; all cultures thrive when knowledge, goods, and technology are exchanged and the overall outcome is accelerated development and advancement,

I agree that you cannot blame colonialism forever, but you can blame colonialism for not preparing the people, and you can blame colonialism for the rape and exploitation of the nations which were ruled by European colonialism.

In some cases (many, actually) we can be blamed. Many of their scummy leaders they did not choose. They never chose Mobutu Sese Seko, for example. We (the U.S., Belgium, etc.) shoved him down the throats of the Congolese.

Personally, I feel cultural contamination is a good thing; all cultures thrive when knowledge, goods, and technology are exchanged and the overall outcome is accelerated development and advancement,

"Cultural contamination" (acculturation) and colonialism are two vastly different things.

I actually doubt the ability of the Aztecs to develop themselves independently, mainly because of the structure of their culture. They contributed very little to any kind of technological or social development, and most of what they did have was obtained through conquest rather than invention. Other civilizations, like the Inca or the Maya could have developed technologically but I seriously doubt the Aztecs could have.

You might be right. An interesting book to read is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Professor Jared Diamond. The Aztecs couldn't have become terribly advanced because they lacked adequate supplies of protein (one of the reasons for human sacrifice), they lacked horses with which most modern civilizations were based upon (they help to operate mills and machinery, as well as plows and other implements), and they lacked a wide variety of crops as did Eurasian cultures.

Even if they did, it might have prolonged technological evolution in the Americas by centuries or even millenia; the product of this might have been India or China becoming the technological leader or Africa retaining the assets that would have been lost if the slave trade had developed like it did in the New World.

The Americas and Europe would have still advanced, but the world would still change dramatically. Personally, I feel cultural contamination is a good thing; all cultures thrive when knowledge, goods, and technology are exchanged and the overall outcome is accelerated development and advancement,

You do have a point and I won't dismiss you for the sole purpose of disagreement. Exchange of information and knowledge is a good thing, but honestly, consider the level of exchange in 16th century Earth: obey Catholicism or die. Quite dramatic, but back then, exchange of ideas were last on the minds of the conquerors and exploiters, er I mean explorers. ;)

Personally, I also blame tribalism. India for example was also brutally conquered, its culture suppressed, environment exploited etc.

But they managed to pull together (except for the whole India v Pakistan thing, I suppose) and it's not that bad a place now.

That Africa is in such a bad shape was not a given when the Western powers left. The current outcome is due to many factors, and colonialism is only one of them. I don't think we should start excusing the stupid or wrong choices Africans made with the stupid or wrong choices made previously by colonial powers.

Also, Mexico isn't that bad. It's rated #53 in the HDI, which still puts it in the top third. And its unemployment rate is 3.6% plus perhaps 25% underemployment, according to the CIA Factbook. And if you look at the history of the place, I think you'll find it difficult to blame Mexico's current economic woes on colonialism.

Also, the Aztecs developing a concept of human liberty? With what? They were a radical theocratic state that would sacrifice thousands of prisoners to please the various gods. The Mongols would've been more likely to come up with human rights than the Aztecs!

Also, Mexico isn't that bad. It's rated #53 in the HDI, which still puts it in the top third.

HDI is hardly credible.

HDI is hardly credible.
What else do you want to use? Fact is that Mexico is not a 3rd world country as a whole, although there are some regions within it that come pretty close. But those are cancelled out by other regions that are pretty close to Western Europe for example.

That Africa is in such a bad shape was not a given when the Western powers left. The current outcome is due to many factors, and colonialism is only one of them. I don't think we should start excusing the stupid or wrong choices Africans made with the stupid or wrong choices made previously by colonial powers.

Most African leaders weren't/aren't chosen. Most African leaders have shot their way to power (i.e., by coup), and what few who were elected often remained in office for life.

Personally, I also blame tribalism. India for example was also brutally conquered, its culture suppressed, environment exploited etc.

This is an example of the positive effects of cultural contamination. India is obviously an exception.

That Africa is in such a bad shape was not a given when the Western powers left. The current outcome is due to many factors, and colonialism is only one of them. I don't think we should start excusing the stupid or wrong choices Africans made with the stupid or wrong choices made previously by colonial powers.

A reason for many of the African wars is that after the colonialist Europeans left Africa, the borders crossed tribal territories, so obviously without European supervision and domination, you'd have Africans fighting over territory which "belongs to us" or "belongs to them".

