NationStates Jolt Archive

With the turns that the "Slavery in the US - Good after all? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544845)", I think it is time for a poll. Is colonialism ever justified?

Please elaborate on what reasons you give for colonialism being justified, or why it is not justified. If you think that colonialism is sometimes justified, give the criteria you use for that decision.

Poll incoming.

Colonialism, in the manner that it's been practiced historically? I don't see how you could ever justify that as its shown itself to be so detrimental and counter-progressive over the years. I mean, unless you're some techno-progress-hating baby eater.



I felt the other side of the debate could use some fiery rhetoric.

Probably not, possibly in theory if:

There was a country with an extremely bad government that, lets say, tortured all women and then forced them to be pregnant and exterminated all blacks and Asians.

Lets also say that the country's populace had no hope of overthrowing the government.

Assume that the amount of violence and hardship that would occur from taking over this government and changing it into a functioning democracy would be considerably less then if the country were to continue untouched.

Then I think colonising this country would be justified temporarily, until the population were educated and well off enough to be independent.

Of course a hypothetical situation like this would probably never happen.

Ruling and exploiting other groups of people by force? Yeah, that's pretty clearly immoral....

Probably not, possibly in theory if:

There was a country with an extremely bad government that, lets say, tortured all women and then forced them to be pregnant and exterminated all blacks and Asians.

Lets also say that the country's populace had no hope of overthrowing the government.

Assume that the amount of violence and hardship that would occur from taking over this government and changing it into a functioning democracy would be considerably less then if the country were to continue untouched.

Then I think colonising this country would be justified temporarily, until the population were educated and well off enough to be independent.

Of course a hypothetical situation like this would probably never happen.

That's not really colonization, though. Or maybe it just isn't colonization in the sense as I understand it. But I would classify that as correctly a clear violation of fundamental human rights. Colonization implies metaphorically (and, in most cases literally) raping the land and people for the natural resources to better one's own civilization. At least, in my mind, that's what it means.

That's not really colonization, though. Or maybe it just isn't colonization in the sense as I understand it. But I would classify that as correctly a clear violation of fundamental human rights. Colonization implies metaphorically (and, in most cases literally) raping the land and people for the natural resources to better one's own civilization. At least, in my mind, that's what it means.

No thats mercantilism.

subjugating inferior peoples because they cannot rule themselves = yes
East India type corporate rule = seems to me that a few find it justified even now

any other reasoning beyond the 1800's = no

No thats mercantilism.

Eh, fair enough. I retract the latter part of my statement. However, what was described still doesn't equate to colonialism, in my mind, but I suppose it really depends upon the method of action by the larger nation.

it really depends upon the method of action by the larger nation.

yeah its all India's fault! :p

Eh, fair enough. I retract the latter part of my statement. However, what was described still doesn't equate to colonialism, in my mind, but I suppose it really depends upon the method of action by the larger nation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colonialism

–noun 1. the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people.
2. the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence.
3. the state or condition of being colonial.
4. an idea, custom, or practice peculiar to a colony.

I do accept however, that generally, exploitation and other atrocities do tend to occur with colonialism.

subjugating inferior peoples because they cannot rule themselves = yes


"Inferior people"? What on Earth are "inferior people"? And give me examples of cases when people have been "unable to rule themselves".

With the turns that the "Slavery in the US - Good after all? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544845)", I think it is time for a poll. Is colonialism ever justified?

Please elaborate on what reasons you give for colonialism being justified, or why it is not justified. If you think that colonialism is sometimes justified, give the criteria you use for that decision.

Poll incoming.

I will debate once you have given me your definition of "justified."

Are you referring to the Machiavelli sense, or some esoteric sense?

In a thousand ways, and for many reasons, acquisitions of territory may prove injurious; for one may well extend one’s dominion without increasing one’s power, but the acquisition of dominion without power is sure to bring with it ruin.

I will debate once you have given me your definition of "justified."

Are you referring to the Machiavelli sense, or some esoteric sense?

I'm talking about ethics and morals. Perhaps I should have clarified, but to me, the word "justify" seems to imply moral considerations. So, in you opinion, can colonialism ever be morally or ethically justified?

"Inferior people"? What on Earth are "inferior people"? And give me examples of cases when people have been "unable to rule themselves".

"the un-Godly savages who run around half naked in the bush of course!"

I do hope you know what roleplay is...

With the turns that the "Slavery in the US - Good after all? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544845)", I think it is time for a poll. Is colonialism ever justified?

Please elaborate on what reasons you give for colonialism being justified, or why it is not justified. If you think that colonialism is sometimes justified, give the criteria you use for that decision.

Poll incoming.

It's got both good and bad sides, but the bad outweighs the good.

Colony, as defined by Dictionary.com:
1. a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation.
2. the country or district settled or colonized: Many Western nations are former European colonies.
3. any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power.

Colonies are good, but it all comes down to how it's managed.

People like the Phoenicians, they were benevolent colonists. They established trade outposts across the Mediterranean, like Carthage, and traded with them. These "colonies" then had to pay a tribute to the metropolis, and were free to do whatever they wanted to do.

In the latter years of the British Empire, many of the prominent colonies (Canada, Australia, etc.) were "Self-Governing Provinces". Basically the same system as the Phoenicians before them. You trade with us, you pay taxes, and you can then do what you want. If the British had adopted this measure sooner and more widely, we may have not seen the fall of the First British Empire.

Besides, colonies are vital to the liberalisation of the world. The absolute rule of the Europeans was not so absolute in far off places like America or Australia. There, the people readily fight for freedom, and it is much harder to supress an angry colonial population then an angry national population. So, invariably, colonies pop off into more liberal places; the exception of course being when a nation changes to become more liberal, getting the same result either way.

Now more then ever, as Earth is becoming smaller and smaller, we need far off places to spread our selves. new colonies to settle. We need places nations cannot directly exert ourselves, so they can serve as a counterweight to the increasing forces of radicalisation. For the world would be a much darker place if there was a single nation ruling it, as there is a trend towards union shows. (European Union, American Empire, African Union, United Nations, etc.) We need the colony to prevent the nation to become an administrative division.

I'm talking about ethics and morals. Perhaps I should have clarified, but to me, the word "justify" seems to imply moral considerations. So, in you opinion, can colonialism ever be morally or ethically justified?

Morals and ethics have zero to do with politics. It's like asking if it's morally justified to have George Clooney play a woman.

It's about as relevant as the colors of the uniforms of the occupiers and whether or not they contrast with those of the natives.

Morals have to do with electing church officials perhaps. What are "moral" politics? Jimmy Carter.

Besides, morals are completely arbitrary.

"the un-Godly savages who run around half naked in the bush of course!"

Like those evil Hawaiian women who didn't cover-up their breasts! :eek: Did not you see what that was doing to the society over there?

Morals and ethics have zero to do with politics.

Morals and ethics, definitionally, have to do with every facet of human action.

Most people who try to avoid making moral claims really do... they just pretend they aren't really moral claims. But they are, and they are subject to the same standards of justification as other moral claims.

It is irrational and incoherent to ever say that we "should" do anything wrong... because what is wrong is by definition what we should not do. It follows that in supporting any course of action, a rational person must affirm its rightness--and that requires considering morality.

Besides, morals are completely arbitrary.

How do you know that?

Morals and ethics have zero to do with politics. It's like asking if it's morally justified to have George Clooney play a woman.

It's about as relevant as the colors of the uniforms of the occupiers and whether or not they contrast with those of the natives.

Morals have to do with electing church officials perhaps. What are "moral" politics? Jimmy Carter.

Besides, morals are completely arbitrary.

Oh, I beg to differ. Morals and ethics have everything to do with politics. When we ignore them, the Wehrmacht blitzkreigs into Poland, Britain builds an oppressive empire "From Cape to Cairo", ten million Indian peasants are starved to death by British Imperial Authority's "land reform", and 3 million Native Americans get genocided.

Far from being arbitary, it seems that there are certain standards of behavior that everyone must agree lest their very humanity be called into question. Cold blooded murder, genocide, mass killings, for example.

Morals and ethics, definitionally, have to do with every facet of human action.

Unfortunately.

Most people who try to avoid making moral claims really do... they just pretend they aren't really moral claims. But they are, and they are subject to the same standards of justification as other moral claims.

I prefer logic to morals.

How do you know that?

The same way I know art is. It varies, is preferred in different forms and I consider some of it better then the rest.

Morals are merely opinions; semi-philosophies.

How do you know that?

They are. Morals are subject to time and culture. Our present morals come from our democratic beliefs, rule of law, egalitarianism, etc etc. Past societies based their morals off things like chivalry, the warrior code, and religious codes.

Morality is VERY arbitrary.

Probably not by contemporary sensibilities, which I happen to think are so much over-compassionate, spineless twaddle. I see little point in attempting to justify, or pillory, European colonialism by modern morality; it is as ludicrous as attempting to justify the actions of the Roman empire, Sasanian empire or Egyptian empire by modern sensibilites.

Unfortunately.

Truth and right do not depend on what is fortunate for you, thankfully.

I prefer logic

No, you don't. If you believed in logic, you would recognize that we cannot speak of whether or not nations should engage in colonialism without considering its morality... because it makes no logical sense to say that we should do what is wrong (which is defined precisely as what we should not do.)

Rational people recognize the rational necessity of moral justification.

The same way I know art is. It varies,

Some people believe in evolution. Some people believe in Creationism. Does that mean that these positions are "arbitrary" or that there is no true answer?

Morals are merely opinions

Maybe, but they are not arbitrary.

People argue about morality all the time. People change their moral positions because of those arguments. If their positions are arbitrary--baseless--how is that possible?

Oh, I beg to differ. Morals and ethics have everything to do with politics. When we ignore them, the Wehrmacht blitzkreigs into Poland, Britain builds an oppressive empire "From Cape to Cairo", ten million Indian peasants are starved to death by British Imperial Authority's "land reform", and 3 million Native Americans get genocided.

There is bad acting. There is bad singing. There is bad fencing. There is bad driving.

This is bad leadership.

Far from being arbitary, it seems that there are certain standards of behavior that everyone must agree lest their very humanity be called into question. Cold blooded murder, genocide, mass killings, for example.

...are disruptive to society and therefore must be quelled. You have to fire a repairman who a does bad job.

I prefer logic to morals.

The same way I know art is. It varies, is preferred in different forms and I consider some of it better then the rest.

Morals are merely opinions; semi-philosophies.

Logic is all part and partial to morality. To make a moral claim unbacked by reason is hollow and baseless. Morality must be backed by logic and reason. Moral philosophy is the attempt which we mortals make to grasp at the universal, to understand the truth of what it means to be human.

In America, morality is often conjured up in terms of unthinking religious sentiments. Such are customs, not morals, and those who claim them to be morals are deluding themselves.

Is moral philosophy perfect? Of course not. But I'd take Kantian deontological ethics over unthinking moral quietism any day.

They are. Morals are subject to time and culture. Our present morals come from our democratic beliefs, rule of law, egalitarianism, etc etc. Past societies based their morals off things like chivalry, the warrior code, and religious codes.

The fact that people have, as a factual matter, differed as to their moral beliefs does not mean that their moral obligations were actually different.

What people believe to be true, in all respects, is subject to time and culture: we do not believe the same things people did a thousand years ago. Does that mean that there is no non-arbitrary way of deciding whether, say, the Earth is flat?

Truth and right do not depend on what is fortunate for you, thankfully.

Meh.

No, you don't. If you believed in logic, you would recognize that we cannot speak of whether or not nations should engage in colonialism without considering its morality... because it makes no logical sense to say that we should do what is wrong (which is defined precisely as what we should not do.)


"Should" is the path to ruin.

Rational people recognize the rational necessity of moral justification.

*stares*

Some people believe in evolution. Some people believe in Creationism. Does that mean that these positions are "arbitrary" or that there is no true answer?

Reality is a little different than taste.

Maybe, but they are not arbitrary.

They are scientific studies, not behaviors.

People argue about morality all the time. People change their moral positions because of those arguments. If their positions are arbitrary--baseless--how is that possible?

You are asking me to make sense out of peoples actions?

...are disruptive to society and therefore must be quelled.

Most people who try to avoid making moral claims really do... they just pretend they aren't really moral claims.

;)

There is bad acting. There is bad singing. There is bad fencing. There is bad driving.

This is bad leadership.

In the very act of trying to deny morality, you are yourself making a moral claim. To call actions "bad" is to make a claim about its moral content. Without morality, we lose the basis to consider anything undesirable. Without morality, might makes right.

...are disruptive to society and therefore must be quelled. You have to fire a repairman who a does bad job.

But why is disruption to society bad? Without morality, you can't make that claim. You are once again making a moral judgement; a utilitarian one, but a moral judgment nonetheless.

Logic is all part and partial to morality. To make a moral claim unbacked by reason is hollow and baseless. Morality must be backed by logic and reason. Moral philosophy is the attempt which we mortals make to grasp at the universal, to understand the truth of what it means to be human.

In America, morality is often conjured up in terms of unthinking religious sentiments. Such are customs, not morals, and those who claim them to be morals are deluding themselves.

The first known moral code is the Ten Commandments®.

Is moral philosophy perfect? Of course not. But I'd take Kantian deontological ethics over unthinking moral quietism any day.

Your choice. It sounds like you have religion without belief in God. :D

"Should" is the path to ruin.

Do you make decisions?

Reality is a little different than taste.

Question-begging.

You are asking me to make sense out of peoples actions?

So what are people doing when they argue about morality, if it's all arbitrary? Tell me. (Are we all just so stupid that we can't see the obvious? You, of course, in your genius, can easily see through them....)

Even if morality is a matter of taste, it is still not arbitrary, and we can still argue rationally about it. It just means we need to argue from premises that are founded subjectively... premises on which human beings have a whole lot of common ground.

The first known moral code is the Ten Commandments®.

The only justification for the 10 Commandments is "God says so". That's not morality, that is custom. When you start talking about why these things are not to be done, you have morality.

Your choice. It sounds like you have religion without belief in God. :D

Maybe so.

In the very act of trying to deny morality, you are yourself making a moral claim. To call actions "bad" is to make a claim about its moral content. Without morality, we lose the basis to consider anything undesirable. Without morality, might makes right.

"Bad acting" is hardly "immoral acting."

But why is disruption to society bad?

Because it upsets society. Cells are willing to die for the body, that does not mean they have morality.

Saying it's "never justified" is a bit final, I'm sure you might be able to find many situations where it might be the case. But I can't think of any, so I'm reluctant to say go for any other option. Could you have one a little less strong? :p

It can be justified in some places...oh say, if it were not inhabited. Or in a place that was wracked with termoil and with some form of genocide, like Africa.

The only justification for the 10 Commandments is "God says so". That's not morality, that is custom. When you start talking about why these things are not to be done, you have morality.

No, you have logic. Once actions are motivated by logic you have...logic.

Maybe so.
Tsk-tsk. If you think it a superior form, it is not.

Because it upsets society.

Repetition. How impressive. :rolleyes:

Cells are willing to die for the body, that does not mean they have morality.

Cells are also incapable of rational thought. They do not engage in the kind of considered decision-making in which human beings must necessarily engage.

"Bad acting" is hardly "immoral acting."

We're talking about interpersonal relations. Acting does not fall under that category, because it does not affect others. Leadership does. It inherantly involves other people, "bad leadership" is understood to mean "immoral/unethical" leadership.

Because it upsets society. Cells are willing to die for the body, that does not mean they have morality.

But why should we care about upsetting society? Without the basic moral harm principle, upsetting society is nothing more than action/reaction. Mere causality. The imperative for people to act, as sentient, sapient organisms, can only come from a moral judgment.

Do you make decisions?

Is that rhetorical question?

Question-begging.

Questions are good.

So what are people doing when they argue about morality, if it's all arbitrary? Tell me. (Are we all just so stupid that we can't see the obvious? You, of course, in your genius, can easily see through them....)

I am fool. My edge? I know I am a fool, and you are interpreting this as genius.


Even if morality is a matter of taste, it is still not arbitrary, and we can still argue rationally about it. It just means we need to argue from premises that are founded subjectively... premises on which human beings have a whole lot of common ground.

You can argue about the better points of a song or movie rationally. It is still a matter of taste in the end.

I'll assume by the way we're now arguing about morality that my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544951&page=2)was the decisive authority on the question?

Question: Is colonialism ever justified?
Answer: Yes.

We're talking about interpersonal relations. Acting does not fall under that category, because it does not affect others. Leadership does. It inherantly involves other people, "bad leadership" is understood to mean "immoral/unethical" leadership.

If I see a bad play, I will have had a crappy night.

But why should we care about upsetting society?

What else is there?

Without the basic moral harm principle, upsetting society is nothing more than action/reaction. Mere causality. The imperative for people to act, as sentient, sapient organisms, can only come from a moral judgment.

Cells.

No, you have logic. Once actions are motivated by logic you have...logic.

Logic without moral judgments is little more than the understanding of causal relationships. Categorical imperatives without logic are unthinking dogma. When we combine the two, we reach the level of morality, where we can now evaluate interpersonal interactions. Without the two, we have nothing.

I certainly favor colonizing Mars, and will likewise support any space colonies as seem viable. As far as justified, each man is justified in his own mind. The Nazis thought the Holocaust was improving humanity, the Crusades were "liberating" the Holy Land from Islam, and Stalin's pograms strengthened the Russian State.

Logic without moral judgments is little more than the understanding of causal relationships.

Logic when applied to human action must necessarily involve moral judgments.

There is no way out of that.

If I see a bad play, I will have had a crappy night.

If I don't have moral criteria, then why should I care that you had a crappy night? It is merely consequence. I have no reason to care that you had a crappy night.

What else is there?

Why should I care? Without morals I have no reason to care.

Cells.

Cells are not people. People are what matter in terms of moral imperative. Cells are not rational, sentient, sapient actors. People are.

I think the only way to justify it is through results. Having an independent government is great, having enough food to eat and schools to go to is even better.

I'll assume by the way we're now arguing about morality that my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544951&page=2)was the decisive authority on the question?

Question: Is colonialism ever justified?
Answer: Yes.

Okay, why is it ever justified? That was part of my question in the OP.

If I don't have moral criteria, then why should I care that you had a crappy night? It is merely consequence. I have no reason to care that you had a crappy night.

So you are saying actors that "care" about their audiences will put-on better plays?