Most African leaders weren't/aren't chosen. Most African leaders have shot their way to power (i.e., by coup), and what few who were elected often remained in office for life.
A reason for many of the African wars is that after the colonialist Europeans left Africa, the borders crossed tribal territories, so obviously without European supervision and domination, you'd have Africans fighting over territory which "belongs to us" or "belongs to them".
And you'd go ahead and then blame Europeans for this? As if the Africans didn't still have a free choice whether or not they wanted to blow their neighbours' heads off?

And in Asia, we introduced primitive cultures to weapons they hadn't dreamt of, and one in particular, Japan, became one of the most aggressive nations of the past century, bringing war to many nations in its quest for power. China dwindled, as it had been, and even more, since the Europeans exploited China and stole their territory. China's balance collapsed, and it fell into decades of chaos.
Er... not drempt of? How so? The Chinese invented gunpowder, firearms, and guns.

Er... not drempt of? How so? The Chinese invented gunpowder, firearms, and guns.

I've discussed Chinese culture in my Technocratic Syndicalist Manifesto thread if you're interested. I've graduated high school so I'm quite aware of Chinese technological advances, thanks.

Notice I never said China when I said Japan.

I've discussed Chinese culture in my Technocratic Syndicalist Manifesto thread if you're interested. I've graduated high school so I'm quite aware of Chinese technological advances, thanks.
You said that weapons undrempt of were intoduced, I ask how so, given that China invented the bloody things.

Much of the technology used in the European Age of Exploration came from other areas of the globe, so I am trying to figure out just what got introduced to the area that wasn't already here?

And I'm happy you graduated from high school, I've graduated from university after studying Asian Studies, so your point is?

Notice I never said China when I said Japan.
I didn't even bother with the Japan statement because I don't feel like giving another history lesson about what was going on during the Meiji Period leading into Taisho and Showa Eras.

Alright, the China thing is absolutely, blatantly false. China grew weak not because of foreign involvement, but rather because of a lack of it. China reached such a high point in development that it became highly isolationist; the once innovative Mandarin class of bureacrat-scholars closed China off from the rest of the world, and strictly limited free expression and innovation in China itself. Western powers exploited a China that was already utterly backwards.

The fact is that cultural mingling, no matter how violent, is necessary for civilization to advance. The very reason Europe became so technologically adept, after all, was due to its interactions with the Islamic world that brought mathematical innovation, Roman and Greek classics, and other advancements to Europe.

And you'd go ahead and then blame Europeans for this? As if the Africans didn't still have a free choice whether or not they wanted to blow their neighbours' heads off?

All I'm saying is, most African leaders were not chosen by their people. They installed themselves, whether the people liked it or not.

You said that weapons undrempt of were intoduced, I ask how so, given that China invented the bloody things.

Most technologies of the industrial age.

Also, note that not all Chinese advances in Medieval technology didn't leak into neighboring countries as easily as they could have.

And I'm happy you graduated from high school, I've graduated from university after studying Asian Studies, so your point is?

While I haven't studied Asian Studies, I did know that China came up with many "European" technologies before the Europeans "invented" them.

TechSynd - Your the type that goes to Rap concerts and yells that you are sorry for being white right?

1. Problems in 3rd world nations are not the cause of us in the 21st century, it was in the past and the people who had a part in it are long gone.

2. Cause of the White people? Can't remember any Romanian, Polish, Swiss etc. colonies in 3rd world nations so if you want to pin the problems of these nations on whites do so instead using the nations name ie Spain, England, France, Holland etc.

3. People in South America are mostly Spanish and as such not the native people of those lands, the natives got killed a long time ago. These same "re-located" Spaniards fought for independence ie Argentina, Mexico and got into the troubles they are in now on their own. It's not like Spain had a say in later years.

4. I know some Africans and they tell me that they think the whole "Feed Africa" thing and "Give Africa Money" is a joke, the babble of "Liberals" as they call it. Words of native Africans not mine.

5. Do we in Europe owe former colonial nations anything? No, not the least.

6. You seem to forgett that Asian nations colonized other Asian nations, the same goes for the rest of the world so it's not a "white thing".

7. Should we take immigrants in because of their troubles, NO!

8. Aid to these nations is a joke, send in people to teach the natives how to build their nations and get out leaving them in charge of their fates.

TechSynd - Your the type that goes to Rap concerts and yells that you are sorry for being white right?

I won't take the bait.

1. Problems in 3rd world nations are not the cause of us in the 21st century, it was in the past and the people who had a part in it are long gone.

The people are gone, but the mis-matched borders still exist, and so does the exploitation of their resources which continues.

2. Cause of the White people? Can't remember any Romanian, Polish, Swiss etc. colonies in 3rd world nations so if you want to pin the problems of these nations on whites do so instead using the nations name ie Spain, England, France, Holland etc.

I could, but that would exclude Romanian, Polish, and Swiss emigrants to the colonialist nations which helped exploit third-world nations.

3. People in South America are mostly Spanish and as such not the native people of those lands, the natives got killed a long time ago. These same "re-located" Spaniards fought for independence ie Argentina, Mexico and got into the troubles they are in now on their own. It's not like Spain had a say in later years.

The people in South America are mostly Europeans and assimilated native Indians.

4. I know some Africans and they tell me that they think the whole "Feed Africa" thing and "Give Africa Money" is a joke, the babble of "Liberals" as they call it. Words of native Africans not mine.

And I've been advocating "Feed Africa" and "Give Africa Money" how?

5. Do we in Europe owe former colonial nations anything? No, not the least.

Not even if they've brutalized and exploited those nations?

6. You seem to forgett that Asian nations colonized other Asian nations, the same goes for the rest of the world so it's not a "white thing".

Not on the same scale as in the past 300 years. Of course, you could bring up the topic of human migration, but that's not the same as colonialism.

7. Should we take immigrants in because of their troubles, NO!

This wasn't about immigrants.

8. Aid to these nations is a joke, send in people to teach the natives how to build their nations and get out leaving them in charge of their fates.

This also wasn't about aid either. I'm honestly not interested in your right-wing opinions, to be quite frank, so if you want to get "uninterested" in my "left-wing" opinions, I won't blame you.

Colonialism is particularly unjust, but I don't give a damn about cultural contamination. Cultural conservativism sucks balls, it leads to stagnation, both socially and economically, and deprives all potentially involved parties of potential gains. Cultural isolation benefits no one, except for a handful of elites (specifically religious, entrenched economic interests and a handful of others) who might lose cultural influence.

And in Asia, we introduced primitive cultures to weapons they hadn't dreamt of, and one in particular, Japan, became one of the most aggressive nations of the past century, bringing war to many nations in its quest for power. China dwindled, as it had been, and even more, since the Europeans exploited China and stole their territory. China's balance collapsed, and it fell into decades of chaos.

Japan only became an aggressor when they decided to copy the west, and be an imperial power. Japan hoped on the boat of 'The New Imperialism' right enxt to the USA, France, the British Empire, Italy, Germany and others. Much like the West bears responsiblity for their atrocities, so does Japan.

When we invaded Africa, the natives were still effectively in the stone age. They hadn't the resources, crops, animals, or climate to develop a civilization comparable to European civilization. We introduced firearms and a plethora of other items which completely transformed African society. And then we colonized their lands. We conquered them, and divided their lands. And when we left, due either to native uprising, or political pressure, their borders were so utterly changed, and there was such a mix of cultures and ethnicites completely alien to each other, that it's no wonder so many wars of strife sprung up throughout Africa. Today, Africa is a sad example of cultural contamination. We drew imaginary borders, and expected them to just get along, without realizing how destructive we were to the natural balance of Africa.

This shows a general lack of understanding of how Africa was in 1550. Africa ranged from centralized empires with modern metalurgy all the way to primitive band societies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

I actually doubt the ability of the Aztecs to develop themselves independently, mainly because of the structure of their culture. They contributed very little to any kind of technological or social development, and most of what they did have was obtained through conquest rather than invention. Other civilizations, like the Inca or the Maya could have developed technologically but I seriously doubt the Aztecs could have.

Very similar to the Romans, who developed very little, but copied well and applied their newly absorbed ideas very effectively. Even the standards that allowed legions to regroup and keep cohesion were copied, from the Celts.


Now, I don't disagree with the idea that the West largely fucked the rest of the world from 1490-1940. However, it wasn't the spread of technology that hurt the rest of the world, it was the west randomly chopping it up, stealing it's wealth and otherwise raping it.

Armand! Haven't seen you in a while.