Why should I care? Without morals I have no reason to care.

Cells. If you started causing trouble I would feel no remorse if you got shot because remorse is a moral feeling.

Cells are not people. People are what matter in terms of moral imperative. Cells are not rational, sentient, sapient actors. People are.

And they would do well to behave like cells.

Is that rhetorical question?

Yes. Obviously you do.

Now tell me how you can make a decision without considering "should."

Questions are good.

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

I am fool.

Then maybe you should try to understand why other people do what they do... you might learn something.

You can argue about the better points of a song or movie rationally. It is still a matter of taste in the end.

Right. But it's still not arbitrary.

Which is exactly what I said would be true of morality, even if it were true (as it is not) that it is purely a matter of taste.

Okay, why is it ever justified? That was part of my question in the OP.

That's explained in the post. But, for your watered down needs: It expands trade routes, keeps the gov't from being to, you know, opressive, settles new normally inhospitable regions, and spreads ideas, both indigenous and foreign.

EDIT: Would you two stop the threadjacking? Make your own thread if you want to continue discussing morality.

So you are saying actors that "care" about their audiences will put-on better plays?

Without some moral framework, I have no reason to care about anything.

Cells. If you started causing trouble I would feel no remorse if you got shot because remorse is a moral feeling.

1. First of all, you're not denying morality, you're taking up the utilitarian position. The underlying assumption of your argument is that my causing trouble is undesirable, and I must therefore be neutralized for the greater good.
2. This is why utilitarianism is not the best moral criteria.

And they would do well to behave like cells.

Would they? Is the life of a blind cog desirable to them? Of course not.

The first known moral code is the Ten Commandments®.

We have the the code of Hammurabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_hammurabi), which predates the 10 Commandments by good bit. We also have fragments from earlier legal documents. These are moral codes.

You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding moral philosophy/ethics. It is very much based on logical and analytic principles, even across the sentimentalist/rationalist divide. Moral philosophy is simply the study and examination of normative values and how to come about them.

The study of law can be argued, and quite easily at that, to be the study of a specific set of normative values (depending what kind of law you are studying). However, lawyers specialize in the interplay between those values rather than the actual formation of them. You, yourself, have expressed a utilitarian ethic many times in this thread. In essence, you cannot separate the normative from the moral, as that is precisely what ethics examines (in the same way biology examines....biology, shocking, I know).

That's explained in the post. But, for your watered down needs: It expands trade routes, keeps the gov't from being to, you know, opressive, settles new normally inhospitable regions, and spreads ideas, both indigenous and foreign.

If I'm a native in a colonized land, why do I give a damn about trade routes if my land has been stolen, or I've been lined up in front a big ditch and shot for opposing the expropriation of my country? Colonialism is oppression, nothing about it keeps the government from being oppressive.

What I'm grasping at is this: why do the ends justify the means? Colonialism inherently violates the sovereignty of an entire people, and denies them life and liberty at the most base level.

EDIT: Would you two stop the threadjacking?

How is it "threadjacking"? Backing colonialism is so morally bankrupt that its supports routinely resort to various claims like "might makes right" or "morality is irrelevant"... when they do not instead use false dichotomies between "no interaction" and "interaction through forced subordination."

EDIT: Would you two stop the threadjacking? Make your own thread if you want to continue discussing morality.

This is my thread. I can jack it all I want. :)

Parkus Empire balked at my suggestion that colonialism had to be evaluated morally, so we began this duel.

That depends, if you are a moral crusader against slavery and that country has enslaved your and the only way to free your people is to take over that country when diplomacy has failed.

On the other when it comes to the colonization of spaces, aka alien species, yes it is justified because as humans we have the right to preserve our species, no matter what the cost.

and the only way to free your people is to take over that country

Wait... they've enslaved your people, and the only way to free yourselves is to conquer them?

How does that work? Wouldn't it be much easier to just take back your own freedom?

It expands trade routes,
Profit = justification now?


keeps the gov't from being to, you know, opressive,
How exactly does imperialism and expansionism prevent a government from being oppressive?

settles new normally inhospitable regions,
Such as?

and spreads ideas, both indigenous and foreign.
Through force, thusly preventing the natural evolution of ideas at their own, necessary pace.


EDIT: Would you two stop the threadjacking? Make your own thread if you want to continue discussing morality.
It's Trotskylvania's thread. How can he thread jack his own thread?

Consider the following, and then come up with the nerve to tell me that colonialism is not justified:

A large majority of former colonies fell into Civil War within a decade or two of becoming independent. At least under colonial rule, there was no Civil War; and without Civil War, economic development could progress reasonably, even if it was dependent on one or two items (let me add that dependence on one or two items is not the cause of poverty, New Zealand is dependent on dairying and tourism, and we are still clinging to the ranks of the First World)

The people in a large majority of former colonies have voted in dictators. Just look at Zimbabwe. It is clear that if these people are idiotic enough to elect dictators that destroy any economic development that they do not deserve to rule over their own affairs. At least under the days of colonies, you were not ruled over by a dictatorship, you were ruled over by a democracy, albeit one that you could not vote in.

Consider also that without colonisation, most of the people within the colonies would not have progressed. Had Africa not been colonised, for example, the people there would more than likely still been in the Stone Age. All nations were given the chance to progress, yet the colonised nations did not take that opportunity and chose to remain in the Stone Age.

Truth be told, it is a pity that the old map still did not exist; at least there would have been more economic progress in Africa and Asia, and we would not have had all these Civil Wars, dictatorships, et cetera.

Consider the following, and then come up with the nerve to tell me that colonialism is not justified:

A large majority of former colonies fell into Civil War within a decade or two of becoming independent. At least under colonial rule, there was no Civil War; and without Civil War, economic development could progress reasonably, even if it was dependent on one or two items (let me add that dependence on one or two items is not the cause of poverty, New Zealand is dependent on dairying and tourism, and we are still clinging to the ranks of the First World)

The people in a large majority of former colonies have voted in dictators. Just look at Zimbabwe. It is clear that if these people are idiotic enough to elect dictators that destroy any economic development that they do not deserve to rule over their own affairs. At least under the days of colonies, you were not ruled over by a dictatorship, you were ruled over by a democracy, albeit one that you could not vote in.

Consider also that without colonisation, most of the people within the colonies would not have progressed. Had Africa not been colonised, for example, the people there would more than likely still been in the Stone Age. All nations were given the chance to progress, yet the colonised nations did not take that opportunity and chose to remain in the Stone Age.

Truth be told, it is a pity that the old map still did not exist; at least there would have been more economic progress in Africa and Asia, and we would not have had all these Civil Wars, dictatorships, et cetera.

Tell this all to the tens of millions of people who were murdered by colonial powers in the name of the "White Man's burden". At any rate, your whole post begs the question, since the problems of modern Africa stem from the centuries of colonial domination. These colonial powers were not democracies in any sense, they ruled over the subjugated peoples with an iron fist. A democracy you cannot vote in is no democracy at all.

These nations were not in the Stone Age. Many of these cultures were highly advanced and sophisticated cultures. At any rate, the ends do not justify the means even if we accept your rosy picture of colonialism. These people did not want to subjugated, it is patently tyrrany to conquer them and rule over them for self gain.

And that's what colonialism is all about: self interest. A convenient way to rape other countries, steal their land and labor, and rob them of their freedom. The only way you can justify you point of view is through racism.

If I'm a native in a colonized land, why do I give a damn about trade routes if my land has been stolen, or I've been lined up in front a big ditch and shot for opposing the expropriation of my country? Colonialism is oppression, nothing about it keeps the government from being oppressive.

What I'm grasping at is this: why do the ends justify the means? Colonialism inherently violates the sovereignty of an entire people, and denies them life and liberty at the most base level.

You assume that all colonies were once inhabited by natives. They are not. However, for the sake of arguement, I will follow with you.

Your a random native person, in... Exotic Landia. Suddenly, foreigners from Colonizer-land start arriving in boats. They set up small trading posts, city-colonies so to speak, and start trading their goods for your resources. Suddenly, the economy is going up and the general welfare of Exoctic Landia is improved. Exotic Landia is India, and Colonizer-land is Europe.

Or, your a random native in Protectora. You are constantly being raided by your neighbors for your resources. The Colonizer-landic people arrive, with their advanced militaries, and offer protection in exchange for trade and taxes. The Protectoran government agrees, and you have an ideal colony. The people govern themselves, pay taxes to the colonizers, and the colonizers protect the colony. Of course, we have a different name for this: A protectorate.

As for how colonies make things more liberal, consider this: You are an American, on the other side of the Atlantic from the British colonizers. It takes a month by sea to get to America from Britain. The majority of the Americans think the British are opressive, and revolt against them. The British, knowing that reeling the Americans in by force would be incredibly difficult, have two options: Fight the Australians and lose many men and pounds to exert authority over them, or change the laws to make them happy. The one they chose ended in the creation of a liberal republic, and the other choice would have resulted in the Empire becoming more liberal. Either way...

Consider the following, and then come up with the nerve to tell me that colonialism is not justified:
Sure.

....


Colonialism is not justified.

At least under colonial rule, there was no Civil War;
Discounting Britain then are we?


The people in a large majority of former colonies have voted in dictators. Just look at Zimbabwe.
To counter that: Look at Ireland, India, the United States and South Africa just off the top of my head.

At least under the days of colonies, you were not ruled over by a dictatorship, you were ruled over by a democracy, albeit one that you could not vote in.
How quaint. In one you have no say, in the other..... you have no say.

the people there would more than likely still been in the Stone Age.
*cough*Pyramids*cough*
Seems like they've done fine before colonisation came along to be honest.

Cells are not people. People are what matter in terms of moral imperative. Cells are not rational, sentient, sapient actors. People are.

I'd beg to differ. The "human" experience is merely 100 billion nerve cells collectively speaking to each other within the brain. That's our consiousness, and everything else about us.

You assume that all colonies were once inhabited by natives. They are not. However, for the sake of arguement, I will follow with you.

Your a random native person, in... Exotic Landia. Suddenly, foreigners from Colonizer-land start arriving in boats. They set up small trading posts, city-colonies so to speak, and start trading their goods for your resources. Suddenly, the economy is going up and the general welfare of Exoctic Landia is improved. Exotic Landia is India, and Colonizer-land is Europe.

We're talking about colonialism, the practice of subjugating other nations. Next, all colonial lands have always been inhabited by some people.

You're leaving out rather large pieces of the puzzle. The administrative organs of India were taken over by the British. Self rule effectively ended with the Sepoy Rebellion. The British took the Indian economy, pulled it up by the roots, and shook it vigorously. Engineered famines forced millions of peasants off their lands. The land was consolidated in the control of Crown possessions, business interests and loyal local nobility. Millions died in this process. Average standard of living decreased. An opulent minority in India benefited, as did an opulent minority at home in Britain, but the vast majority were left in abject poverty.

Or, your a random native in Protectora. You are constantly being raided by your neighbors for your resources. The Colonizer-landic people arrive, with their advanced militaries, and offer protection in exchange for trade and taxes. The Protectoran government agrees, and you have an ideal colony. The people govern themselves, pay taxes to the colonizers, and the colonizers protect the colony. Of course, we have a different name for this: A protectorate.

A vassal state by any other name. In each case that a protectorate has been established, the standard of living decreased. And the idea that these are self ruling places is a sick and twisted joke. The more powerful state intimately controls the politics of the vassal state.

As for how colonies make things more liberal, consider this: You are an American, on the other side of the Atlantic from the British colonizers. It takes a month by sea to get to America from Britain. The majority of the Americans think the British are opressive, and revolt against them. The British, knowing that reeling the Americans in by force would be incredibly difficult, have two options: Fight the Australians and lose many men and pounds to exert authority over them, or change the laws to make them happy. The one they chose ended in the creation of a liberal republic, and the other choice would have resulted in the Empire becoming more liberal. Either way...

That is an exception, only becasue the British failed at their oppressive colonial practices. Everywhere else, they succeeded.

I'd beg to differ. The "human" experience is merely 100 billion nerve cells collectively speaking to each other within the brain. That's our consiousness, and everything else about us.

Then you won't mind if I come to your house, rape your family while you watch, blow yours and their brains out, and then burn your damn house down. :headbang:

Then you won't mind if I come to your house, rape your family while you watch, blow yours and their brains out, and then burn your damn house down.

You'd be arrested, then executed. If you don't mind that.

I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with your statement about morality, I merely noted that Yes, human consiousness is, scientifically speaking, 100 billion neurons collectively talking.

I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with your statement about morality, I merely noted that Yes, human consiousness is, scientifically speaking, 100 billion neurons collectively talking.

But that's still a fallacy of composition.

What is true of each individual cell need not be true of the human mind as a whole. The reverse is also true.

But that's still a fallacy of composition.

What is true of each individual cell need not be true of the human mind as a whole. The reverse is also true.

Exactly. A person is a more than just a collection of a 100 trillion cells of different types. What is true for the cell is not necessarily true for the person, and vice versa.

But that's still a fallacy of composition.

What is true of each individual cell need not be true of the human mind as a whole. The reverse is also true.

If you understand the nature of the cells, then you can understand the currents that drive the human mind. But yes, I understand what you are saying. There is a need to understand the bigger picture as opposed to regarding its individual pieces.

We're talking about colonialism, the practice of subjugating other nations. Next, all colonial lands have always been inhabited by some people.

To me, colonialism is the practice of establishing colonies. And the Antarctican "colonies" are not inhabited by natives. Well, not sentient natives anyways.

You're leaving out rather large pieces of the puzzle. The administrative organs of India were taken over by the British. Self rule effectively ended with the Sepoy Rebellion. The British took the Indian economy, pulled it up by the roots, and shook it vigorously. Engineered famines forced millions of peasants off their lands. The land was consolidated in the control of Crown possessions, business interests and loyal local nobility. Millions died in this process. Average standard of living decreased. An opulent minority in India benefited, as did an opulent minority at home in Britain, but the vast majority were left in abject poverty.

Nowhere did I mention the British. The British Raj was by no means good. Whoever had the brilliant ideal to let a company rule the lives of millions of people was deluded. However, the initial coastal colonies established by the (European Nation Here) East India Company were good. The trade posts were profitable for all parties involved. It wasn't until the brutal and horrifying annexations did India get messed up.

By the by, what's your opinion on the various West India Companies?


A vassal state by any other name. In each case that a protectorate has been established, the standard of living decreased. And the idea that these are self ruling places is a sick and twisted joke. The more powerful state intimately controls the politics of the vassal state.

Vassal state, sure. I will not mix terms with you, it's pointless. As for the standard of living decreasing, I had not heard of that. Could I see a source? Of course I am aware that the protectorates were rarely actually free domestically, but they could potentially be.

That is an exception, only becasue the British failed at their oppressive colonial practices. Everywhere else, they succeeded.

I agree. The British hadn't quite got the hang of the empire down. Yet, you must see the point. The colonized people eventually want more freedoms, and they either rebel and form a new nation with those freedoms, or the colonizer grants them those freedoms. We can even see this in decolonisation. Either fight them to keep them in the Empire, and spend lots of lives and money, or let them go off on their own and atleast maintain some sort of trade with them.

To me, colonialism is the practice of establishing colonies. And the Antarctican "colonies" are not inhabited by natives. Well, not sentient natives anyways.

Isn't the corruption of the English language wonderful? I think the term you are looking for with the Antarctic example is "colonization". When dealing with politics, there is indeed a big difference betweeen the process of colonialism and the process of colonization.

Nowhere did I mention the British. The British Raj was by no means good. Whoever had the brilliant ideal to let a company rule the lives of millions of people was deluded. However, the initial coastal colonies established by the (European Nation Here) East India Company were good. The trade posts were profitable for all parties involved. It wasn't until the brutal and horrifying annexations did India get messed up.

By the by, what's your opinion on the various West India Companies?

The coastal colonies were borderline, in my opinion. There was some coercive diplomacy involved in their creation, and seem to be more a product of mercantilism than colonialism proper. Though we can see that one often quickly involves into the other.

I haven't studied the various West India companies as thoroughly as I'd liked. The point that sovereignty is violated is the point that they become illegitimate. As such, I'm not sure what occurred prior to the annexation.

Vassal state, sure. I will not mix terms with you, it's pointless. As for the standard of living decreasing, I had not heard of that. Could I see a source? Of course I am aware that the protectorates were rarely actually free domestically, but they could potentially be.

It seems to be one of those inevitable results of power politics. Protectorate status favors oligarchal systems of home rule, transferring power into business/state combines away from the less wealthy. Polarization of wealth is often dramatically increased, as the oligarchs get the advantage the Colonial state's business interests and education, while the poor majority are turned from artisanal trades to resource extraction industries, which have poor rates of profit and even poorer pay.

Tell this all to the tens of millions of people who were murdered by colonial powers in the name of the "White Man's burden". At any rate, your whole post begs the question, since the problems of modern Africa stem from the centuries of colonial domination. These colonial powers were not democracies in any sense, they ruled over the subjugated peoples with an iron fist. A democracy you cannot vote in is no democracy at all.

Tell that to the tens of millions of people that died as a result of Civil Wars; the tens of millions that suffered under rule by their own people. The problems of modern Africa do not stem from colonial domination; the problems of modern Africa stem from idiots that their own people support.

Also, Britain was a democracy during the colonial era; so was France. While the people within the colonies may not have had the vote (although in many areas, there was self government), the colonial powers ruled their colonies much better than their own people do today.

These nations were not in the Stone Age. Many of these cultures were highly advanced and sophisticated cultures. At any rate, the ends do not justify the means even if we accept your rosy picture of colonialism. These people did not want to subjugated, it is patently tyrrany to conquer them and rule over them for self gain.

So you think the Aborigines were highly advanced? They were still using sticks and stones and had no idea about metal. Same with the Maori, same with the Zulu, same with dozens of other colonised people. In fact, there were only five colonised peoples that could be considered sophisticated, and they would be, the Indians, the Inca, the Aztecs, and I cannot think of another two.

And that's what colonialism is all about: self interest. A convenient way to rape other countries, steal their land and labor, and rob them of their freedom. The only way you can justify you point of view is through racism.

Well, an African did much better under colonialism than today. At least they were not starving and being ruled by idiots that they voted into power

Discounting Britain then are we?

One exception, there are always exceptions.

To counter that: Look at Ireland, India, the United States and South Africa just off the top of my head.

Let me carry on with my list then

Mauritania - the Mauritanian Regrouping Party won the elections of 1959 and subsequently became the only legal party in Mauritania
Mali - the Sudanese Union African Democratic Rally won the elections of 1956 and within four years had made itself the only legal party in Mali
Zambia - Kenneth Kaunda won the elections of 1964, and made himself a dictator (to the extent that he modified the Zambian constitution)

Oh, and by the way, South Africa did not become a true democracy until 1994; some 33 years after it ceased to be a Dominion

I could carry on further, but my point is established - these ex-colonies largely voted in dictatorships.

How quaint. In one you have no say, in the other..... you have no say.

Well, at least the colonies did much better when they were ruled over by colonial powers than today.

*cough*Pyramids*cough*
Seems like they've done fine before colonisation came along to be honest.

The Pyramids were built thousands of years before the 17th Century.

Tell that to the tens of millions of people that died as a result of Civil Wars; the tens of millions that suffered under rule by their own people. The problems of modern Africa do not stem from colonial domination; the problems of modern Africa stem from idiots that their own people support.

Also, Britain was a democracy during the colonial era; so was France. While the people within the colonies may not have had the vote (although in many areas, there was self government), the colonial powers ruled their colonies much better than their own people do today.

Guess how the modern African states were created. Colonialism. The occupiers intentionally created ethnic divisions and stripped people of economic independence and the ability to self-rule. The vast majority of the problems of modern Africa come from colonialism.

No country that holds colonies can be meaningfully called a democracy. That is akin to saying a slave-holding nation is a democracy. They ruled them no better. The British killed tens of millions in India alone with engineered famines.

So you think the Aborigines were highly advanced? They were still using sticks and stones and had no idea about metal. Same with the Maori, same with the Zulu, same with dozens of other colonised people. In fact, there were only five colonised peoples that could be considered sophisticated, and they would be, the Indians, the Inca, the Aztecs, and I cannot think of another two.

How about Zimbabwe? Mali? Eritrea? These were highly advanced African nations in their own right. The Bantu people of sub-saharan Africa had iron weapons. They weren't that far behind the Europeans. Even still, a lack of development is no reason for colonialism. The end does not justify the means.

Well, an African did much better under colonialism than today. At least they were not starving and being ruled by idiots that they voted into power

On the contrary, they were starving. Starving to death by the millions. Deliberately starved to death, their land stolen, their artisans left destitute by the millions, driven out by unfair competition by colonial tax laws and cheap manufactured goods. In fact, things are actually starting to get better now in some former colonies. Colonialism keeps a country in a permanent state of depressed development.


Let me carry on with my list then

Mauritania - the Mauritanian Regrouping Party won the elections of 1959 and subsequently became the only legal party in Mauritania
Mali - the Sudanese Union African Democratic Rally won the elections of 1956 and within four years had made itself the only legal party in Mali
Zambia - Kenneth Kaunda won the elections of 1964, and made himself a dictator (to the extent that he modified the Zambian constitution)

Oh, and by the way, South Africa did not become a true democracy until 1994; some 33 years after it ceased to be a Dominion

I could carry on further, but my point is established - these ex-colonies largely voted in dictatorships.

It was a dictatorship before. A tyranny exercised by people in a foreign land, with little or no substantive home rule. Nothing changed after decolonization. The political strucures were still tyrannical, especially since former colonial states tended to support these tyrants, most clearly the United States.

Well, at least the colonies did much better when they were ruled over by colonial powers than today.

No they didn't. Those who resisted were killed en masse, sometimes with poison gas. They had no safety, no security, no self rule, and most of all no hope. Poverty was the rule under colonialism. Of course, none of this matters to a genocide apologist.

They were still using sticks and stones and had no idea about metal. Same with the Maori, same with the Zulu

You are so ignorant about the subject you shouldn't be talking about it like you know anything about it. The Zulus were very skilled when it came to iron

This is from Basil Davidson's "The Lost Cities of Africa" p. 65 the coming of iron

The only African peoples who were stilll in the stone age at the time of fifteenth century discovery, it turns out, were Pygmies and Bushmen, peoples who lived in the Canary Islands and the island of Fermando Po, and perhaps one or two other communities on the mainland. Many African peoples, like their contemporaties in Europe, were still using stone and bone; but they were also using metal. They had used metal for a long time.

This article is about the debate whither iron smelting began in Africa
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/iron_in_subsaharan.pdf

I'm going to recycle some old posts if that's ok

This is a good website, BBC the story of Africa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section16.shtml

Ok here are the old posts

This is from “The Growth of African Civilization A History of West Africa 1000-1800" by Basil Davidson

City of Benin in southern Nigeria

http://s120.photobucket.com/albums/o180/Markellion/th_benin.jpg

In 1602 a Dutch traveler O. Dapper wrote of the city

“It seemed to be very big, when you go into it, you enter a great broad street, which is not paved, and seems to be seven or eight times broader than the Warmoes street in Amsterdam [the capital of Holland]. The street is straight, and does not bend at any point. It is thought to be four miles long.
‘At the gate where I went in on horseback, I saw a very big wall, very thick and made of earth, with a very deep and broad ditch outside it… And outside the gate there is also a big suburb. Inside the gate, and along the great street just mentioned, you see many other great streets on either side, and these are also straight and do not bend…

‘The houses in this town stand in good order, one close and evenly placed with its neighbor, just as the houses in Holland stand… They have square rooms, sheltered by a roof that is open in the middle, where the rain, and wind and light come in. The people sleep and eat in these rooms, but they have other rooms for cooking and different purposes…
‘The king’s court is very great. It is built around many square-shaped yards. These yards have surrounding galleries where sentries are always places. I myself went into these court far enough to pass through four great yards like this, and yet wherever I looked I could still see gate after gate which opened into other yards....'

Tomes of Timbuktu

One thing from the text
The museum plans to highlight a little-known connection between its host state and the manuscripts of Timbuktu: the story of Ibrahima Abd ar-Rahman, an 18th-century prince from what is now Guinea who studied at Timbuktu before being sold into slavery in Natchez, Miss. The prince's saga contradicts another widely held Western belief -- that Africans sold in the slave trade were uncivilized. In fact, many were doctors, dentists, lawyers, professors, musicians and members of royal families. And a large number were Muslim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45889-2005Feb23.html

This is from "Ibn Battuta In black Africa" by translated by Said Hamdun and Noel King

In the 14th century when he traveled through west Africa Ibn Battuta (famous Berber traveler) wrote about the good things he found amongst the blacks
Amongst their good qualities is the small amount of injustice amongst them, for of all people they are furthest from it. Their sultan does not forgive anyone in any matter to do with injustice. Among these qualities there is also the prevalence of peace in their country, the traveler is not afraid in it nor is he who lives there in fear of the thief or of the robber by violence. They do not interfere with the property of the white (Arab) man who dies in their country even though it may consist of great wealth, but rather they entrust it to the hand of someone dependable among the white men until it is taken by the rightful claimant

Africa was much safer than Europe to travel for much of history

This is from Leo Frobenius, a friend gave this to me, he notes that

"What was revealed by the navigators of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries furnishes an absolute proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the desert zone of the Sahara, was in full efflorescence which the European conquistadors annihilated as far as they progressed."

http://wysinger.homestead.com/looo_op.jpg

When they [the first European navigators of the end of the Middle Ages] arrived in the Gulf of Guinea and landed at Vaida, the captains were astonished to find the streets well cared for, bordered for several leagues in length by two rows of trees; for many days they passed through a country of magnificent fields, a country inhabited by men clad in brilliant costumes, the stuff of which they had woven themselves! More to the South in the Kingdom of Congo, a swarming crowd dressed in silk and velvet; great states well ordered, and even to the smallest details, powerful sovereigns, rich industries, -- civilized to the marrow of their bones. And the condition of the countries on the eastern coasts -- Mozambique, for example -- was quite the same.

"What was revealed by the navigators of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries furnishes an absolute proof that Negro Africa, which extended south of the desert zone of the Sahara, was in full efflorescence which the European conquistadors annihilated as far as they progressed. For the new country of America needed slaves, and Africa had them to offer, hundreds, thousands, whole cargoes of slaves. However, the slave trade was never an affair which meant a perfectly easy conscience, and it exacted a justification; hence one made of the Negro a half-animal, an article of merchandise. And in the same way the notion of fetish (Portuguese feticeiro) was invented as a symbol of African religion. As for me, I have seen in no part of Africa the Negroes worshipping a fetish. The idea of the 'barbarous Negro' is a European invention which has consequently prevailed in Europe until the beginning of this century.

"What these old captains recounted, these chiefs of expeditions -- Delbes,
Marchais, Pigafetta, and all the others, what they recounted is true. It can
be verified. In the old Royal Kunstkammer of Dresden, in the Weydemann
colection of Ulm, in many another 'cabinet of curiosities' of Europe, we
still find West African collections dating from this epoch. Marvellous
plush velvets of an extreme softness, made of the tenderest leaves of a
certain kind of banana plant; stuffs soft and supple, brilliant and delicate,
like silks, woven with the fiber of a raffia, well prepared; powerful javelins
with points encrusted with copper in the most elegant fashion; bows so
graceful in form and so beautifully ornamented that they would do honor
to any museum of arms whatsoever; calabashes decorated with the greatest
taste; sculpture in ivory and wood of which the work shows a very great
deal of application and style.

"And all that came from cuntries of the African periphery, delivered over
after that to slave merchants, . . .

"But when the pioneers of the last century pierced this zone of 'European
civilization' and the wall of protection which had, for the time being
raised behind it -- the wall of protection of the Negro still 'intact' --
they found everywhere the same marvels which the captains had found on
the coast.

"In 1906 when I penetrated into the territory of Kassai-Sankuru, I found
still, villages of which the principle streets were bordered on each side,
for leagues, with rows of palm trees, and of which the houses, decorated
each one in charming fashion, were works of art as well.

"No man who did not carry sumptuous arms of iron or copper, with inlaid
blades and handles covered with serpent skin. Everywhere velvets and
silken stuffs. Each cup, each pipe, each spoon was an object of art
perfectly worthy to be compared to the creations of the Roman European
style. But all this was only the particularly tender and iridescent bloom
which adorns a ripe and marvellous fruit; the gestures, the manners, the
moral code of the entire people, from the little child to the old man,
although they remained within absolutely natural limits, were imprinted
with dignity and grace, in the families of the princes and the rich as in
the vassals and slaves. I know of no northern people who can be compared
with these primitives for unity of civilization. And the peaceful beauty
was carried away by the floods.

"But many men had this experience: the explorers who left the savage and
warrior plateau of the East and South and the North to descend into the
plains of the Congo, of Lake Victoria, of the Ubangi: men such as Speke
and Grant, Livingstone, Cameron, Stanley, Schweinfurth, Junker, de Brazza
-- all of them -- made the same statements: they came from countries
dominated by the rigid laws of the African Ares, and from then on they
penetrated into the countries where peace reigned, and joy in adornment
and in beauty; countries of old civilizations, of ancient styles, of
harmonious styles.

"The revelations of fifteenth and seventeenth century navigators
furnish us with certain proof that Negro Africa, which extended
south of the Sahara desert zone, was still in full bloom, in the
full brilliance of harmonious and well-formed civilizations. In
the last century the superstition ruled that all high culture of
Africa came from Islam. Since then we have learned much, and we
know today that the beautiful turbans and clothes of the Sudanese
folk were already used in Africa before Muhammed was even born or
before Ethiopian culture reached inner Africa. Since then we have
learned that the peculiar organization of the Sudanese states
existed long before Islam and that all of the art of building and
education, of city organization and handwork in Negro Africa, were
thousands of years older than those of Middle Europe.

"Thus in the Sudan old real African warm-blooded culture existed
and could be found in Equatorial Africa, where neither Ethiopian
thought, Hamitic blood, or European civilization had drawn the
pattern. Everywhere when we examine this ancient culture it bears
the same impression. In the great museums -- Trocadero, British
Museum, in Belgium, Italy, Holland, and Germany -- everywhere we
see the same spirit, the same character, the same nature. All of
these separate pieces unite themselves to the same expression and
build a picture equally impressive as that of a collection of the
art of Asia. The striking beauty of the cloth, the fantastic beauty
of the drawing and the sculpture, the glory of the ivory weapons,
the collection of fairy tales equal to the Thousand and One nights,
the Chinese novels, and the Indian philosophy.

"In comparison with such spiritual accomplishments the impression
of the African spirit is easily seen. It is stronger in its folds,
simpler in its richness. Every weapon is simple and practical, not
only in form but fantasy. Every line of carving is simple and strong.
There is nothing that makes a clearer impression of strength, and all
that streams out of the fire and the hut, the sweat and the grease-
treated hides and the animal dung. Everything is practical, strong,
workmanly. This is the character of the African style. When one
approaches it with full understanding, one immediately realizes
that this impression rules all Africa. It expresses itself in the
activity of all Negro people even in their sculpture. It speaks out
of their dances and their masks; out of the understanding of their
religious life, just as out of the reality of their living, their
state building, and their conception of fate. It lives in their
fables, their fairy stories, their wise sayings and their myths.
And once we are forced to this conclusion, then the Egyptian comes
into the comparison. For this discovered culture form of Negro Africa
has the same peculiarity.



Leo Frobenius
Histoire de la Civilisation Africaine
translated by Back and Ermoat
Paris: Gallimard, 1936
6th edition page 56

in

W. E. Burghardt Du Bois
The World and Africa:
An inquiry into the part which Africa has played in world history
New York: Viking Press, 1946
pp. 79, 156

Interesting videos:

The king and the city
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9M0xTgJWwW4&feature=related

Birth of the primitive negro myth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9M0xTgJWwW4&feature=related

Civilizations rise and fall, there is no reason Africa won't get back on it's feet like Europe did since the dark ages

Also in “Lost Cities of Africa” we read about an expedition into the far interior in the 19th century and people meeting a remote kingdom. On the stability of the region Page: 318

After his journeys through central Africa Livingstone repeatedly commented on the peace and security that reigned over great expanses of the interior, and Krapf in east Africa at about the same would find the same thing. These people might not be anxious for Christian teaching, Livingstone said, but there was “no impediment in the way of instruction.” On the contrary, “every headmen would be proud of a European visitor or resident in his territory, and there is perfect security for life and property”- he was thinking of course, of human dangers not of animals and disease-“in the interior.”
Missionaries cooking in the cannibal pot would become a standby of European humor. As it happens, only six missionaries of some three hundred penetrated into east and central Africa before 1884 are known to have been killed by Africans, and none of these, it would appear, was killed by wanton murder. What looked like chaos, in short, was seldom anything of the kind; what seemed like great danger of life was nearly always a huge exaggeration. Life for the traveler in middle Africa was in fact a good deal safer- from wars and human killing- than it generally was in Europe; Which may explain, of course, the gentler way in which Africans were accustomed to welcome strangers.

Thanks for your contribution, Markelopia. I haven't quite lost my faith in humanity just yet.

Thanks for your contribution, Markelopia. I haven't quite lost my faith in humanity just yet.

Thanks, the reason I think this is important is because I believe history can be used to fight racism.

Not only that but also how young children see themselves

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2919.shtml

Thanks, the reason I think this is important is because I believe history can be used to fight racism.

Not only that but also how young children see themselves

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2919.shtml

I'm not in a very optimistic mood right now, but I hope to Jesus/Allah/Buddha that you're right.

And that story about children is disturbing on so many levels.

/bookmark

Dunno if it's been mentioned (Vet?) but I'd like to see us colonise space . . .

Dunno if it's been mentioned (Vet?) but I'd like to see us colonise space . . .

*curses the fucked up English language*

I know this sounds stupid, but the thread was about colonialism, not colonization.

Colonialism, n
1. When white people steal brown people's land, genocide the men, rape the women, starve everyone half to death while they gorge themselves on the fruits of conquest, and then blame it all on the brown people.
2. Civilizing them heathen savages!!!!1!!!!

justified? no.

bennifits can be found in almost anything. the real question is whether or not the're worth the price, and THAT's where all the arguments in favor fall down.

=^^=
.../\...

Probably not by contemporary sensibilities, which I happen to think are so much over-compassionate, spineless twaddle. I see little point in attempting to justify, or pillory, European colonialism by modern morality; it is as ludicrous as attempting to justify the actions of the Roman empire, Sasanian empire or Egyptian empire by modern sensibilites.

Yet many questioned the deeds at the time. Even Caesars dealings in Gaul were viewed with cynicism.....

"the un-Godly savages who run around half naked in the bush of course!"

I do hope you know what roleplay is...

Yes, generally a dark and evil hue, with the exception of the Irish, who are somewhat hairier in the backside, with a lighter shade overall.

No chapter of history is steeped further in blood than the history of colonialism. Blood was shed uselessly and senselessly. Flourishing lands were laid waste; whole peoples destroyed and exterminated. All this can in no way be extenuated or justified.

It may be safely taken for granted that up to now the natives have learned only evil ways from the Europeans, and not good ones. This is not the fault of the natives, but rather of their European conquerors, who have taught them nothing but evil. They have brought arms and engines of destruction of all kinds to the colonies; they have sent out their worst and most brutal individuals as officials and officers; at the point of the sword they have set up a colonial rule that in its sanguinary cruelty rivals the despotic system of the Bolsheviks.

'Nuff said.

Actually, there is one time colonialism is okay. If some uninhabited land is discovered and no one owns it or lives on it, then I don't see what the problem is.

Thank you Markeliopia for actually using facts to back up your argument.


Besides, colonies are vital to the liberalisation of the world. The absolute rule of the Europeans was not so absolute in far off places like America or Australia. There, the people readily fight for freedom, and it is much harder to supress an angry colonial population then an angry national population. So, invariably, colonies pop off into more liberal places; the exception of course being when a nation changes to become more liberal, getting the same result either way.

Subjugating is vital to liberalisation? buh? What the bit after that means I'm not quite sure.

Now more then ever, as Earth is becoming smaller and smaller, we need far off places to spread our selves. new colonies to settle. Trust this guy and it's expanding.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

We need places nations cannot directly exert ourselves, so they can serve as a counterweight to the increasing forces of radicalisation. For the world would be a much darker place if there was a single nation ruling it, as there is a trend towards union shows. (European Union, American Empire, African Union, United Nations, etc.) We need the colony to prevent the nation to become an administrative division.I agree that having a single world nation would be a very bad idea but I haven't a fuckin clue how you can try to use colonialism as a way to stop that. If anything, that caused integration partly.
settles new normally inhospitable regionsAlmost all expansion of territory into regions beyond the original extent of the country past the Stone Age was into territory already occupied by other people. Besides, if it were into unoccupied territory, that would be colonisation not colonialism.