Africa would have run into problems anyway, without the redrawing of borders. I used to have a map of the territory 'controlled' by each tribe, and it made Africa look like an insane mosaic with zillions of tiny pieces and a few larger 'empires' which were roughly the size of modern African nations. Any continent that was so tribalised would have been subject to the same tribal wars, feuds and conflicts that Europe experienced, but on a much more fragmented scale. Rather than four rather large nations fighting each other, imagine forty tiny ones fighting each other.

Africa today is a mess. But I would contend that Africa without European involvement would be just as damaged. Eventually, some tribes or nations would have risen to power and subjugated others, as humans tend to do. There would still have been the issue of Imperialism and bizzare borders, just because you're an African leader five hundred miles away doesn't make you any more in-tune with local politics in the C19th than it would a European administrator 500 miles away.

Africa would also be less of a mess if the Soviets hadn't pumped so many millions of AK-47s and RPG-7s into the continent during the sixties and seventies. A massively overarmed, very ethnically divided continent is a recipe for disaster, and is guaranteed to really get a lot of people dead.

I won't take the bait.
Fine, it was just sarcasm.


The people are gone, but the mis-matched borders still exist, and so does the exploitation of their resources which continues.
Then that is something that the governments of those nations have to deal with just the two of them ie the Somalian government and the British government. I don't think they or any other nations should though. The African states have their own governments, flag, anthem and peoples now and can take care of internal issues on their own. If they want to sell eg America oil then they are free to do so and the same goes if they do not. Border issues should be left to those nations who share the dispute and not former empire nations.


I could, but that would exclude Romanian, Polish, and Swiss emigrants to the colonialist nations which helped exploit third-world nations.
Well Johnny from Denmark joined the Americans in the revolution against the British so I think Britain should get back at Denmark for that right?


The people in South America are mostly Europeans and assimilated native Indians.
I know, I just assumed you would get that.


And I've been advocating "Feed Africa" and "Give Africa Money" how?
No but it is part of your argument if you like it or not.


Not even if they've brutalized and exploited those nations?
No.


Not on the same scale as in the past 300 years. Of course, you could bring up the topic of human migration, but that's not the same as colonialism.
Just because it is closer to your time we should pay, hypocritical I think. If you want it your way how could we not force Greece to pay back what ever they took from Iran or Italy to Germany?


This wasn't about immigrants.
I know but again it is part of your argument weather you like it or not.


This also wasn't about aid either. I'm honestly not interested in your right-wing opinions, to be quite frank, so if you want to get "uninterested" in my "left-wing" opinions, I won't blame you.
Again, part of your argument. You can not leave these bits out of it.

How is left-wing better then right-wing and how is right-wing wrong.

You make it sound like I'm an extreme person when I am not, insulting.

I analyze Africa, run-down Asia, and a ruined Latin America, and I see something that I haven't really heard often in articles or essays or magazines or news reports: it's our fault.

Yes, we, whites, have ruined entire cultural continents. How? We contaminated the natural development of sovereign cultures which weren't ready for our level of technology. We brutalized, enslaved, exploited, colonized, displaced, and conquered other human beings in our quest for power.

When we invaded Africa, the natives were still effectively in the stone age. They hadn't the resources, crops, animals, or climate to develop a civilization comparable to European civilization. We introduced firearms and a plethora of other items which completely transformed African society. And then we colonized their lands. We conquered them, and divided their lands. And when we left, due either to native uprising, or political pressure, their borders were so utterly changed, and there was such a mix of cultures and ethnicites completely alien to each other, that it's no wonder so many wars of strife sprung up throughout Africa. Today, Africa is a sad example of cultural contamination. We drew imaginary borders, and expected them to just get along, without realizing how destructive we were to the natural balance of Africa.

In Latin America, we conquered the stone age Incans and the Aztecs. Our firearms defeated their vast armies, in the few battles there were, and our diseases conquered their continent. We enslaved them, and treated them like animals. And when Latin American provinces became independent nations, there was such a division between the natives and the Spaniards that the nations had no economic balance. Today, Mexico has a roughly 40% unemployment rate. It's a third-world nation, and completely run-down. Yet, the Aztec Empire, though primitive, was hardly run-down. It had a rich culture and great power for its technological level, until we ruined their natural development, and upset the balance.