Consider the following, and then come up with the nerve to tell me that colonialism is not justified:

A large majority of former colonies fell into Civil War within a decade or two of becoming independent. At least under colonial rule, there was no Civil War; and without Civil War, economic development could progress reasonably, even if it was dependent on one or two items (let me add that dependence on one or two items is not the cause of poverty, New Zealand is dependent on dairying and tourism, and we are still clinging to the ranks of the First World)
Most of the boundaries of the former Eurpoean colonies were totally arbitrary and that is partly why the civil wars took place.

The people in a large majority of former colonies have voted in dictators. Just look at Zimbabwe. It is clear that if these people are idiotic enough to elect dictators that destroy any economic development that they do not deserve to rule over their own affairs. Several third world dictatorships were put in place by USA( a European colony still ruled by Europeans) intervention. Chile 73 comes to mind as does most of Iranian 20th century history. As does the Republic of Congo (Leopoldville). The countries which came about after colonisation were still based on European systems of government, not African 1s. I believe that, if it had been a system of government similar to the 1 they had before colonisation, they would have got on better.

At least under the days of colonies, you were not ruled over by a dictatorship, you were ruled over by a democracy, albeit one that you could not vote in.
They were ruled under a dictatorship. It might have been a democracy as far as the Europeans were concerned but, as far the colonised were concerned, it was extremely oppressive. Even from the Europeans' perspective, most countries in Europe were still monarchies and Britain's democracy was only a democracy for the rich.

Consider also that without colonisation, most of the people within the colonies would not have progressed. Had Africa not been colonised, for example, the people there would more than likely still been in the Stone Age.

Some nations that were subjugated were still in the stone age; some weren't.
All nations were given the chance to progress, yet the colonised nations did not take that opportunity and chose to remain in the Stone Age.

Not all nations were given an equal chance to "progress". They all had different environments to work with.

Truth be told, it is a pity that the old map still did not exist; at least there would have been more economic progress in Africa and Asia, and we would not have had all these Civil Wars, dictatorships, et cetera.

If people are happy in the Stone Age, then let them. If you had a choice, would you rather live in a place where there was trains and genocide against your people or a place with neither?

I don't see what's justifiable about taking over all or part of a soveriegn nation and declaring it to be your own.

Guess how the modern African states were created. Colonialism. The occupiers intentionally created ethnic divisions and stripped people of economic independence and the ability to self-rule. The vast majority of the problems of modern Africa come from colonialism.

What you are suggesting is complete and utter nonsense. The occupiers, by in large, did not intentionally create ethnic divisions; and even if you had a majority/minority ethnic group within a nation, it was little different to Europe where you had minority ethnic groups within nations. The vast majority of the problems of modern Africa come from a populace that are idiotic enough to vote in idiotic dictators, who provide the population with hurdles to development.

No country that holds colonies can be meaningfully called a democracy. That is akin to saying a slave-holding nation is a democracy. They ruled them no better. The British killed tens of millions in India alone with engineered famines.

The only engineered famine in India that I am aware of was the 1942-1945 one in Bengal, however, remember, this was at a time of war and the last thing that the British wanted to do was provide supplies to an invading Japanese force. Of course, there were also famines prior to British rule, the best example being the Deccan famine of 1630-1632.

How about Zimbabwe? Mali? Eritrea? These were highly advanced African nations in their own right. The Bantu people of sub-saharan Africa had iron weapons. They weren't that far behind the Europeans. Even still, a lack of development is no reason for colonialism. The end does not justify the means.

First of all, a lack of development indicates the reason why they were colonised. Obviously if they were as developed as you thought, then they would have been able to defeat any colonists and quite easily, not lose so badly (the Incas were conquered by the grand total of 168 troops, the Zulu were defeated at the Battle of Blood River by the grand total of 664 troops). Also, I would like you to compare 19th Century Europe with 19th Century Africa.

In 19th Century Europe, there was industry, factories, railways, steamers. Products were developed easily for the consumption by the ever growing population. People were being moved between cities with greater speed and efficiency.

In 19th Century Africa, there was no industry, no factories, no railways and few steamers. They had not developed beyond the Iron Age and were simply not developing. The idea that the African continent was advanced is a falsehood; they were at the absolute best stuck in the 14th Century, they had not made the effort to explore, to advance - they were happy chum with their low standard of development.

On the contrary, they were starving. Starving to death by the millions. Deliberately starved to death, their land stolen, their artisans left destitute by the millions, driven out by unfair competition by colonial tax laws and cheap manufactured goods. In fact, things are actually starting to get better now in some former colonies. Colonialism keeps a country in a permanent state of depressed development.

Who were starving? As I said before, there was only one engineered famine in India, and there had always been famines in India. Perhaps in India, artisans were left destitute by the millions, but certainly not in Africa and the Americas where there was no development and thus no artisans. Also, things are only getting better in the former colonies that are actually willing to progress. I like to point to Zimbabwe yet again; the people are willing to vote in a leader that wants to drive out the reason for their prosperity, and a leader that wants to effectively send them back to the Stone Age.

It was a dictatorship before. A tyranny exercised by people in a foreign land, with little or no substantive home rule. Nothing changed after decolonization. The political strucures were still tyrannical, especially since former colonial states tended to support these tyrants, most clearly the United States.

Yes, the people were stupid enough to use their right to vote in idiots that installed themselves dictator for life (or whatever other title took their fancy), and spend millions on useless things. At least under colonisation, the money was being built on useful things, railways for example (I would love to see how much of a railway network India would have had had it not been for the Raj)

No they didn't. Those who resisted were killed en masse, sometimes with poison gas. They had no safety, no security, no self rule, and most of all no hope. Poverty was the rule under colonialism. Of course, none of this matters to a genocide apologist.

I absolutely laugh at this comment. Poverty was the rule under colonialism? I ask you this question; which two nations tended to be among the top five in wealth in the 1920s and 1930s; I'll even give you a hint, they were colonies. Also, there was plenty of self rule; you had the Dominion structure within the British Empire, and even a large chunk of the British Colonies got responsible government quite early on.

Probably not, possibly in theory if:

There was a country with an extremely bad government that, lets say, tortured all women and then forced them to be pregnant and exterminated all blacks and Asians.

Lets also say that the country's populace had no hope of overthrowing the government.

Assume that the amount of violence and hardship that would occur from taking over this government and changing it into a functioning democracy would be considerably less then if the country were to continue untouched.

Then I think colonising this country would be justified temporarily, until the population were educated and well off enough to be independent.

Of course a hypothetical situation like this would probably never happen.

Ehm... you're right, but this is called "liberation" (or "peace enforcing" or "humanitarian intervention" in more recent times)... not "colonialism"!

Colonialism means:
country A takes the territory (or parts there of) of country B (by force or by trade or whatever) and rules it - typically to exploit B's resources.
a more recent type of colonialism sees country A taking over the economy of country B.

In 19th Century Africa, there was no industry, no factories, no railways and few steamers. They had not developed beyond the Iron Age and were simply not developing. The idea that the African continent was advanced is a falsehood; they were at the absolute best stuck in the 14th Century, they had not made the effort to explore, to advance - they were happy chum with their low standard of development.


God damn, the key word here is that they were happy with the technological level they were at

And even then why was colonization in the least bet necisary in giving Africans rail roads and machine guns

I fail to see your point

I don't see what's justifiable about taking over all or part of a soveriegn nation and declaring it to be your own.

Doesn't that depend on what stage of history you find yourself living in?

Doesn't that depend on what stage of history you find yourself living in?

I don't see how. Just because everyone did it didn't mean they were justified in doing so.

I don't see how. Just because everyone did it didn't mean they were justified in doing so.

I'm talking about changing morality. It's easy to agree with you(as I do) today with morality of today, but say 100, 200 years ago would your sentiments have been a minority?

What about modern UK, or America, or Australia?

I'm talking about changing morality. It's easy to agree with you(as I do) today with morality of today, but say 100, 200 years ago would your sentiments have been a minority?
Most likely. That doesn't really change them.

What about modern UK, or America, or Australia?

What about them?

Exactly. A person is a more than just a collection of a 100 trillion cells of different types. What is true for the cell is not necessarily true for the person, and vice versa.

In some sense, yes. But listen: when your house is being burned and your family raped and murdered, you feel strong emotions, yes?

Reptiles have developed the lowest brain layer (survival). Most mammals have the second (emotion). Humans possess the third (reason).

But...when humans are being chased by an killer they don't think "Oh no! When that man catches me he will send me into total darkness forever."
They just run, and maybe think "don't wanna die."

So, when this is happening to you, you are in no-more fear than a hunted animal (or at least mammal) which has the capacity to feel fear on this level (emotional.)

According to what you say, shouldn't it be illegal to kill animals, even for food? Humans can feel two kinds of pain: physical, and emotional. Mammals posses the same capacity. But humans cannot feel pain from their logic center.

Most likely. That doesn't really change them.

Not now yeah I agree.


What about them?

All of which are products of colonialism, so should we endevour to give Scotland back to the Scots, and Austria back to the Aboriginals, and the USA back to the Native Americans?

Or should we leave them all as they are?

"Inferior people"? What on Earth are "inferior people"? And give me examples of cases when people have been "unable to rule themselves".

http://www.admin.uio.no/fa/felles/countries/africa/images/Africa%20Satellite%20small.jpg

What you are suggesting is complete and utter nonsense. The occupiers, by in large, did not intentionally create ethnic divisions; and even if you had a majority/minority ethnic group within a nation, it was little different to Europe where you had minority ethnic groups within nations. The vast majority of the problems of modern Africa come from a populace that are idiotic enough to vote in idiotic dictators, who provide the population with hurdles to development.

No its not. European colonial practices deliberately broke up national groups, and placed mutli ethnic group in a single state. In the case of Rwanda and many other colonies, the occupiers even went so far as to engineer artificial ethnic groups, like the Hutus and Tutsis. Tutsis, because they were decreed to look more "Aryan", were given special privileges. All the while, the country was subject to rape by Western commercial interests. Yet again, you blame the victim for his own slavery. People conditioned to centuries of despotism by colonial rule will not transition into democracy quickly or peacefully. Bloodshed will occur.

The only engineered famine in India that I am aware of was the 1942-1945 one in Bengal, however, remember, this was at a time of war and the last thing that the British wanted to do was provide supplies to an invading Japanese force. Of course, there were also famines prior to British rule, the best example being the Deccan famine of 1630-1632.

Let's go with the words of an Indian National Congress leader: "The story is that the British in the process of their domination over India, kept no limits to brutality and savagery which man is capable of practicing. Hitler’s depredations, his Dachaus and Belsens…pale to insignificance before this imperialist savagery…"(Citing quote in Frederick Clairemont, Economic Liberalism and Underdevelopment, (Bombay and London: Asia Publishing House, 1960) pp. 114.)

But wait, there's more: "The systematic destruction of Indian manufacturers; the creation of the Zemindari [landed aristocracy] and its parasitical outgrowths; the changes in agrarian structure; the financial losses incurred by tribute; the sharp transition from a pre-monetised economy to one governed by the international price mechanism—these were some of the social and institutional forces that were to bring the apocalypse of death and famine to millions—with few or no compensatory benefits to the ryot [peasant]."(ibid, pp. 107)

First of all, a lack of development indicates the reason why they were colonised. Obviously if they were as developed as you thought, then they would have been able to defeat any colonists and quite easily, not lose so badly (the Incas were conquered by the grand total of 168 troops, the Zulu were defeated at the Battle of Blood River by the grand total of 664 troops). Also, I would like you to compare 19th Century Europe with 19th Century Africa.

Well, you bigotries show their true colors. All you care about is might making right. Your blatant racism has shown itself. The Europeans were stronger, therefore they were better, and those African savages must have had it coming.

I'll say it again: the end does not justify the means. To say that colonialism is justified is the equivalent of saying that it is okay to walk into another person's house, kill him, rape his wife, force his children into bondage, and steal all of their assets on the pretext that you are doing them a favor. Outnumbered and outmatched, the people of Africa and the Americas fought long and hard battles. They did not give up their land easily to foreign conquerors, they fought to the bitter end.

In 19th Century Europe, there was industry, factories, railways, steamers. Products were developed easily for the consumption by the ever growing population. People were being moved between cities with greater speed and efficiency.

So the fuck what. Europe was also a cesspool, full of a starving mass of people that no one gave a damn about. The skies of London were black with coal smoke, on many days the sun never shone. Europe was as miserable a place as they came in the 19th Century. It only extricated itself from misery on the backs of its colonies.

In 19th Century Africa, there was no industry, no factories, no railways and few steamers. They had not developed beyond the Iron Age and were simply not developing. The idea that the African continent was advanced is a falsehood; they were at the absolute best stuck in the 14th Century, they had not made the effort to explore, to advance - they were happy chum with their low standard of development.

First of all, they were advancing. No society, I repeat, no society, exists in stagnation. Such is impossible. At any rate, the reason colonialism is not justified is because the *gasp* the natives DO NOT WAN'T IT! Colonialism developed nothing in Africa or India. All it did was destroy the economies, and make the colonies totally subservient to Europe for consumer goods and the sale of raw materials. Mass poverty, mass starvation, and genocide are the wages of colonialism.

Who were starving? As I said before, there was only one engineered famine in India, and there had always been famines in India. Perhaps in India, artisans were left destitute by the millions, but certainly not in Africa and the Americas where there was no development and thus no artisans. Also, things are only getting better in the former colonies that are actually willing to progress. I like to point to Zimbabwe yet again; the people are willing to vote in a leader that wants to drive out the reason for their prosperity, and a leader that wants to effectively send them back to the Stone Age.

GTFO. Seriously, GTFO. There was a continual process of engineered famines not just in India (though India got the brunt of it, because it was the most developed), but all through every colonial empire. There was development in Africa. The Zulu civilization and the Mali had cities of considerable size, and they had a large class of independent artisans. So did most Native American tribes. With colonialism, this was all changed. They were murdered en masse, their land stolen, and through oppressive taxation, the artisans were forced out of work. Whole nations were made dependent on Europe for their very survival. And it haunts them to this day. Your blaming these people for making one bad choice. They don't have the choice any longer; these people assumed dictatorial power. So once again, GTFO you racist bigot.

Yes, the people were stupid enough to use their right to vote in idiots that installed themselves dictator for life (or whatever other title took their fancy), and spend millions on useless things. At least under colonisation, the money was being built on useful things, railways for example (I would love to see how much of a railway network India would have had had it not been for the Raj)

These people did not run on a platform of "dictator for life" you moron. Most of these elected dictators started out fairly benign. They are the ultimate proof of the corruption of power. At first, they brought benefits to their citizens, it wasn't long, though, before they assumed dictatorial power and returned things to the way they were before. Whether the kleptocracy is run by a foreign power or a homegrown tyrant makes no difference. The Europeans stole the birthright of a billion people.

I absolutely laugh at this comment. Poverty was the rule under colonialism? I ask you this question; which two nations tended to be among the top five in wealth in the 1920s and 1930s; I'll even give you a hint, they were colonies. Also, there was plenty of self rule; you had the Dominion structure within the British Empire, and even a large chunk of the British Colonies got responsible government quite early on.

These colonies you speak of that were wealth were the ones that exterminated their Native populations. The only reason why America, Canada and Australia are prosperous today is because of mass settlement by Europeans, and the extermination of indigenous groups. South America, Africa, India and Southeast Asia are still mired in poverty today because of colonial domination. They were poor and destitute under colonialism, and are still poor and destitute.

A bunch of whiny crap and personal attacks

Now why should anyone have any respect for your arguement if you can't make it objectively without resorting to personal attacks and shouting? More importantly, you cannot spell "women" and thus your opinion is invalid by default.

So the fuck what. Europe was also a cesspool, full of a starving mass of people that no one gave a damn about. The skies of London were black with coal smoke, on many days the sun never shone. Europe was as miserable a place as they came in the 19th Century. It only extricated itself from misery on the backs of its colonies.

Good point

Good point

Not really. You could never see the sun in England anyway.

No its not. European colonial practices deliberately broke up national groups, and placed mutli ethnic group in a single state. In the case of Rwanda and many other colonies, the occupiers even went so far as to engineer artificial ethnic groups, like the Hutus and Tutsis. Tutsis, because they were decreed to look more "Aryan", were given special privileges.

That's partly true. In the case of Hutus and Tutsis, they didn't create the groupings per se, but they did deliberately instigate tribalism between the two and use one to exploit the other. Two groups that had intermarried and coexisted for centuries became worst enemies.

In many other countries, though, many tribes were artificial constructs.

These people did not run on a platform of "dictator for life" you moron. Most of these elected dictators started out fairly benign. They are the ultimate proof of the corruption of power. At first, they brought benefits to their citizens, it wasn't long, though, before they assumed dictatorial power and returned things to the way they were before. Whether the kleptocracy is run by a foreign power or a homegrown tyrant makes no difference. The Europeans stole the birthright of a billion people.

Exactly!

As Mises said, "It may be safely taken for granted that up to now the natives have learned only evil ways from the Europeans, and not good ones. This is not the fault of the natives, but rather of their European conquerors, who have taught them nothing but evil. They have brought arms and engines of destruction of all kinds to the colonies; they have sent out their worst and most brutal individuals as officials and officers; at the point of the sword they have set up a colonial rule that in its sanguinary cruelty rivals the despotic system of the Bolsheviks."

Granted, the colonized lands were not perfect or paradisiacal prior to colonialism, but they were, for the most part, stable. And traditional African societies were highly de-centralized and democratic, protective of private property rights, and free. Kings who abused their power could be (and were) removed. You can't say the same for colonialists, or post-colonial autocracies. Much of the bad governance in Africa was learned by them from colonialism.

They were poor and destitute under colonialism, and are still poor and destitute.

Many are poor because their colonizers did jack shit to develop them. Take Guinea-Bissau, for example which had a literacy rate of only a few percent (probably less) and only one manufacturing plant in the entire country (which produced beer for Portuguese soldiers) at the time of independence, or the Belgian Congo, which had a total of sixteen university graduates (some sources say seventeen, but the number hardly matters) at the time of independence. Colonialists deliberately gave their subjects only the most rudimentary education, so they could perform cheap labor and be milked like cash cows. Meritocracy was thrown out the window, and with only a few exceptions, most subjects remained mired in poverty, unable to advance on their own merits.