And in Asia, we introduced primitive cultures to weapons they hadn't dreamt of, and one in particular, Japan, became one of the most aggressive nations of the past century, bringing war to many nations in its quest for power. China dwindled, as it had been, and even more, since the Europeans exploited China and stole their territory. China's balance collapsed, and it fell into decades of chaos.

The original concept of cultural integrity comes, at least for me, from a Star Trek notion of the Prime Directive, a pledge of non-interference in the natural development of other cultures. Either a culture fails due to inefficiency and lack of balance, or it develops into a developed nation, such as many nations in the West. Had the native Americans been given time, I don't doubt that the Aztecs could have built railroads, developed human concepts of liberty, and the works, but they didn't get the chance because of European aggression.



Pfft.
Stupidity.

THEY would have done it too if theyd been quick enough, so what, only white men can enslave races?
Carthaginia (Half-Cast) never did it, nor did the Huns.(Asians) Nope.

Not to mention the fact its there bloody cultures fault if it got ran down, id feel the same if we got invaded. Whichever system works best is the best for you, dont whine and bitch about how its not right just accept you got beaten, and pray they dont kill you all.

I feel pity for the african peoples as they are starving, but if they continue to elect people who are clearly corrupt i think we should just invade again, theyd certainly be better off under the NHS and wed be better of because of their resources.
Fairs fair.

Mexico isnt third world for the record.

And america is a stupid comparrison because almost every american over therre is one of our descendants so there IS no cultural gap.

Not to mention the fact its there bloody cultures fault if it got ran down, id feel the same if we got invaded. Whichever system works best is the best for you, dont whine and bitch about how its not right just accept you got beaten, and pray they dont kill you all.

so you messure the value of a culture by the number of other cultures it can conquer?

Colonial powers can be blamed for doing nothing to prepare their people for independence, but they cannot be blamed for the state those people are in now. You can't blame colonialism forever.

I think that it rather depends on who the colonizing power was and what the example is.

IMO:
The British did a reasonably good job with India & Pakistan, and IMO a very good job with Canada & Australia & New Zealand. They did much less well with the United States and South Africa.

The Spanish come next, as the infrastructure of South America and Mexico were not totally stripped out when they left. Argentina, Chile, Mexico and most of the smaller countries were/are reasonably well off.

The US has a mixed record: The Philipeans were not too badly off, but it was a bloody campaign against the Moros and it did fall to the Japanese. Puerto Rico, Samoa and other small islands do very well. Liberia, although not really a colony, was given more than it might have. Cuba was doing very well economically at the hand over, even though it fell to Communism much later.

The Dutch had few colonies that weren't taken over by the British, so they're kind of hard to rate. However, Malaca was bounced like a ping-pong ball back and forth with Britain as a bargaining chip. Aruba is pretty well off, disappearing blondes from the American South not withstanding. Slavery was only banned in 1863, the last European power to do so (and at the same time as the Americans). Suriname and Indonesia took longer to "blossom" than other states of other Empires.

Germany had few colonies, and did little with them other than exploit.

The Portugese were terrible pretty much everywhere except Brazil, and that was only because they had to move the seat of the Empire there for 12 years or so.

The Russians were bad: pretty much nothing put back into Alaska, Poland, the Baltics or any number of other Tsarist dominions.

Belgium was very bad in the Congo, which was basically King Leopold II's own property (later the Beligan Congo). Ruanda-Urundi (to become Rwanda and Burundi) were better governed, but they did favor the Tutsi, and so set the stage for the future.
Major reasons for instability in sub-Saharan Africa.

The French were awful all around, especially in Viet Nam. Algeria was better off than that, but still badly goverened.

so you messure the value of a culture by the number of other cultures it can conquer?

Well, maybe if you're playing Sid Meyer's Civilization 3. :D

I have to disagree, in fact I contend the opposite. I see colonialism as potentially the greatest gift a developed country can give to an underdeveloped neighbour. If properly managed, I see neo-colonialism as the most realistic and effective tool of rapidly bringing the chronically underdeveloped world up to speed with the rest of the world.

I agree that you cannot blame colonialism forever, but you can blame colonialism for not preparing the people, and you can blame colonialism for the rape and exploitation of the nations which were ruled by European colonialism.
You can also thank colonialism for the residual economic infrastructure left behind in post-colonial states which allowed many of them to become the economic powerhouses they are today.

The Portuguese were the worst colonialists, IMO. They did absolutely nothing - or damn close to nothing - to develop their colonies. The Belgians were not too bad. And note that by "Belgians," I mean Belgium, not King Leopold II. Since the Congo Free State was his personal fiefdom, the atrocities there are attributable to him, not the Belgians. The Belgian Congo was nothing to brag about in terms of how blacks were treated, but at least they did a little (not nearly enough, though) to develop their colony, unlike the Portuguese.

All I'm saying is, most African leaders were not chosen by their people. They installed themselves, whether the people liked it or not.
Here is an alternative example: South Korea.

During and for a while after the Korean War, Syngman Rhee was in charge. He was not particularly democratic, and didn't deal with dissidents and especially communists all too kindly.

Then there was a revolution, overthrowing him. He fled into exile, and a democratic movement took over. But that movement broke apart due to infighting and the like.

Another coup d'etat followed, brining a dictator to power. Until now, this sounds a lot like your average poor African country, right?

But this dictator, Park Chung-Hee, did what any given African dictator could also have done. From a GDP per capita of around 70 dollars, he transformed the economy and moved it towards industrial exports, until GDP per capita was more than $1500 when he died.

South Korea had just come from a coup. It was not free from the influences of the Cold War (quite the opposite), it was not free from threats of military invasion from its neighbours.

When Park died, the economy formed a basis for political stabilisation. The leaders that followed began to lose some of the centralised power Park had enjoyed, and eventually free elections were allowed.

No one can argue that South Korea had a good time under Japanese colonialism, nor that its environment was particularly stable, nor that it was particularly rich in resources, nor that the West and East kept out of its affairs. And yet, a bit of proper leadership meant that the place turned out not all that bad.

It was this leadership that Africa's been missing for the most part, and I just don't think you can blame Europeans for that.

I'm well familiar with South Korea and Park. And I don't completely blame Europeans. Africa has had very few good leaders. There are a few exceptions - Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Jomo Kenyatta, Sir Seretse Khama, and Moise Tshombe - but on the whole, African leaders have sucked.

bump

Had the native Americans been given time, I don't doubt that the Aztecs could have built railroads, developed human concepts of liberty, and the works, but they didn't get the chance because of European aggression.[/QUOTE]


thats a ridiculous assertion, given that they had all manner of time and never progressed technologically.

its like saying that if you leave idiot kids alone one day they will spout brilliant poetry or complex mathematical formulas, just because you want them to.

China and Japan wre not really in the stone age; before the 18th century they were more advanced than Europe.

They have had lots of time to clean up their act after the age of imperialism, but they haven't. It's not our fault they were terrible at government, infrastructure, technology, effective society, etc., and still are.

Had the native Americans been given time, I don't doubt that the Aztecs could have built railroads, developed human concepts of liberty, and the works, but they didn't get the chance because of European aggression.

thats a ridiculous assertion, given that they had all manner of time and never progressed technologically.

its like saying that if you leave idiot kids alone one day they will spout brilliant poetry or complex mathematical formulas, just because you want them to.


That, and the Aztecs didn't actually have the wheel. :D

Japan is the only country on Earth outside of Europe that was not colonized by Europe.

If Colonialism is bad, they why did areas outside of Africa (North America, Australia, New Zealand, South America, most of Asia) come out so much better than (particularly sub-Saharan) Africa?

Japan is the only country on Earth outside of Europe that was not colonized by Europe.

If Colonialism is bad, they why did areas outside of Africa (North America, Australia, New Zealand, South America, most of Asia) come out so much better than (particularly sub-Saharan) Africa?

Thailand was never colonized. Liberia was never colonized. Ethiopia was never colonized (except for Mussolini's five year occupation).

In some places Colonialism has hurt and some places it has helped. Look at America it was a former colony but now it is a super power.

I personally have no problem with colonization as long as it helps my nation. Colonization is the reason European countries are powerful today. Without it the world would be a far different and more horrible place(for the civilized world atleast).

Thailand was never colonized. Liberia was never colonized. Ethiopia was never colonized (except for Mussolini's five year occupation).
Which just shows that both colonisation and the lack of it can result in widely varying outcomes.

I think even a correlation is hard to prove, a causation pretty much impossible.

7. Should we take immigrants in because of their troubles, NO!
My opinion is that all former imperialist powers have an obligation to accept immigrants from their old colonies. Otherwise they're just hypocrites.

Thailand was never colonized. Liberia was never colonized. Ethiopia was never colonized (except for Mussolini's five year occupation).