Colonialism is one of the most barbaric concoctions ever produced by humanity, so barbaric that capitalists and socialists alike, in a rare moment of agreement, resoundingly condemn it. It destroyed indigenous capitalism and reduced millions to a status lower than serfdom.

Justification is an ambiguous term. It exists independent of the opinions of all parties--i.e., one action may be differently perceived as justified (or not) by several points of view. It also changes according to the circumstances and conditions, societal pressures, national needs, and so on--it changes as time passes. Additionally, justification is not limited to morality, but encompasses such ideas as national interest, self-defense, and national will.

So in essence, what may have at one time been morally justifiable is now viewed as unjustifiable. Since justification is subjective, and thus limited to particular perspectives, I say that colonization is quite justifiable.

Granted, the colonized lands were not perfect or paradisiacal prior to colonialism, but they were, for the most part, stable. And traditional African societies were highly de-centralized and democratic, protective of private property rights, and free. Kings who abused their power could be (and were) removed. You can't say the same for colonialists, or post-colonial autocracies. Much of the bad governance in Africa was learned by them from colonialism.


And just to reinforce a point I've made a few times already Africa was much more stable before colonization, I'm going to post this quote again because it has a hard time sinking into people:

Ibn Battuta on west Africa in the 14th century

"Ibn Battuta In black Africa" by translated by Said Hamdun and Noel King:


Amongst their good qualities is the small amount of injustice amongst them, for of all people they are furthest from it. Their sultan does not forgive anyone in any matter to do with injustice. Among these qualities there is also the prevalence of peace in their country, the traveler is not afraid in it nor is he who lives there in fear of the thief or of the robber by violence. They do not interfere with the property of the white (Arab) man who dies in their country even though it may consist of great wealth, but rather they entrust it to the hand of someone dependable among the white men until it is taken by the rightful claimant
Kings who abused their power could be (and were) removed.


Many kings if they lost favor with a council of elders would be forced to commit suicide :p

Now why should anyone have any respect for your arguement if you can't make it objectively without resorting to personal attacks and shouting? More importantly, you cannot spell "women" and thus your opinion is invalid by default.

Will, you may compare this to asking whither it was justifiable for the Nazis to exterminate "inferior" people like Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, other Europeans. Jews and non Jews would be upset

Now why should anyone have any respect for your arguement if you can't make it objectively without resorting to personal attacks and shouting? More importantly, you cannot spell "women" and thus your opinion is invalid by default.

So calling Alexander Ptolemais on his patently racist opinions means that I have no credibility?

Will, you may compare this to asking whither it was justifiable for the Nazis to exterminate "inferior" people like Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, other Europeans. Jews and non Jews would be upset

Well maybe they should have thought about that before they killed Jesus.

Well maybe they should have thought about that before they killed Jesus.

:eek:

You can't be serious...

So calling Alexander Ptolemais on his patently racist opinions means that I have no credibility?

No, the fact that you're a "womyn" means that you have no credibility.

Well maybe they should have thought about that before they killed Jesus.

The Romans and a very small handful of Jews killed Jesus. The actions of that very small handful are attributable only to them, not to the overwhelmingly vast remainder of Jews who had nothing to do with Jesus's death. Only those who directly supported or participated in Jesus's death should be blamed, and since all of those people are long since dead, playing the blame game in today's day and age is, in a word, silly.

:eek:

You can't be serious...

I assume he was jocking

And just to reinforce a point I've made a few times already Africa was much more stable before colonization, I'm going to post this quote again because it has a hard time sinking into people:

Ibn Battuta on west Africa in the 14th century

"Ibn Battuta In black Africa" by translated by Said Hamdun and Noel King:

Agreed.

Many kings if they lost favor with a council of elders would be forced to commit suicide :p

I don't think most of them went that far, but whatever the case, there was zero tolerance for corruption.

I don't think most of them went that far, but whatever the case, there was zero tolerance for corruption.

Mabye it was just one kingdom that did that

No, the fact that you're a "womyn" means that you have no credibility.

That's absurd. Why would spelling a word differently make you lose credibility? Maybe it is annoying, but that's it.

No, the fact that you're a "womyn" means that you have no credibility.

Whatever, genius.

I don't think most of them went that far, but whatever the case, there was zero tolerance for corruption.

I wish we had that kind of accountability with our President!

I assume he was jocking

I hope he was.

Well maybe they should have thought about that before they killed Jesus.

*silence*

Oh, joke. Ha-ha...ha. Joke, right?

I wish we had that kind of accountability with our President!

Amen.

No, you have logic. Once actions are motivated by logic you have...logic.
.

What the shit is this crap about logic? Morality has nothing to do with logic, you cannot deduce an 'ought' from an 'is' logically. The only thing that comes close to logic is utilitarianism and its cost/benefit analysis, but even that is not actually purely logical/mathematical justification for an imperative, since it is still based on the subjective perceptions of what is and isn't a good consequence.

:eek:

You can't be serious...

Well, perhaps if you're not concerned about their slaying of Jesus, we could ask their neighbors the Canannites, Amalekites and, Midianites how they valued human life...

Oh, wait. You can't. Because the Jews murdered them too, down to the last man, woman, and child.

I suppose that if genocide is acceptable when carried out by Jews, it must be equally acceptable when carried out on Jews.

Well, perhaps if you're not concerned about their slaying of Jesus, we could ask their neighbors the Canannites, Amalekites and, Midianites how they valued human life...

Oh, wait. You can't. Because the Jews murdered them too, down to the last man, woman, and child.

I suppose that if genocide is acceptable when carried out by Jews, it must be equally acceptable when carried out on Jews.

...Jesus was a Jewish preacher...you know this, yes?

Well, perhaps if you're not concerned about their slaying of Jesus, we could ask their neighbors the Canannites, Amalekites and, Midianites how they valued human life...

Oh, wait. You can't. Because the Jews murdered them too, down to the last man, woman, and child.

I suppose that if genocide is acceptable when carried out by Jews, it must be equally acceptable when carried out on Jews.

Genocide is never acceptable, ever. No one in this thread (besides you) has said otherwise.

Whatever, genius.



I wish we had that kind of accountability with our President!

Presidents. Our current is not the first, nor will he be the last--corruption and power are nigh inseparable..

What the shit is this crap about logic? Morality has nothing to do with logic, you cannot deduce an 'ought' from an 'is' logically. The only thing that comes close to logic is utilitarianism and its cost/benefit analysis, but even that is not actually purely logical/mathematical justification for an imperative, since it is still based on the subjective perceptions of what is and isn't a good consequence.

I've already showed you this. Good acting has good results, bad acting has bad results. There is no morality involved in it, just logic.

What the shit is this crap about logic? Morality has nothing to do with logic, you cannot deduce an 'ought' from an 'is' logically. The only thing that comes close to logic is utilitarianism and its cost/benefit analysis, but even that is not actually purely logical/mathematical justification for an imperative, since it is still based on the subjective perceptions of what is and isn't a good consequence.

I agree with, totally, long words and all.

Presidents. Our current is not the first, nor will he be the last--corruption and power are nigh inseparable..

Thank you, Lord Acton! :D

I hope he was.

Apparently he was not.

Justified? No.. But has justice ever meant much? :headbang:

Thank you, Lord Acton! :D

I prefer Captain Obvious myself.

Apparently he was not.

Evidently.

It's scary who you can run into on the internet, isn't it? :p

Well, perhaps if you're not concerned about their slaying of Jesus, we could ask their neighbors the Canannites, Amalekites and, Midianites how they valued human life...

Oh, wait. You can't. Because the Jews murdered them too, down to the last man, woman, and child.

I suppose that if genocide is acceptable when carried out by Jews, it must be equally acceptable when carried out on Jews.

First of all, I've been the biggest voice in this thread about why genocide is never acceptable.

Second of all, the (alleged) killing of Jesus is no reason for anything, let alone genocide. Neither is the Israelites genocide of the Canaanites, Amalekites and Midianites. That happened 3000 years ago; the Jews of today are completely different people. You cannot punish people's descendants for crimes committed by their ancestors.

I prefer Captain Obvious myself.

Sorry 'bout that, Cap'n. ;)

First of all, I've been the biggest voice in this thread about why genocide is never acceptable.

Second of all, the (alleged) killing of Jesus is no reason for anything, let alone genocide. Neither is the Israelites genocide of the Canaanites, Amalekites and Midianites. That happened 3000 years ago; the Jews of today are completely different people. You cannot punish people's descendants for crimes committed by their ancestors.

Very well said.

Have a cookie.

Genocide is never acceptable, ever. No one in this thread (besides you) has said otherwise.

Well then, how would you deal with a civilization that has committed the act repeatedly and without remorse?

Here in the United States when one person kills another, especially in the case of multiple killings, the state often returns the favor with the death penalty. I'd argue that the option is valid in the case of genocide as well.

First of all, I've been the biggest voice in this thread about why genocide is never acceptable.

Second of all, the (alleged) killing of Jesus is no reason for anything, let alone genocide. Neither is the Israelites genocide of the Canaanites, Amalekites and Midianites. That happened 3000 years ago; the Jews of today are completely different people. You cannot punish people's descendants for crimes committed by their ancestors.

Do not forget: this was the guy who was impugning your credibility. Irony, eh?

Well then, how would you deal with a civilization that has committed the act repeatedly and without remorse?

Like humans?

Here in the United States when one person kills another, especially in the case of multiple killings, the state often returns the favor with the death penalty. I'd argue that the option is valid in the case of genocide as well.

*keeps cool head* In that case the whole human race should be exterminated because collectively we killed millions.

Well then, how would you deal with a civilization that has committed the act repeatedly and without remorse?

Here in the United States when one person kills another, especially in the case of multiple killings, the state often returns the favor with the death penalty. I'd argue that the option is valid in the case of genocide as well.

Exactly. So the perpetrators - and only the perpetrators - should be punished. Punishing an entire group for genocide would be like punishing a murderer and all his friends and family members.

Remember: Jesus Christ was Jewish. Remember that you Nazi. Geesh.

With the turns that the "Slavery in the US - Good after all? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544845)", I think it is time for a poll. Is colonialism ever justified?



Colonialism is in my mind justified in a number of cases.

Specifically, when a nation has an extrmeely unjust government, such as North Korea or Myanmar, then it is in my mind okay to invade and annex the nation, because it's likely the nation's people has literally proven "unfit to rule themselves" by choosing this fucked-up, oppressive government.

Think of Zimbabwe here.

If Zimbabwe got invaded by a decent country with sensible standards of human rights [and I deliberately want to avoid naming speicifc countries], the people of Zimbabwe might not live equally well to the people in the invader country, but they'd be far better off in every respect than they are now.

Very well said.

Have a cookie.

I can has cookie?

Do not forget: this was the guy who was impugning your credibility. Irony, eh?

Delicious indeed.

Exactly. So the perpetrators - and only the perpetrators - should be punished. Punishing an entire group for genocide would be like punishing a murderer and all his friends and family members.

...Thousands of years ex post facto.

Well then, how would you deal with a civilization that has committed the act repeatedly and without remorse?

Here in the United States when one person kills another, especially in the case of multiple killings, the state often returns the favor with the death penalty. I'd argue that the option is valid in the case of genocide as well.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."~Mohandas K. Gandhi

...Thousands of years ex post facto.

Yup.

Colonialism is in my mind justified in a number of cases.

Specifically, when a nation has an extrmeely unjust government, such as North Korea or Myanmar, then it is in my mind okay to invade and annex the nation, because it's likely the nation's people has literally proven "unfit to rule themselves" by choosing this fucked-up, oppressive government.

Think of Zimbabwe here.

If Zimbabwe got invaded by a decent country with sensible standards of human rights [and I deliberately want to avoid naming speicifc countries], the people of Zimbabwe might not live equally well to the people in the invader country, but they'd be far better off in every respect than they are now.

The people in North Korea and Myanmar did not choose their governments. North Koreas was installed by the Soviets; Myanmar's came to power by a coup.

The people in North Korea and Myanmar did not choose their governments. North Koreas was installed by the Soviets; Myanmar's came to power by a coup.

Zimbabwe has an elected one.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/nocookie.jpg

Cute kitten.

Zimbabwe has an elected one.

He never won a fair election. The 1980 election was rife with massive fraud and intimidation. And it is through massive fraud and intimidation that Mugabe remains in power.

The people in North Korea and Myanmar did not choose their governments. North Koreas was installed by the Soviets; Myanmar's came to power by a coup.

True

Zimbabwe will have a decent government, even if it's not in our generation. We have to remember Europe has gone through periods of extreme chaos, but it overcame that. And Zimbabwe wasn't devoid of Civilization before the Portuguese came either

Now liberating Zimbabwe from the current government would be different from colonization, but as we have seen in Iraq liberation doesn't always work...

"Inferior people"? What on Earth are "inferior people"?

Some people are inferior. Nazis, child molesters, etc.

And give me examples of cases when people have been "unable to rule themselves".

The few people who are not able to rule themselves have usually been conditioned specifically to be unable to do so.

I guess infants and senile people might also count, though.

I've already showed you this. Good acting has good results, bad acting has bad results. There is no morality involved in it, just logic.

Fail. It's quite humorous how you just used the words bad and good and logic at the same time. Neither of the arbitrary words bad, nor good, have anything to do with logic. In what you quoted, I explained your position (utilitarianism), and how it isn't really ultimately logic, how about reading it.

True

Zimbabwe will have a decent government, even if it's not in our generation. We have to remember Europe has gone through periods of extreme chaos, but it overcame that

Now liberating Zimbabwe from the current government would be different from colonization, but as we have seen in Iraq liberation doesn't always work...

Exactly.

Moreover, even though most Zimbabweans hate Mugabe, I doubt they would want outsiders parading in and tossing him out. Nor would the rest of the continent. It would be seen as blatant neo-imperialism.

Exactly.

Moreover, even though most Zimbabweans hate Mugabe, I doubt they would want outsiders parading in and tossing him out. Nor would the rest of the continent. It would be seen as blatant neo-imperialism.

Look at the mess we've made with a century of colonialism back in the day.

*glances furtively to Alexander Ptolemais*

I fear another White Man's Burden coming.

subjugating inferior peoples because they cannot rule themselves = yes
East India type corporate rule = seems to me that a few find it justified even now

any other reasoning beyond the 1800's = no

Why do you call those people who run around naked in the bush 'inferior'? (Re your clarification) And what makes you think they can't rule themselves? Even in a tribal system, there is a hierarchy, a set of rules and a justice system. Many of those systems have survived for thousands of years. Different types of government work better in different situations -- pasting one's system onto another country 'because we're sure we know better' is a really bad idea and doomed to failure.

If a nation has multiple times ripped itself apart; it's culture has degenerated to tribalism and factional warfare without even the pretense of restoring a functional nation; and there is no reasonable belief that it will ever restore itself; then a sufficiently powerful nation may be justified in annexing and colonising that nation in order to save it's people from their own stupidity.

If a nation has multiple times ripped itself apart; it's culture has degenerated to tribalism and factional warfare without even the pretense of restoring a functional nation; and there is no reasonable belief that it will ever restore itself; then a sufficiently powerful nation may be justified in annexing and colonising that nation in order to save it's people from their own stupidity.

We've already seen the track record of "saving people from themselves".

Look at the mess we've made with a century of colonialism back in the day.

*glances furtively to Alexander Ptolemais*

I fear another White Man's Burden coming.

We're already there. Read The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good by William Easterly. Much of the politicians today who try to "help" the Third World, whether they like it or not, subscribe to the White Man's Burden mentality.

On a related note, instead of trying to impose foreign systems on the Third World, we should encourage them to discover their own authentic, indigenous solutions to their own problems. Trying to make them just like us has been a disaster.

We've already seen the track record of "saving people from themselves".

Yet, it's still better than allowing chaos on your borders.

We've already seen the track record of "saving people from themselves".

Yup. It's spelled I-R-A-Q.

We're already there. Read The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good by William Easterly. Much of the politicians today who try to "help" the Third World, whether they like it or not, subscribe to the White Man's Burden mentality.

On a related note, instead of trying to impose foreign systems on the Third World, we should encourage them to discover their own authentic, indigenous solutions to their own problems. Trying to make them just like us has been a disaster.

There doesn't seem to be any solution coming from our end, does there? We can't give them restitution, cuz the corrupt oligarchs will end up getting all of it. Foreign aid is nothing but a neo-colonialist boondoggle, and UN development programs have been lackluster at best.

There doesn't seem to be any solution coming from our end, does there? We can't give them restitution, cuz the corrupt oligarchs will end up getting all of it. Foreign aid is nothing but a neo-colonialist boondoggle, and UN development programs have been lackluster at best.

Pretty much.

There doesn't seem to be any solution coming from our end, does there? We can't give them restitution, cuz the corrupt oligarchs will end up getting all of it. Foreign aid is nothing but a neo-colonialist boondoggle, and UN development programs have been lackluster at best.

There is a solution.

Leave them alone.

I don't mean "don't intervene". I mean treat them as adult nations - trade with them, make treaties, but stop this stupid 'foreign aid' and 'UN assistance'. Let them stand or fall as they choose. Help with natural disasters, sure - we do that with every country. But if a nation bankrupts itself, let it. If a country has to pauper itself to feed it's people, allow it. Let them reap what they sow.

Fail. It's quite humorous how you just used the words bad and good and logic at the same time. Neither of the arbitrary words bad, nor good, have anything to do with logic. In what you quoted, I explained your position (utilitarianism), and how it isn't really ultimately logic, how about reading it.

I understand what you are saying, but it really is not about morality with me. The church officials are about morality. The politicians are around to make sure that everything runs smoothly. It is their job. Maybe they do it for money or vanity, but it is their job.

To make it a bit easier, give me your definition of "morality." Bad and good are not moral judgments. It would be "bad" for me (well, not really) to fall-off a cliff. That doesn't involve any morality

I view humans as a natural force.

I understand what you are saying, but it really is not about morality with me. The church officials are about morality. The politicians are around to make sure that everything runs smoothly. It is their job. Maybe they do it for money or vanity, but it is their job.