Re: Thailand & Ethiopia: I stand corrected!

Liberia: It was founded by colonizing freed US ex-slaves! (I think their flag & the capital of "Monrovia" are kind of hints...)

Re: Thailand & Ethiopia: I stand corrected!

Liberia: It was founded by colonizing freed US ex-slaves! (I think their flag & the capital of "Monrovia" are kind of hints...)

Liberia was never a colony, though. It was always an independent nation.

Liberia was never a colony, though. It was always an independent nation.

Er, it was founded *after* the American freed slaves arrived: they started going there in 1822 (or so), and Liberia came to be in 1847. It's as close to an American colony as one can find.

Er, it was founded *after* the American freed slaves arrived: they started going there in 1822 (or so), and Liberia came to be in 1847. It's as close to an American colony as one can find.

It wasn founded by freed slaves, but it didn't belong to us. It was never ruled by the U.S. as, say, Sierra Leone was ruled by the British.

Er, it was founded *after* the American freed slaves arrived: they started going there in 1822 (or so), and Liberia came to be in 1847. It's as close to an American colony as one can find.

Dont' forget the Philippines ;)

...

Anyways, many regions in the imperial system had many immense pressures for independence after WWII. These ranged from the shattered prestige of the coloniser (esp. in Asia), economic difficulties in running the colonies, nationalist movements, and external influences, most notably the general anti-colonialist attitude of America.

Asia pretty much got what its long-running nationalist/populist movements wanted, independence.
Africa, on the other hand, seems to have been fast-tracked to independence. Yes, there were nationalists, but to what extent did they have widespread support like, say the Congress party and Muslim League in India? Or Tunku Abdul Rahman in Malaysia? What leaders were there struggled to build up unified, nationalist support; only Nigeria was considered by the British to be destined for success.
Nevertheless, various factors forced the European powers to give up their empires in Africa before, arguably, many of them were ready to take on the mantle.
European imperialism after the war for the most part was definitely changed for the humanitarian side of things - development projects within most colonies is evidence of this. In countries where the press for independence wasn't violent (e.g. NOT Algeria, Madagascar, Vietnam, Indonesia, Kenya etc.), what's to say that continued benevolent imperialism wouldn't have benefited in building a sounder society?
Then again, demands for independence could have transferred from the elites to more radical elements in society...

In countries where the press for independence wasn't violent (e.g. Algeria, Madagascar, Vietnam, Indonesia, Kenya etc.), what's to say that continued benevolent imperialism wouldn't have benefited in building a sounder society?

Wasn't violent?

How about the Algerian War of Independence, the Franco-Vietminh War (or First Indochina War), or the Mau Mau Uprising?

If i read the politically correctest of us correctly then us going there and bringing religion culture or desire for goods and money is evil whilst them coming here and bringing religion culture or desire for goods and money is goodness personified and anyone against it is a vile racist.

Just remember how this works and you will avoid being mocked and shunned.

It's as close to an American colony as one can find.

What about the Phillipines?

Wasn't violent?

How about the Algerian War of Independence, the Franco-Vietminh War (or First Indochina War), or the Mau Mau Uprising?

Ah, got that wrong. Meant for those to be examples of where there was violence. Blame late nights. ;)

Ah, got that wrong. Meant for those to be examples of where there was violence. Blame late nights. ;)

Ah, okay.

Actually, I'd reccomend that you all read Empire, by Niall Ferguson. Interesting book, deals with exactly how bad, from a fairly scientific standpoint, colonialism was for much of the world.

Actually, I'd reccomend that you all read Empire, by Niall Ferguson. Interesting book, deals with exactly how bad, from a fairly scientific standpoint, colonialism was for much of the world.

Is it out of print, or could I find it at the local bookstore? Either way, I plan to give it a look.

It wasn founded by freed slaves, but it didn't belong to us. It was never ruled by the U.S. as, say, Sierra Leone was ruled by the British.

True, but the US did send it aid/supplies and lots of its future citizens. I can easily fess up for Thailand and Ethiopia, but IMO Liberia simply doesn't make the same standard.

What about the Phillipines?

That was more of an occupation, as was Cuba. Puerto Rico, for some reason, became a protectorate out of that war.

So you hate yourself for what your ancestors might have or might not have done? How utterly pathetic.