To make it a bit easier, give me your definition of "morality." Bad and good are not moral judgments. It would be "bad" for me (well, not really) to fall-off a cliff. That doesn't involve any morality

I view humans as a natural force.

Any command, imperative or ought is a moral judgement. Saying you ought to do something is inherently moral in itself. You are saying that it is bad for YOU to fall off a cliff, this is not a moral command, but this isn't political either. All it means is that you consider the results undesirable, but again it might be undesirable for you but desirable to another person (subjective).

I will mention again that you cannot deduce an ought fom an is in a purely logical way, e.g:

most people wont like jumping off a cliff (the is)
therefore the government SHOULD ban people from falling off a cliff (the ought)

In this example I have involved a government policy to link this to politics. There is no actual logical step from the is to the ought, it is again based on the subjective notion that banning this action is desirable in the long run (a utilitarian notion). There is no logical proof that this policy is better then a policy which involves allowing people to commit suicide. It is based on preference, people would prefer such a policy, rather then logic.

Furthermore, many popular political concepts used all the time are very moral, such as the idea of intrinsic human rights, which cannot be proven 'a priori' or 'a posteriori'. I believe the UN have even stated to be using a sort of natural law as a basis for their policies.

*snip

Morals are done for their own sake. Kant says you should never lie because lying is immoral. Now I know you probably disagree with this, but do you get the point?

What I am saying is that society needs different goal besides morality. We are too obsessed with them

For instance: anybody who says they dislike Clinton for the "Lewinsky" incident. Why?!? Is he a worse ruler because of it? No. People merely find it morally repugnant, and therefor hate him for it.

What you're saying is: "You do believe in morals, just a different code," and I say: "No. They're useless. Cells get along fine without them."

I didn't post this earlier because the links on the site wern't working

http://endingstereotypes.org/african_history.html

you can show it to racists

From the site this is an article on the fall of Africa http://endingstereotypesforamerica.org/fall_of_africa.html

In today's world colonialism is difficult to justify for a regular person. the boons are obvious to a world leader, territory, military and technological bonuses, incresed wealth and population, so on and so on.

The problem is that the people in the colonies are never very happy with the change of rule, especially if there are many things that are changed and instituted (see China's aquisition and rule of Tibet).

Back in the 16th century colonialism was one of the best forms for a weak economy and was neccessary for the distribution of resources and wealth and persons, both as settlers and as property.

It was also an avenue of religious expression and recruitment, though it was often used as a form of control and oppression of indigenous persons of a colony (see christianity and the native american).

... I am sure this was going somewhere... right. it is improper to judge past occurences through the eyes of today, things are different.

That depends, if you are a moral crusader against slavery and that country has enslaved your and the only way to free your people is to take over that country when diplomacy has failed."It is the only way to free our people"??.. I dont think so.

People would respect more your "moral crusader" if he was honest, something like "They colonized us.. now its our turn, eye for an eye"
.
On the other when it comes to the colonization of alien species, yes it is justified because as humans we have the right to preserve our species, no matter what the cost.:confused: can you explain to me: how Colonialism/enslaving of other alien species is going to preserve our species?

Does colonizing unoccupied land count?

Because then I kinda see it being ok...

Does colonizing unoccupied land count?

Because then I kinda see it being ok...The thread is about "Colonialism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545064&page=2)" as in subjugation and exploitation of weaker peoples.

So when you say "I want to colonize an empty planet.." then I shall say: "Sure.. here is your seat on the Space shuttle, good luck ;) "

No its not. European colonial practices deliberately broke up national groups, and placed mutli ethnic group in a single state. In the case of Rwanda and many other colonies, the occupiers even went so far as to engineer artificial ethnic groups, like the Hutus and Tutsis. Tutsis, because they were decreed to look more "Aryan", were given special privileges. All the while, the country was subject to rape by Western commercial interests. Yet again, you blame the victim for his own slavery. People conditioned to centuries of despotism by colonial rule will not transition into democracy quickly or peacefully. Bloodshed will occur.

As I said in my original post, by in large, the occupiers did not intentionally make divisions, with the Belgians in Rwanda being one of the exceptions.

Let's go with the words of an Indian National Congress leader: "The story is that the British in the process of their domination over India, kept no limits to brutality and savagery which man is capable of practicing. Hitler’s depredations, his Dachaus and Belsens…pale to insignificance before this imperialist savagery…"(Citing quote in Frederick Clairemont, Economic Liberalism and Underdevelopment, (Bombay and London: Asia Publishing House, 1960) pp. 114.)

But wait, there's more: "The systematic destruction of Indian manufacturers; the creation of the Zemindari [landed aristocracy] and its parasitical outgrowths; the changes in agrarian structure; the financial losses incurred by tribute; the sharp transition from a pre-monetised economy to one governed by the international price mechanism—these were some of the social and institutional forces that were to bring the apocalypse of death and famine to millions—with few or no compensatory benefits to the ryot [peasant]."(ibid, pp. 107)

About brutality and savagery; this could be quite easily contrused as the pot calling the kettle black; the Indians were also brutal. Look at the Black Hole of Calcutta, for example. 146 British prisoners were crowded into a room the size of an average bedroom, and kept overnight without any food, water or ventilation. Only 23 survived the night - that was just as brutal as acts that the British committed against the Indians.

Also, about these famines, which famines were they; I can accept that some of the move from the Iron Age to the Modern Age would have caused pain; any sudden movement always causes pain, and in fact, India would be prosperous today had their bureaucracy not become bloated in the post colonial era.

Well, you bigotries show their true colors. All you care about is might making right. Your blatant racism has shown itself. The Europeans were stronger, therefore they were better, and those African savages must have had it coming.

I was merely pointing out that the colonised nations were suffering from a lack of development, and if they were so developed, then why would they have been

a - colonised in the first place and
b - beaten so humilatingly

I'll say it again: the end does not justify the means. To say that colonialism is justified is the equivalent of saying that it is okay to walk into another person's house, kill him, rape his wife, force his children into bondage, and steal all of their assets on the pretext that you are doing them a favor. Outnumbered and outmatched, the people of Africa and the Americas fought long and hard battles. They did not give up their land easily to foreign conquerors, they fought to the bitter end.

Outnumbered? There were 664 colonists against ten thousand Zulu at the Battle of Blood River. The Zulu outnumbered the colonists at that battle. There were 168 troops against millions of Inca. The Inca outnumbered Pizarro and his men by a factor of thousands to one. The people of Africa and the Americas may have fought to the bitter end, however, it does not help that you are fighting muskets with sticks and stones.

So the fuck what. Europe was also a cesspool, full of a starving mass of people that no one gave a damn about. The skies of London were black with coal smoke, on many days the sun never shone. Europe was as miserable a place as they came in the 19th Century. It only extricated itself from misery on the backs of its colonies.

So you would much rather live without modern technology? I would have much rather had modern technology than the clear skies and lack of misery that you would seem to prefer. We need to progress; if we do not, then someone else will and take us over.

First of all, they were advancing. No society, I repeat, no society, exists in stagnation. Such is impossible. At any rate, the reason colonialism is not justified is because the *gasp* the natives DO NOT WAN'T IT! Colonialism developed nothing in Africa or India. All it did was destroy the economies, and make the colonies totally subservient to Europe for consumer goods and the sale of raw materials. Mass poverty, mass starvation, and genocide are the wages of colonialism.

Were they advancing now? Where were their steam trains? Where were their factories? Where were their guns? Where was their modern medicine? Where was their modern agricultural practices? Where were their steam boats?

Also, colonialism did develop a lot. Take a look at India; when Britain took over India, there was not a single kilometre of railway track. When they left, there was 55,000 kilometres of railway track in India; with a further 8,000 kilometres in Pakistan. These are railway networks that are still used by the Indians and Pakistanis today to transport goods and people from place to place. In fact, the same can be said of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Tanganyika, Kenya and other colonies.

The people in these nations also got modern medicine; vaccinations became a part of regular life in the colonies; the death rate plunged, particularly of children; hospitals were established. That is development.

While it may not have been as much as you liked, it was better than what they had before. Before, there was no development.

GTFO. Seriously, GTFO. There was a continual process of engineered famines not just in India (though India got the brunt of it, because it was the most developed), but all through every colonial empire. There was development in Africa. The Zulu civilization and the Mali had cities of considerable size, and they had a large class of independent artisans. So did most Native American tribes. With colonialism, this was all changed. They were murdered en masse, their land stolen, and through oppressive taxation, the artisans were forced out of work. Whole nations were made dependent on Europe for their very survival. And it haunts them to this day. Your blaming these people for making one bad choice. They don't have the choice any longer; these people assumed dictatorial power. So once again, GTFO you racist bigot.

I ask again, what were the engineered famines? The one that I accept is the 1942 - 1945 one in India; and I grant there may have been more.

Again, I hear of this flawed idea of development. Sure, there may have been large cities in Zululand and Mali, but Ancient Rome was also large, and I certainly would not consider the Romans to have been developed by 19th Century standards. Also, so what about the large class of independent artisans; artisans were at best, 18th Century development. The truth of the matter is that when Africa was colonised in the 1870s and 1880s, there were no railways, no factories, no modern medicine, no modern agriculture, nothing that would be deemed development, even in a 19th Century context.

Also, might I add, how were colonies dependent on Europe for their very survival? Making one or two goods, might I ask?

Finally, choosing a dictator is a bad choice and the people should be held accountable; if I make a bad choice, I am always held accountable. Why should anyone that votes in a dictator be treated any differently? They made a bad decision and should be held accountable for it.

These people did not run on a platform of "dictator for life" you moron. Most of these elected dictators started out fairly benign. They are the ultimate proof of the corruption of power. At first, they brought benefits to their citizens, it wasn't long, though, before they assumed dictatorial power and returned things to the way they were before. Whether the kleptocracy is run by a foreign power or a homegrown tyrant makes no difference. The Europeans stole the birthright of a billion people.

Still, they are dictators and the people voted them in. The difference between a kleptocracy run by a foreign power and a homegrown tyrant is in the first instance, with the foreign power, the people cannot help it. With an elected homegrown tyrant, they could have helped it if they had not foolishly voted the dictator into power.


These colonies you speak of that were wealth were the ones that exterminated their Native populations. The only reason why America, Canada and Australia are prosperous today is because of mass settlement by Europeans, and the extermination of indigenous groups. South America, Africa, India and Southeast Asia are still mired in poverty today because of colonial domination. They were poor and destitute under colonialism, and are still poor and destitute.

Thank you, you have just said that the only reason why these colonies do well today is because of Europeans; thus it can be implied that you are a racist, since you have effectively said that countries can only do well when there is mass European settlement and there are no native people.

Africa was better off under it's own rule:

This website again

http://www.endingstereotypes.org/african_history.html

I haven’t read the whole thread, it too late, but I’ve read enough. I agree with Alexandrian Ptolemais. They may have had large cities but where was the railways, the steam engines, the rifles, the modern medicine... the list goes on. Also, colonialism benefited my country, Great Britain. Why should I care about a backward place like Africa, they have done nothing to deserve my sympathy. Since the end of colonial rule they have proven that they are incapable of running a decent country, baring South Africa the continent is in ruin. Early 20th century Russia was backward and the people were staving. Yet they managed to elevate themselves to a world superpower. Ireland, after famine and oppressive British rule is now a stable and world class country. So don’t say it cannot be done, all you need is good leadership which the Africans are yet to find.

Explain to me why colonization was needed for Africa to have rail roads and stuff

Colonialism has been the best and the worst thing that has happened to Africa.

Colonialism has been the best and the worst thing that has happened to Africa.I agree 50%.

As I said in my original post, by in large, the occupiers did not intentionally make divisions, with the Belgians in Rwanda being one of the exceptions.

They used them effectively to rule their colonies though. You cannot deny that.

About brutality and savagery; this could be quite easily contrused as the pot calling the kettle black; the Indians were also brutal. Look at the Black Hole of Calcutta, for example. 146 British prisoners were crowded into a room the size of an average bedroom, and kept overnight without any food, water or ventilation. Only 23 survived the night - that was just as brutal as acts that the British committed against the Indians.

Also, about these famines, which famines were they; I can accept that some of the move from the Iron Age to the Modern Age would have caused pain; any sudden movement always causes pain, and in fact, India would be prosperous today had their bureaucracy not become bloated in the post colonial era.

One atrocity balanced against the conquest of an entire nation by the British, and veritable genocide of the Indian peasantry. Two wrongs do not make a right, and British committed far worse atrocities under their rule. They killed several hundred non violent protestors in the 1930s in a single incident. Gunned them down.

The famines were caused by the large scale shift of the Indian economy from subsistence to resource extraction. Cash crops were grown in large latifundia rather than food crops on small peasant tracts. Millions of peasants were forced into serfdom. Millions perished in the process, arguably as brutal if not more so than Josef Stalin's forced nationalization of agriculture during the 20s and 30s.

I was merely pointing out that the colonised nations were suffering from a lack of development, and if they were so developed, then why would they have been

a - colonised in the first place and
b - beaten so humilatingly

They weren't as undeveloped as you think. If you had followed Markelopia's links, you'd know that. Either way, the defeat was a long and slow one, and the natives of Africa and the America's fought bitterly for every last centimeter of ground.

Outnumbered? There were 664 colonists against ten thousand Zulu at the Battle of Blood River. The Zulu outnumbered the colonists at that battle. There were 168 troops against millions of Inca. The Inca outnumbered Pizarro and his men by a factor of thousands to one. The people of Africa and the Americas may have fought to the bitter end, however, it does not help that you are fighting muskets with sticks and stones.

As a whole, in nearly all cases colonialist tended to find ways to outnumber their opponents and outgun them, though the use of coercive diplomacy and power politics. Playing one tribe off another, and then reaping all the spoils, using auxilarly troops from other colonies to fight your wars for you, etc.

So you would much rather live without modern technology? I would have much rather had modern technology than the clear skies and lack of misery that you would seem to prefer. We need to progress; if we do not, then someone else will and take us over.

At what price shall progress come? If it comes at the loss of our very humanity, the things that make this life worth living in the first place, than I say no to progress. Power does not justify conquest; the ability to "progress" through the mass enslavement of others can not be twisted to into a self-defense "kill or be killed" mentality.

Were they advancing now? Where were their steam trains? Where were their factories? Where were their guns? Where was their modern medicine? Where was their modern agricultural practices? Where were their steam boats?

All things come in due time. These people clearly did not want "development" if it came at the price of slavery to a foreign power. There was no reason that they wouldn't adopt these practices through amicable trading practices. Just look at Japan. It was never a colony, and it is a thriving modern economy. It started later than almost everyone else: yet it advanced through its own volition.

Also, colonialism did develop a lot. Take a look at India; when Britain took over India, there was not a single kilometre of railway track. When they left, there was 55,000 kilometres of railway track in India; with a further 8,000 kilometres in Pakistan. These are railway networks that are still used by the Indians and Pakistanis today to transport goods and people from place to place. In fact, the same can be said of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Tanganyika, Kenya and other colonies.

Railroads are not the sum of development. Total Indian manufacturing capability plumetted during the colonial era, since it's economy was structured around resource extraction. It's manufactureres were driven out by unfair competition by British industrial goods.

The people in these nations also got modern medicine; vaccinations became a part of regular life in the colonies; the death rate plunged, particularly of children; hospitals were established. That is development.

While it may not have been as much as you liked, it was better than what they had before. Before, there was no development.

On the contrary, some got access to modern medicine, the death rate of the wealth plummeted, some people had hospitals. The vast majority did not. Colonial practices funnel wealth into the hands of an oligarchy. The vast majority of people in the colonial nations got nothing out of the deal. As Adam Smith said, "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

I ask again, what were the engineered famines? The one that I accept is the 1942 - 1945 one in India; and I grant there may have been more.

Again, I hear of this flawed idea of development. Sure, there may have been large cities in Zululand and Mali, but Ancient Rome was also large, and I certainly would not consider the Romans to have been developed by 19th Century standards. Also, so what about the large class of independent artisans; artisans were at best, 18th Century development. The truth of the matter is that when Africa was colonised in the 1870s and 1880s, there were no railways, no factories, no modern medicine, no modern agriculture, nothing that would be deemed development, even in a 19th Century context.

I've already told you. These famines were caused the moment the British Raj took control in India, and institute the colonial economic policy of the British crown. It was a perpetual process of forcing peasants of their land to grow cash crops, and forcing artisans out of work and on to the latifundia.

So what if there was no nineteenth century development? They could have developed it completely on their own or learned of it in amicable trade agreements. They never had the chance. They had advanced that far on their own, there it is likely they would have continued. And there's the simple fact that they didn't want their development to come at the price of slavery.

Also, might I add, how were colonies dependent on Europe for their very survival? Making one or two goods, might I ask?

Something about having to import all your manufactured goods, all of your salt, much of your food crops and so forth because your entire economy is dedicated to mining and farming cash crops.

Finally, choosing a dictator is a bad choice and the people should be held accountable; if I make a bad choice, I am always held accountable. Why should anyone that votes in a dictator be treated any differently? They made a bad decision and should be held accountable for it.

They didn't choose dictators. These leaders started out benevolent and democratic. They schemed the systems, often with US assistance, to remain in power, or participated in outright military coups. You cannot blame the victim for something they have no control of. Your argument is the moral equivalent of blaming a woman for her rapist's behavior.

Still, they are dictators and the people voted them in. The difference between a kleptocracy run by a foreign power and a homegrown tyrant is in the first instance, with the foreign power, the people cannot help it. With an elected homegrown tyrant, they could have helped it if they had not foolishly voted the dictator into power.

They didn't run on a platform of "dictator for life", as I said before. They cheated, and stole power. They can no more help this than they can help the foreign power conquering them. You continue to blame the victim for their oppression, resorting to a racist denigration of these people's intelligence.

Thank you, you have just said that the only reason why these colonies do well today is because of Europeans; thus it can be implied that you are a racist, since you have effectively said that countries can only do well when there is mass European settlement and there are no native people.

Had there still been native people in the United States, and it had proven to be impossible to genocide them, the US would look a lot like South Africa or India. A small white population with a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and a starving oppressed mass of natives working for the whites.

Whites who came to America etc. brought their wealth with them. They didn't ever give it to natives, not in any country. They hoarded it. It's only natural that European settler states would be at a comparable level of development to Europe.

Ireland, despite famine and oppressive British rule is now a stable and world class country.

Fixed for accuracy.

Africa was better off under it's own rule:

This website again

http://www.endingstereotypes.org/african_history.html

I took a look at the site, and first of all, all the great African kingdoms were pre 17th Century, with only one, Benin, lasting beyond that period. Colonisation only got underaway in Africa in the 1870s and 1880s with the Scramble for Africa. Therefore, it is clear that by the mid-19th Century, Africa was not better off under its own rule considering the lack of technological development. Of course, I found this line rather amusing in your site

"The King of Benin, believing his problem was the work of the devil, ordered more human sacrifices."

Hmmm, was Africa really better off under paranoid leaders that were willing to go to such extents? Extents that never have and never will succeed.

Explain to me why colonization was needed for Africa to have rail roads and stuff

Because they were not developing it themselves. The railroad had been in existence a full fifty years prior to Africa being fully colonised. Pre-colonisation, not a single kilometre of railroad was built in spite of the technology being there. During colonisation, Africa obtained 35,000 kilometres worth of railways.

Ireland, after famine and oppressive British rule is now a stable and world class country. So don’t say it cannot be done, all you need is good leadership which the Africans are yet to find.

Thank you - time for me to list all the former colonies that have done well (have an HDI >0.8)

New Zealand
Australia
South Korea
Singapore
Hong Kong
The United States
Ireland
Canada
Argentina
Uruguay
Chile
Malaysia
Mexico

They used them effectively to rule their colonies though. You cannot deny that.

Some colonies; I cannot deny that it existed in some colonies; however, in most colonies, there was never any elevation of one tribe above another; as far as I am aware, it never happened in the British Empire, for example.

One atrocity balanced against the conquest of an entire nation by the British, and veritable genocide of the Indian peasantry. Two wrongs do not make a right, and British committed far worse atrocities under their rule. They killed several hundred non violent protestors in the 1930s in a single incident. Gunned them down.

Yes, and how about the troops after the Siege of Cawnpore? They had surrendered, and even flew a white flag of truce. The Indians gathered them together into boats and fired upon them. That is just one example; there was certainly acts of Indian brutality as well as British brutality

The famines were caused by the large scale shift of the Indian economy from subsistence to resource extraction. Cash crops were grown in large latifundia rather than food crops on small peasant tracts. Millions of peasants were forced into serfdom. Millions perished in the process, arguably as brutal if not more so than Josef Stalin's forced nationalization of agriculture during the 20s and 30s.

Again, you are not answering my question. What famines were they? I am looking for dates here Trotskylvania; I don't need a description of what they were, I want dates, when it happened.

They weren't as undeveloped as you think. If you had followed Markelopia's links, you'd know that. Either way, the defeat was a long and slow one, and the natives of Africa and the America's fought bitterly for every last centimeter of ground.

I did follow the link that Markelopia posted, and considering that Africa had paranoid Kings that slaughtered their own citizens, then it is clear that they were underdeveloped and stuck in the Dark Ages.

As a whole, in nearly all cases colonialist tended to find ways to outnumber their opponents and outgun them, though the use of coercive diplomacy and power politics. Playing one tribe off another, and then reaping all the spoils, using auxilarly troops from other colonies to fight your wars for you, etc.

Maybe it happened with some conquests; but by in large, it was small groups of people that beat large nations.

At what price shall progress come? If it comes at the loss of our very humanity, the things that make this life worth living in the first place, than I say no to progress. Power does not justify conquest; the ability to "progress" through the mass enslavement of others can not be twisted to into a self-defense "kill or be killed" mentality.

However, the colonisers did not need the colonies to progress; what became the colonies were not progressing themselves. Anyways, I would prefer technological progress than your flawed notion of "humanity" - I would not be able to bear life prior to the 19th Century

All things come in due time. These people clearly did not want "development" if it came at the price of slavery to a foreign power. There was no reason that they wouldn't adopt these practices through amicable trading practices. Just look at Japan. It was never a colony, and it is a thriving modern economy. It started later than almost everyone else: yet it advanced through its own volition.

Development would not have happened in Africa; Africa had been stuck in the same century for several hundred years, and they were certainly not willing, nor likely able, to develop. Not even amicable trading practices would have made a difference. Japan, while it did progress, was the rare exception to the rule.

Railroads are not the sum of development. Total Indian manufacturing capability plumetted during the colonial era, since it's economy was structured around resource extraction. It's manufactureres were driven out by unfair competition by British industrial goods.

Well, without railroads, you do not have modern transportation. Also, consider the other things that India (and for that matter, other colonies) got, the telegraph, the telephone; they also got modern communication. Also, might I note that India would have prospered, however, they wasted years experimenting with massive bureaucracies.

On the contrary, some got access to modern medicine, the death rate of the wealth plummeted, some people had hospitals. The vast majority did not. Colonial practices funnel wealth into the hands of an oligarchy. The vast majority of people in the colonial nations got nothing out of the deal. As Adam Smith said, "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Even some is better than none; I would much rather that the death rate falls than stays constant or increases.

I've already told you. These famines were caused the moment the British Raj took control in India, and institute the colonial economic policy of the British crown. It was a perpetual process of forcing peasants of their land to grow cash crops, and forcing artisans out of work and on to the latifundia.

I am looking for specific famine events here; I know that you know what they were caused by, I am looking for instances.

So what if there was no nineteenth century development? They could have developed it completely on their own or learned of it in amicable trade agreements. They never had the chance. They had advanced that far on their own, there it is likely they would have continued. And there's the simple fact that they didn't want their development to come at the price of slavery.

They would not have; the Scramble for Africa occurred in the 1870s and 1880s; the railway had been in regular use in Europe since the 1840s; the telegraph had existed for that long period as well. The non-colonised parts of Africa did not have a kilometre of railway, and nor did they had a kilometre of telegraph.

Might I also note that Ethiopia stayed independent during this entire time, and they did not technologically progress. If your idea was true, Ethiopia would have been a very prosperous nation today. Instead, it was and still is, one of the most underdeveloped nations in Africa

Something about having to import all your manufactured goods, all of your salt, much of your food crops and so forth because your entire economy is dedicated to mining and farming cash crops.

Alright; let us take a hypothetical nation. This nation has little in the way of manufactured good production; in fact, there is only one major producer of manufactured goods. This nation also has to import a good proportion of its salt, there is only one place where salt can be easily produced. Even a good amount of food must be imported by this nation, its climate does not lend itself to the production of citrus fruit that easily; in fact, this nation is reliant on three industries - sheep farming, dairying, and tourism. You would think that this nation is a poor Third World nation. In fact, it is

New Zealand

Yep, just goes to prove that not all one good nations are poor. Even Australia is highly reliant on mining with little in the way of industry or agriculture.

They didn't choose dictators. These leaders started out benevolent and democratic. They schemed the systems, often with US assistance, to remain in power, or participated in outright military coups. You cannot blame the victim for something they have no control of. Your argument is the moral equivalent of blaming a woman for her rapist's behavior.

These people may have started benevolent and democratic, however, bear in mind that most of these leaders were initially elected with landslide victories; victories that enabled them to become dictators. Therefore, these people gave them the opportunity to become dictators; it would be the same if the Republican Party gained a supermajority that would enable them to fully override the constitution.

They didn't run on a platform of "dictator for life", as I said before. They cheated, and stole power. They can no more help this than they can help the foreign power conquering them. You continue to blame the victim for their oppression, resorting to a racist denigration of these people's intelligence.

Many of these dictators got landslide victories, as I said before. If the people had not all voted for one leader, then you would not have ended up with dictatorships; it is very hard to get a democratically elected person that becomes a dictator if you have an even split in Parliament.

Had there still been native people in the United States, and it had proven to be impossible to genocide them, the US would look a lot like South Africa or India. A small white population with a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and a starving oppressed mass of natives working for the whites.

Whites who came to America etc. brought their wealth with them. They didn't ever give it to natives, not in any country. They hoarded it. It's only natural that European settler states would be at a comparable level of development to Europe

That would be unlikely; that is unless the natives were deliberately held back for a very long period, like they were in South Africa. While the Europeans that migrated may not have given their wealth to the natives, the natives could just have easily worked hard and progressed themselves; it happened early on in New Zealand, Apirana Ngata got his Ngati Porou tribe to work hard, develop and they did quite well for themselves (and this was in the early 20th Century).

"The King of Benin, believing his problem was the work of the devil, ordered more human sacrifices."

Hmmm, was Africa really better off under paranoid leaders that were willing to go to such extents? Extents that never have and never will succeed.

It probably seemed like the world was ending to them, and yes Benin was for the most part well governed

I took a look at the site, and first of all, all the great African kingdoms were pre 17th Century, with only one, Benin, lasting beyond that period. Colonisation only got underaway in Africa in the 1870s and 1880s with the Scramble for Africa. Therefore, it is clear that by the mid-19th Century, Africa was not better off under its own rule considering the lack of technological development.
Actually the Portugese were ravaging cities in East Africa by the 16th century, I've been reading through it in a book but I'll just bost this again


Fall of Africa
http://endingstereotypesforamerica.org/fall_of_africa.html

After people hear of Africa's true past the question, "what happened?" usually follows. Why did the kingdoms of the once great continent fall? The answer could be written into a thousand-page book. An oversimplified answer can be broken into two categories--slavery and guns.

The terror, demoralization, political instability, and wealth disparity that Africa experienced during the slave trade destroyed many societies in West Africa.

The guns had perhaps a greater effect. Guns, invented by Arabs and massed produced by Europeans, allowed North African kingdoms to inflict enough harm on Songhay and other West African kingdoms to lead to their destruction.

Guns also gave the Portuguese an effortless conquest of East African trading cities and the West coast of India, consequently destroying the prosperous trade between those two regions and Central Africa. With the prosperous trade suddenly destroyed--therefore an economic livelihood suddenly destroyed--wars broke out among the desperate people. Soon kings, chiefs, and princes in central Africa were making deals with the Portuguese to remain in or to gain power. The structure of African governments and their economies were destroyed.

Top

West Africa:
Songhay, in a sense, was the continuation of the intellectual, economic, and military powerhouse that was Mali, which was a continuation of the great, powerful, and organized kingdom of Ghana. The destruction of Songhay was therefore the death of over 1000 yrs of West African evolution of enhanced prosperity, technology, wealth, and power. Several factors led to the great kingdom's decline. In the 1580's droughts and epidemics caused food shortages within the region. Prior to the droughts the Portuguese were giving trade advantages to some of Songhay's tenuous vassal states in order to fragment the kingdom, which would lead to greater trading competition, and therefore lower prices for Europeans. Songhay's central government lost a lot of tax revenue and military power when their vassal states seceded. Some of these new independent states made several of the primary trade routes too dangerous to travel. The combination of food shortages and the decline in revenue intensified rivalries, which resulted in a civil war. The civil war ended when Ishak II defeated Balama al-Sadduk--who resided in Timbuktu--in the 1580's; this left little time, though, to reunite the country before the Moroccan army, now wielding muskets, stormed into Songhay. Previously the West African nations of Ghana, Mali and Songhay had enjoyed military superiority over the North African nations, but they soon fell victim to the new dimension of warfare that had just begun to shape our world…guns.1 In 1585 the Moroccan sultan, Mulay Ahmed el-Mansure, took the vital Taghaza salt deposits from Songhay. Then in 1591, under the Spanish renegade Judar, the Moroccan army overwhelmed Songhay, seizing Timbuktu and Gao.2 One chronicle of the time cried, "From that moment everything changed. Danger took the place of security, poverty of wealth. Peace gave way to distress, disasters, and violence."3

Finally, in 1618, after 25 years of fighting and 23,000 Moroccan deaths, the Sultan Mulay Zidan abandoned the Songhay campaign for good.4 Basil Davidson wrote that the Moroccan invasion, "cost Songhay its place in history…It demolished the unity and administrative organization of the state, and while it left Timbuktu and Gao and Jenne as considerable cities, it robbed this civilization of its vitality, for it temporarily ruined the trans-Saharan trade as well as much of the internal trade of the Sudan."5

External warfare continued with the Dendi in the south, who had recognized Songhay's newfound vulnerability and wished to capitalize on it. Soon the Songhay nation was completely vanquished. Wars continued, and in 1884 the French began their attacks on the Niger. They conquered Timbuktu in 1894, Gao in 1898, and the much-desired Tuareg salt mines in 1900.6

Top

Slavery and West Africa
Songhay wasn't the only great state in West Africa. West Africa was home to the powerful and advanced kingdoms of Benin, Kongo, and Borno, to name a few. The death of these kingdoms can be directly attributed to the slave trade.

When Portugal first arrived in West Africa the slave trade was an afterthought. Only a few criminals and prisoners of war were traded here and there. It was nothing more than had been done for hundreds of years in the region. With the breakdown of the Lord/serf system many Europeans needed cheap labor fast. White people were too difficult to maintain as slaves because they could easily run away to the newly developed coastal cities and become lost among a sea of white people; that is one of the reasons the feudal system broke down in the first place. The landowners needed people who were easily distinguishable and Black African's were their answer. At first the Africans gladly rid themselves of their POW's and criminals. A few powerful men and government officials gained a monopoly over the slave trade and their wealth and power grew. When the pool of available slaves dried they needed other means to hold onto their wealth and power. Greedy African slave merchants and government officials weren't about to let go of their wealth making machine and consequently hired men to raid weaker villages to obtain more slaves. Davidson wrote, "The chiefs and some of the tribes of the coasts were easily corrupted into wholesale slave trading is obvious enough; the step from domestic slavery, which they had always practiced, to the sale of slaves was all too easily made…the hunt for a few slaves changing into the hunt for many; and, with that, the gradual ruin of every sentiment of decency and restraint."7 Between 1486-1641 one million three hundred eighty-nine thousand slaves were taken from the coast of Angola alone. This is about 9,000 a year from an area not too densely populated.8

Soon the Americans faced the same problems the Europeans had. They needed cheap labor but didn't have any usable people: Indians knew the land too well and could easily escape and mix with other Indian people. They also couldn't raid the Indian villages for slaves because the Indians had organized clans, federations, and confederations that could strike back.9 Furthermore, the Indians were too vulnerable to diseases. At first white slaves from Europe were used, who went through the same brutal middle passage blacks later would. In the 17th and 18th centuries thousands of Europeans, because of either false promises made by slave traders, kidnappings, or merely in desperation to leave their harsh life in Europe, become commodities for merchants, traders, ship captains and finally their masters in the Americas. On the voyage to America the famous historian Howard Zinn wrote, "the servants were packed into ships with the same fanatic concern for profits that marked the slave ships."11 It was recorded that one ship in 1741 had 46 out of 106 white passengers die on its way to Boston--six of them were eaten. On another ship thirty-two children died from starvation, disease or being thrown into the ocean.12 A German, Gottlieb Mittelberher, described the horrific experience in 1750:
"During the journey the ship is full of pitiful sign of distress-smells, fumes, horrors, vomiting, various kings of sea sickness, fever, dysentery, headaches, heat, constipation, boils, scurvy, cancer, mouth-rot, and similar afflictions, all of them caused by the age and the high salted state of the food, especially of the meat, as well as by the very bad and filthy water…Add to all that shortage of food, hunger, thirst, frost, heat, dampness, fear, misery, vexation, and lamentation as well as other troubles…On board our ship, on a day on which we had a great storm, a woman about to give birth and unable to deliver under the circumstances, was pushed through one of the portholes into the sea…"13

When Europeans arrived in America they were auctioned off like black slaves. "Beatings and whippings were common," Zinn wrote. "Servant women were raped."14

Luckily for Europe the white servants were not part of the wanted society. They were the underclass, which the European nations desperately wanted to get rid of. That is why crimes like stealing a loaf of bread were enough to ship a starving child to Australia. In America the vast majority of people had no idea about the cruelties of the middle passage and indentured servitude. Soon, because of the growing white population in America, whites could no longer be used as servants because they could easily escape and mix into society. The solution was more black slaves. Americans soon forgot about using white slaves and justified the use of black slaves by the Bible. Excluding the slave traders who were aware of the great civilizations in Africa whites felt that they were lifting up a less civilized and savage Pagan people. They actually believed they were doing good. They used the erroneous, "Curse of Cannan," as justification; this justification was a distortion of the Old Testament.

Whites were able to contrast themselves with the savage blacks: we are the people who always strive to be civilized, they believed, whereas the blacks were brutish savages; that mindset gave whites an extreme psychological advantage over the African societies. The psychological cushioning allowed whites to separate themselves from the reality of the situation. The whites had justification on moral grounds, while the only justification for Africans were profit.

As the slave trade grew African civilizations fell. Slavery fused mercantilism and the monarchy: either monarchs or government officials selling slaves, or slave merchants acquiring too much power--sometimes more than the king. The former traditional monarchy that had developed out of hundreds of years of careful pragmatism was destroyed. The result was the rule of immoral merchants looking to enrich themselves at the expense of the people.15 It devastated Africa's economy. "One of the slave trade's most destructive effects," wrote Iliffe of Cambridge University, "was to retard African commodity production."16 During the Atlantic slave trade, "Western Africa traded with the Atlantic world for over 300 years without experiencing any significant economic development."17 Rarely did large African textile or metal industries find new international markets. It became slavery and more slavery.18 As Europe's industry grew they were able to produce commodities at cheaper prices than the Africans. Consequently, cheap European cloth and metal nearly destroyed West Africa's textile and metal-smelting industries.19 This could have, of course, been avoided if Africa's industry and technology wouldn't have been retarded by the slave trade, and if the former governments of Africa's pre-Atlantic-slavery days would have remained.