I'm no expert on colonialism, but I think a casual observation will show that Africa was more advanced and better off under the European yoke, despite the abuses that might have went on, and most Native Americans were conquered by diseases, not by war.

Now reverse the situation. Suppose Europeans were still swinging from trees during the 1400s, and the Africans or Native Americans, or Asians, invaded Europe and exterminated large numbers of Europeans inadvertantly through disease.

Strong cultures survive, weak ones die. That's the way it is, that's the way it will be.

I'm no expert on colonialism, but I think a casual observation will show that Africa was more advanced and better off under the European yoke, despite the abuses that might have went on,

That's true. In terms of living standards, they were way better off under colonialism. They had paved roads, adequate health care, potable water, law and order, and more than enough food. Nations that were net exporters of food under colonialism - Nigeria and the DRC, for example - must now import huge quantities of food, and even then, many starve. :(

That was more of an occupation, as was Cuba. Puerto Rico, for some reason, became a protectorate out of that war.

I think the Philippines still counts as a prime example of colonialism.
The USA crushed an independence movement, worked with amenable elites to establish a workable government, debated legislation in the USA for the Philippines, allowed American businesses and trade to have preferential treatment both before and after independence, and stationed troops in the country. Let alone the cultural and educational impacts of American rule.

This sounds very much like the treatment that other imperial powers gave to some of their colonies.

Actually, I'd reccomend that you all read Empire, by Niall Ferguson. Interesting book, deals with exactly how bad, from a fairly scientific standpoint, colonialism was for much of the world.

Thank you for your heartfelt book review Mr. Ferguson. ;) :D

Reprehensible as U.S. colonialism was, at least we planned to give them independence someday. Europe never had such plans. In many cases, they were literally forced to change their minds.

Is it out of print, or could I find it at the local bookstore? Either way, I plan to give it a look.

It's a 2004 book, so still in print (I think).

It's a 2004 book, so still in print (I think).

Thanks.

Matter of fact, I think I'll swing by and see if they sell it right now. :D

Be back soon.

Needs more natives with dirty blankets and innoscent white men.

Reprehensible as U.S. colonialism was, at least we planned to give them independence someday. Europe never had such plans. In many cases, they were literally forced to change their minds.

Quite true - though I only really know about the Philippines in that circumstance. Though many European powers, during and after WWII, did start to advocate 'self-government in union with the metropole'. The Commonwealth and the French Union do come to mind. Not quite independence, but not quite brutal dominance either. A new form of 'benevolent' empire, if you will.

Though it's admirable that in many cases (not all of course - there were horrendous debacles too) where the writing was on the wall, the European powers tried to pull out with as little pain for them, and for the ex-colony, as much as possible.
e.g. India and Pakistan could have been abandoned like Palestine if Wavell had had his way - he was deemed defeatist, and the plan deemed to be promoting violent Balkanisation. Mountbatten tried to work for a suitable agreement, coming out with dominion status and mostly stable government for both in 1947.

We Italians have been invaded by (since the fall of the western roman empire):

Goths, Visigoths and Langobards
French (Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire)
Arabs (in Sicily)
Byzantines
Normans (Vikings)
Germans (Barbarossa's Holy Roman Empire)
French (around 1500)
Turks (eastern dominions of Venetian Republic)
Spanish
French (in the 30-years war)
Austrians
French (Napoleon)
Austrians (post-Napoleon)
Germans and Austrians (WWI, although we were the aggressors at the time)
British, Americans, French, even some Australians (WWII)
Germans (WWII, after Italy surrendered to the Allies)
Jugoslavs (WWII, as part of Tito's action against the fascists)

Also we invaded:
The Holy Land (Crusades)
Eastern Africa (Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia) (1880 to WWII)
Lybia (1912)
Austria (WWI)
Albania (1936)
France, Greece, Jugoslavija, USSR (WWII)

It is quite normal in our history to be invaded, and we also invaded.
The point is that we do not exploit anymore the foreign lands we left. That is what is still happening to most of Africa: the former colonial powers still have control on those countries, not directly, but through corporations.

That is what is still happening to most of Africa: the former colonial powers still have control on those countries, not directly, but through corporations.

Many of them - with a few exceptions like Botswana and Senegal - are run by laughably incompetent governments.

They contributed very little to any kind of technological or social development, and most of what they did have was obtained through conquest rather than invention.

Haven't the Romans been accused of the same?