"By 1600," Davidson sadly wrote, "the great days of the western Sudan were over."20

Top

East Coast
The Swahili East Coast of Africa, just like the West Coast of India, was clearly destroyed by Portuguese intervention. When the rough and war conditioned Portuguese, with their guns and cannons, came upon the, "soft and civilized," merchant cities, they took advantage of the easy prey. Davidson wrote, "The first care of the Portuguese had been to sack and subdue the wealthier of the coastal cities, and thanks to their guns, this had proved relatively easy….for here was once again the old familiar tale of nomad strength and settled weakness."21

One European of the time gave a horrifying account of what the Portuguese did to the defenseless people; "Cruelties were not confined to the baser sort, but were deliberately adopted as a line of terrorizing policy by Vasco da Gama, Almeida, and Albuquerque, to take no mean examples. Da Gama, tortured helpless fishermen; Almeida tore out the eyes of Nair who had come in with a promise of his life, because he suspected a design on his life; Albuquerque cut off the noses of women and the hands of men."22

The ruler of Mombasa wrote a letter explaining that his city was left with, "no living thing in it, neither man nor woman, young nor old, nor child however little. All who had failed to escape had been killed and burned." Barbosa recorded that the city of Brava, "was destroyed by the Portuguese, who slew many of its peoples and carried them into captivity, and took great spoil of gold and silver and goods."23

In 1502 da Gama threatened to burn the prosperous and advanced trading city of Kilwa if its ruler did not acknowledge the king of Portugal as his overlord and pay him yearly tribute--Ravosio did the same to the cities of Zanzibar and Brava. The annual payment imposed upon the black trading city was too much; consequently Kilwa suffered greatly. In 1505, because Kilwa could not afford the Portuguese's illogical demands, Dom Francesco de Ameida, who would later become the viceroy of India, attacked, burned and destroyed the city. He did the same to Mombasa; Saldanha did the same to Cerbera; Soares destroyed Zeila; and D'Acunha destroyed Brava.24 In 1512 the Portuguese finally realized the tribute forced upon the Kilwa people had destroyed the economy, and thus abandoned the city.

Perhaps the most devastating result of Portuguese intervention was that it destroyed the rich Indian, Eastern African, and Central African trade. After conquering the coastal cities of India and Africa the Portuguese attempted to continue the African-Indian trade, but failed miserably, according to Davidson, "by their ignorance and greed." They then made an even greater blunder. "The mistake…had been to try and seize not only the maritime monopoly but also the overland monopoly. The African coastal cities had learned better than to try to dominate their inland neighbors…. Their (the Portuguese) captains and commercial agents would do the same in India with the same destructive consequences."25

Davidson gave the following of Africa and India's experience:
"They sacked and conquered the coastal cities and cut the trading links which had long bound the east coast--and its inland customers and suppliers--with the Persian Gulf and India and the Far East. They pushed into the interior and used their firearms on this side or on that of dynastic wars and rivalries, so as to weaken the whole and deliver the power of government into their ultimate control. Being too weak to hold this power, they left chaos in their wake."26

Examples of the Portuguese giving smaller chiefs aid to usurp kings so that the Portuguese could gain trading advantages are common. In 1667 Manuel Barreto wrote, "While I was there Antonio Ruiz was at the head of this unjust rebellion, and of other great disorders in that conquest."27

A 1607 document recorded by Antionio Bocarro, written by an African king to the King of Portugal, describes the sad and common fate of the kings and chiefs of Africa:
"I, the emperor Monomotapa think fit and am pleased to give to His Majesty (King of Portugal) all the mines of gold, copper, iron, lead, and pewter which may be in my empire, so long as the king of Portugal, to whom I give the said mines, shall maintain me in my position, that I may have power to order and dispose therein in the same manner as my predecessors…and shall give me forces which to go and take possession of my court and destroy a rebellious robber named Matuzuanha, who has pillaged some of the lands in which there is gold, and prevents merchants trading with their goods."28

In 1629 that same chief wrote that his kingdom had to, "within a year expel all the Moors from his kingdom (who were the Portuguese rivals in trade) and those who shall be found there afterwards shall be killed by the Portuguese."29

The new wars in the interior and the Portuguese's cupidity and bad trading policies, "damned the flow of gold," as well as all other forms of trade.

Barreto gave a couple examples why the gold trade halted:
"The Kaffirs would not dig for it through fear of the Portuguese. It is true that the chiefs do not wish gold to be dug in their lands, because upon the report of gold being found the Portuguese buy the land from the king as has frequently happened, and they, the chiefs, being great lords…are despoiled of their lands, and become poor capreros, which signifies laborers….the bad conduct of the Portuguese, from whose violence the Kaffirs flee from our lands to others."30

His second example tells of the gold mining region of Morando.
"For in Morando, if they should respond to our demand for it, there comes immediately some powerful man, or in his default some mocoque with his people and slaves, and commits such thefts and violence against the poor diggers that they think it better to hide the gold than to extract any more as a further incentive to our greed and their own misfortune."31

The new reality caused African merchants to smuggle goods in and out of the country. Many Africans, the Sofala for instance, began to illegally weave their own cloth because they could no longer buy it from India, unless they went through the Portuguese. Soon it all became too much. The wealth the Portuguese once dreamed of turned into poverty and chaos.

In 1719 the Portuguese king wrote this letter to his viceroy in India:
This once, "vast empire" of central Africa "is in such decay at the present day that no one has dominion over it, because everyone has power there; and although there is a ruling prince, a descendant of the ancient line of Monomotapa, this right and pre-eminence that he hath avail him little, because Changamire and an infinite number of other petty rulers nearly always put these kings to death as soon as they take up the sceptre."32

The Portuguese couldn't take anymore. Having ruined the royal order, stability, and economy of Coastal, Central, and Southern Africa, along with the west coast of India--subsequently destroying the long established and successful network of trade between these regions--the Portuguese, as many of their letters show, could not restore it, so left.

Davidson wrote, "Having destroyed this great system of exchange and found its restoration beyond their powers, they went off desperately in search of gold; and when gold eluded them they looked for silver; and when silver failed they went for anything they could get, and were finally content with slaves…. The domestic slavery of Africa slides easily and grimly into a wholesale traffic in human flesh for sale and export.

I'm done with this stupidity

As I said in my original post, by in large, the occupiers did not intentionally make divisions, with the Belgians in Rwanda being one of the exceptions.

But they still did cause the divisions and put many different peoples within the same boundaries causing civil war after the colonialists left, regardless of whether they did it intentionally. Parallels to this in Europe are the breaking up of the USSR and of Yugoslavia after the (comparably) authoritarian Communists came out of power. They didn't fight each other when the colonialists were around cos they hated the colonialists more.

About brutality and savagery; this could be quite easily contrused as the pot calling the kettle black; the Indians were also brutal. Look at the Black Hole of Calcutta, for example. 146 British prisoners were crowded into a room the size of an average bedroom, and kept overnight without any food, water or ventilation. Only 23 survived the night - that was just as brutal as acts that the British committed against the Indians.

Being locked in a room together overnight? That's not nearly as bad a considerable amount of the actions of the colonialists.

So you would much rather live without modern technology? I would have much rather had modern technology than the clear skies and lack of misery that you would seem to prefer. We need to progress; if we do not, then someone else will and take us over.

Someone else [coming] and taking us over may end up a consequence of less technology but would you actually rather have modern technology over having happiness? If you do, I find that is a very strange expectation and that is probly the reason for the disagreement. A lot of the rest of what you say is based on arguing that the Africans were not "developped" as if that justifies their being enslaved by a foreign power.

Another point: If you're forcing progress on people and taking them over because otherwise they will be taken over, you're just causing what you would supposedly be protecting them from.


Finally, choosing a dictator is a bad choice and the people should be held accountable; if I make a bad choice, I am always held accountable. Why should anyone that votes in a dictator be treated any differently? They made a bad decision and should be held accountable for it.

Still, they are dictators and the people voted them in. The difference between a kleptocracy run by a foreign power and a homegrown tyrant is in the first instance, with the foreign power, the people cannot help it. With an elected homegrown tyrant, they could have helped it if they had not foolishly voted the dictator into power.

Many of these dictators got landslide victories, as I said before. If the people had not all voted for one leader, then you would not have ended up with dictatorships; it is very hard to get a democratically elected person that becomes a dictator if you have an even split in Parliament.
Take a look at the German elections from 1930 to 1933. That even split in Parliament quickly became a dictatorship. Besides, the Africans still did not realise the leaders were going to be dictators til after they were elected. The leaders before they were elceted gave off the impression they would be just and wise leaders should they be elected. Obviously, they were tricksters. You can't blame the people for not having been able to know such things when you only these things in retrospect.

Just look at Mugabe: he didn't grow a moustache til he was in power.


Thank you, you have just said that the only reason why these colonies do well today is because of Europeans; thus it can be implied that you are a racist, since you have effectively said that countries can only do well when there is mass European settlement and there are no native people.
It's not a case of them doing well. It's a case of the Europeans who already had the technology from Europe bringing it over to the Americas or Oceania or elsewhere and because of this, they were effectively European making just as much progress as any either European country. It's not as if Native Americans had made sudden progress in a few hundred years to go from cheifdoms at the most to the world's only superpower. This was Europeans who had taken over their land that were just as powerful as they ever were. Maybe it just goes to show you can't force "progress". The Africans would probly have gotten to the same stage as the Europeans within a few hundred or thousand years. It was just a matter of time.

I'm done with this stupidity

But dear, you haven't even finished your dumb asses-who-think they are-bad asses-course.

People are starving in China, er Africa for the energy to argue, and all you can say is your "done."

Eat-up!

It probably seemed like the world was ending to them, and yes Benin was for the most part well governed

lol; you claim that a kingdom that sacrificed humans in an attempt to stop Benin's downfall was well governed? I would consider it rule by idiots; you do not sacrifice humans to stop downfall, you attempt to develop technology and use tactics to beat your enemy. Of course when you are still determined to fight with sticks and stones, it is quite difficult to beat a well armed enemy.

Actually the Portugese were ravaging cities in East Africa by the 16th century, I've been reading through it in a book but I'll just bost this again

Prior to the 1870s, however, the colonies in Africa were minor coastal settlements, with only what became South Africa heavily colonised.

I took a look at your post, and I ask one question.

If the nations of Africa were as advanced as you and others have claimed, then why did they not invent guns? Why did they not invent new forms of warfare?

QUOTE=Umdogsland;13285133]But they still did cause the divisions and put many different peoples within the same boundaries causing civil war after the colonialists left, regardless of whether they did it intentionally. Parallels to this in Europe are the breaking up of the USSR and of Yugoslavia after the (comparably) authoritarian Communists came out of power. They didn't fight each other when the colonialists were around cos they hated the colonialists more.[/quote]

Let me ask you the following questions.

Why didn't Germany have a Civil War during the 1871-1914 period? After all, there was a minority French population in Alsace/Lorraine

Why didn't Czechoslovakia have a Civil War during the 1918-1938 period? After all, there was a minority German population in the Sudentenland

Why has South Africa never had a Civil War? They have nine different ethnic groups in one nation, with the Zulu and Xhosa being the most dominant

I could go on, but you see the point. Europe has always had minority ethnic groups within nations, and yet, there have been few Civil Wars. Africa has had many Civil Wars. What makes Africa different from Europe?

Also, the USSR and Yugoslavia do not really count. The break up was based along borders that had existed for decades. The only reason why you had war in Yugoslavia is because of an idiot dictator.

Being locked in a room together overnight? That's not nearly as bad a considerable amount of the actions of the colonialists.

Being locked in a room and left to die. These people were crammed tighter than people on a subway train, and had no ventilation, no water and no food. When they were released the next morning, all the ruler did was send them on their way, with no consideration of the foul act that he committed. How about the slaughter of surrendered troops by the Indians during the Mutiny. The colonised were not the meek people that have been portrayed, they were as brutal as the colonists.

Someone else [coming] and taking us over may end up a consequence of less technology but would you actually rather have modern technology over having happiness? If you do, I find that is a very strange expectation and that is probly the reason for the disagreement. A lot of the rest of what you say is based on arguing that the Africans were not "developped" as if that justifies their being enslaved by a foreign power.

Of course I would much rather have modern technology than happiness. What good is being happy when you die at age 25 since there is no good health care?

Take a look at the German elections from 1930 to 1933. That even split in Parliament quickly became a dictatorship. Besides, the Africans still did not realise the leaders were going to be dictators til after they were elected. The leaders before they were elceted gave off the impression they would be just and wise leaders should they be elected. Obviously, they were tricksters. You can't blame the people for not having been able to know such things when you only these things in retrospect.

Just look at Mugabe: he didn't grow a moustache til he was in power.


That even split in the German Parliament, as you put it, no longer existed when the Nazi dictatorship was established; the Communists were instructed by Stalin not to co-operate with the Social Democrats; the Centre Party was instructed by the Pope to co-operate with Hitler, and in the end, it was completely out of balance.

Also, let me ask you the following question. Why have the Africans elected so many dictators, with only one - one being elected in Western nations? The same conditions, the same possibilities apply in both nations, but one event has occurred more often in one area than another. Why?

Finally, about Mugabe; I understand the joke, but Ian Smith knew something bad was going to happen with Mugabe - and this was in 1980.

It's not a case of them doing well. It's a case of the Europeans who already had the technology from Europe bringing it over to the Americas or Oceania or elsewhere and because of this, they were effectively European making just as much progress as any either European country. It's not as if Native Americans had made sudden progress in a few hundred years to go from cheifdoms at the most to the world's only superpower. This was Europeans who had taken over their land that were just as powerful as they ever were. Maybe it just goes to show you can't force "progress". The Africans would probly have gotten to the same stage as the Europeans within a few hundred or thousand years. It was just a matter of time.

Who says the Africans would have gotten to the same stage? They didn't even have guns prior to colonisation, and guns had existed for hundreds of years. The African continent was at best, stuck in the 14th Century.

The question I do have is why didn't the people of Africa, the Americas, or Oceania ever progress beyond the 14th Century, Iron Age and Stone Age respectively?

On a related note, I recommend Africa in Chaos by George Ayittey to anyone who's interested. The author is a Ghanaian-American and explains very frankly and honestly what the causes of the continent's problems are, and why these problems remain (poor leadership, mostly).

Let me ask you the following questions.

Why didn't Germany have a Civil War during the 1871-1914 period? After all, there was a minority French population in Alsace/Lorraine

Why didn't Czechoslovakia have a Civil War during the 1918-1938 period? After all, there was a minority German population in the Sudentenland

Why has South Africa never had a Civil War? They have nine different ethnic groups in one nation, with the Zulu and Xhosa being the most dominant

I could go on, but you see the point. Europe has always had minority ethnic groups within nations, and yet, there have been few Civil Wars. Africa has had many Civil Wars. What makes Africa different from Europe?

The first two are obviously because they are minorities not more-or-less-equals, which is what civil wars are like. That would not have been a civil war if it would have happened; it would perhaps been a separatist movement but the very small French minority wouldn't have stood a chance against the Germans.Alsace-Lorraine has long been both French- and German-speaking anyway. Using the example of South Africa seems to contradict the idea rather than back it up. The civil wars in Africa would be more comparable to Austria-Hungary which was an amalgam of 5+ roughly equally numbered groups, the conflicts between which sparked World war 1.

Europe has had civil wars just as Africa has more recently; it's just that most of Europe's civil wars are buried deep in the past.


Also, the USSR and Yugoslavia do not really count. The break up was based along borders that had existed for decades.

How so? The civil wars in Africa were based on lines that had probly been around for much longer even if they hadn't been the basis of sub-state divisions. Besides, Kosovo and Chechnya do not fit with that idea.


The only reason why you had war in Yugoslavia is because of an idiot dictator.Which idiot dictator? The guy I'm thinking of that was a dictator in Yugoslavia was Tito after whose reign Yugoslavia became divided.


Being locked in a room and left to die. These people were crammed tighter than people on a subway train, and had no ventilation, no water and no food. When they were released the next morning, all the ruler did was send them on their way, with no consideration of the foul act that he committed. How about the slaughter of surrendered troops by the Indians during the Mutiny. The colonised were not the meek people that have been portrayed, they were as brutal as the colonists.
Sure. Everyone is capable of horrible things. That does not make the major culprit's any less wrong. They were obviously not properly left to die or they wouldn't have been let out the next day. It's more or less a 1 day jail sentence in 1 of the most crowded jails. You don't expect people to be to kind to people who have invaded their land, do you?


Of course I would much rather have modern technology than happiness. What good is being happy when you die at age 25 since there is no good health care?
Firstly, the only time where there was a life expectancy of 25 was early farmers and ancient Greece and Rome.
To properly answer it, because happiness is valuable in itself whereas living long is not. Would you rather have a life where you were bored and depressed a lot but live to 67 or 1 where you're happy and free and live to 33?


That even split in the German Parliament, as you put it, no longer existed when the Nazi dictatorship was established; the Communists were instructed by Stalin not to co-operate with the Social Democrats; the Centre Party was instructed by the Pope to co-operate with Hitler, and in the end, it was completely out of balance.

The split was changed to a landslide before Hitler actually to being Fuhrer. And he got to be Chancellor based on the election where they had almost twice the number of seats of the SPD, the runner up.

Also, let me ask you the following question. Why have the Africans elected so many dictators, with only one - one being elected in Western nations? The same conditions, the same possibilities apply in both nations, but one event has occurred more often in one area than another. Why?
Europe has only elected 1 dictator? You're forgetting Mussolini at the very least. And Miguel Primo de Rivera. A possible reason for this though is basically they're naively optomistic, with any1 who was alive prior to colonialism remembering African rulers being better than the European 1s and expecting the same now.


Finally, about Mugabe; I understand the joke, but Ian Smith knew something bad was going to happen with Mugabe - and this was in 1980.

But did the Zimbabweans? Perhaps they complacently thought Europeans were the only 1s who could be dicks, based on a wee bit of evidence that Europeans could but no evidence the Africans could?

Who says the Africans would have gotten to the same stage? They didn't even have guns prior to colonisation, and guns had existed for hundreds of years. The African continent was at best, stuck in the 14th Century.

The question I do have is why didn't the people of Africa, the Americas, or Oceania ever progress beyond the 14th Century, Iron Age and Stone Age respectively?
Try reading Guns, Germs and Steel. It explained it well for me.

It slightly amuses me that the problems with slavery, weapons production and so on and so forth are considered problems which were caused by the white guys and them only.

You realise that a) the slave trade required the use of native black tribes, and indeed that b) around a million Europeans were taken as slaves by Barbary pirates, right?

We sure did play our part, but making it into a problem which was entirely caused by white Europeans, with the victims being entirely African is a huge oversimplification.

It slightly amuses me that the problems with slavery, weapons production and so on and so forth are considered problems which were caused by the white guys and them only.

You realise that a) the slave trade required the use of native black tribes, and indeed that b) around a million Europeans were taken as slaves by Barbary pirates, right?

We sure did play our part, but making it into a problem which was entirely caused by white Europeans, with the victims being entirely African is a huge oversimplification.
This is about colonialism not slavery which is a bit different. And the barbary pirates were not really African but Arab.