We've all seen the impact that British colonialism has had on the rest of the world, especially on this country. What I'm trying to determine is if this colonization is detrimental to an area and should be avoided or should people be granted the right of self-determination? After pulling out of India the nation erupted in violence over the issue of the creation of Pakistan. After the British pulled out of America we flurished. Not just British imperialism but all over, even with America, wouldn't it be better for a strong nation to control and protect (and sometimes exploit) that nation for their own good? Also, what should be the criteria for a group of people's to make their own nation? Is it enough for them to unite and say as one that they wish for their own country, should we allow this or is it more righteous for one strong nation to run aspects of the other...
Perhaps it might be better to ask is colonisation right? Perhaps Abdiel would like to exaplin how he has been protected and exploited for his own good? In the meantime, consider the mindset that thinks that taking over another country is a good hting, that taking away any self determination deliberately from them is good. By all means help rebuild it after something, which may involve a certain suspension of normal democratic appurtenances, but you cannot sit in a country and treat it as a colony and say this is a good thing. Effectively what you seem to be saying is might makes right, which we all know is rubbish. At least intelelctually it is.
The fact that violence has erupted in areas that have been colonized is evidence of the damage colonization has done through, for example, creating arbitrary boundries splitting traditionally united areas.
Or should it not be a matter of realzing that culture itself is so ingrained that when disturbed you have chaos? If you consider for a second what's happening to the San people (bushmen) of the Kalahari. Before Africa became the industrial mess it is now, these nomadic people lived much the way our ancestors did in the Iron Age. By default these people have no boundries and don't consider it inherent that man should own property. But once the white african farmer invaded their land they (the white man) tried reaching out to teach these ferral men their ways of civility but , thankfully, our bushmen had none of it. With time they were able to drive the white man away in some quarters and ended up moving into their fancy mansions and huge farmhouses the farmers left in their wake. What happened? To this day, these people are confused, have lost chunks of their heritage, and in a sense become pariahs. Chaos. The same is happening in Chiapas, Mexico. And for what? the idealism of civility? So in answer to your question, no. I feel its adamant that no nation, no matter how high on its sick horse it feels, has a right to encroach on another.
Wrong for the colonised, very profitable for the colonisers. just ask some of the english landed gentry whose ancestors plundered much of the world's wealth.
Its good to see so many people against colonialism. I'm assuming ben nevis is a scot who has nasty memories of the british empire and possibly low opinion of english incomers.
America & Canada floursihed beause the European colonists virtually eliminated the native populations (war and diseases) and then claimed the land as their own. Not so for Africa, Asia and the middle East. This thread is inane as the basis is illogical and undeveloped. The partitioning of Africa by the Europeans took no note of the native populations. Britain especially, simply abandoned the rest of Africa to the French with the exception of a few nations when its grip on empire started to wane. Maybe you should find out how many languages/cultures exists in Africa and then within the individual nations, the history between pakistan and India, etc. Simply, find out what the hell you are talking about before you start a thread. The exploitation of a foreign land by a foreign people is always bad for the native population.
Devil's Advocate I actually think colonization is a great thing. The problem being, that too many people worry about equality and fairness. See in the begining, of course the colony is going to get the sort end of the stick. However, in the long run, if they manage to keep control for an extended period of time, while the original culture may be lost, the gains are a better infrastructure, schooling, quality of living,etc,etc,etc... In this, I am assuming that the colonizing nation is not overly unjust and subjugating. See, it only makes sense for the controling power to bring education and industry up to the highest point possible, that way they have the most educated work force and best technology to work with. This makes the colony profitable. Profit is the basic bottom line. Now then, If the colony doesn't 'throw off the unjust bonds of subjugation' too soon or too violently, they will come out a much better country for this. Chances are that if done through peacefull means, even the government will not need to be totally reworked. Culture? If they want, they can, after they have their freedom, go to the trouble of living in the past and dig around for their lost culture. Or, they can take what they have gained, and look instead towards a new future and a new identity. After all, the U.S.A. as a country has no original culture. They forged ahead and created their own out of a mix of original cultures. Europeans say "that is such an American view point." Apparently America has invented a culture that is so unique from the ones it started with, that it can be called its own.
In reality... It went wrong as soon as the homo-sapien species got out of africa. And its totally natural that it did. We all know that if you put any species in a new environment they start to mess it up, and we mess things up like nothing else in history. You might think we just would have messed up africa anyway but I don't think so. Africa is a violent action packed environment and I don't think we would have had the time to progress "above" hunting and gathering. Life would have been a struggle 24/7 and that kind of lifestyle just doesn't allow for daydreaming and philosophy. It was only after farming or more precisely herding hooved animals that thoughts of bigger and better things could have developed. And it probably would have started with one man who realised that keeping animals would be alot easier than chasing them. His family clan would have started doing it and kept doing it over generations. Other families would have seen this and using their human powers of reason would have figured it out for themselves. This allowed for migration, and eventually clans would have started doing that. Predators become less frequent the further you go north and people started to have this strange new ability to relax and think. We have come up with some crazy ideas because of this over the years(religion etc) but most importantly we started planting the seeds for civilisation. We spread around europe and asia and probably during the ice-age we walked over to the americas. Colonisations since then have really been recolonisations and the original colonies have no more right to be there than the knew colonies. Neither of them should be. Maybe africans have a right to complain about the british invaders but then again, the british were just going home.
Colonization impoverishes human culture. I thing in the long run it's wrong for both. Based upon my modest knowledge of history and anthropology, my observation of more than half a century of contemporary events, and my personal study and practice of various dimensions of culture including language, music, and a few new art and entertainment media created by electronics, I have reached the conclusion that diversity is one of the most important keys to the long-term success, flourishment, even survival, of an art form, a people, or an entire civilization. Many scholars with better credentials than mine agree, but I have no idea whether there is a Great Consensus on this issue recorded somewhere. But just look at a sample of the things that happen to our world when one people conquers another. One of the first casualties is language. Language does not follow the flag; Gaelic still more or less thrives in an only recently freed Ireland. But it does follow the coin. The Jews, who were thrust into the role of bankers to the Christians and Muslims by a stupid mistranslation of the Hebrew word in the scriptures for “earning interest” as “usury,” quickly adopted the language of every community they migrated to. If it weren’t for modern Israel’s revival of liturgical Hebrew, it would be a dead language. We see what seems like a cornucopia of indigenous languages in Africa, India, Indochina, and the Americas, but in actuality ten times as many were lost during their colonial eras without being recorded, as the colonized people were forced to assimilate in order to do business. Each language provides a subtly different way of organizing our thoughts and perceiving the world. Each vanished language diminishes our species’ potential for thinking new thoughts, puts limits on our creativity, and undoubtedly reduces our ability to devise the innovative solutions we’ll need for the next catastrophic problem nature has in store. How about arts and crafts? We admire the American Indians’ “traditional” silver jewelry and colorful blankets. But they had not discovered metallurgy. They were still in the Neolithic Era when the Europeans arrived and taught them to work metal. Nor did they have fine fibers and splendid dyes. They laboriously disassembled European cloth and used the exotic threads to revolutionize their “traditional” weaving industry. Who knows what unique art the Indians might be creating, five hundred years later, if we hadn’t interrupted the evolution of their own culture. Music? They have MTV in China, electric guitars in Africa – and the ukulele that defines “Hawaiian” music was introduced by the Portuguese. Entire genres of music are dying right before our video-saturated eyes. From the crops, spices, and tools used in the kitchen, to the child-rearing techniques passed down by the elders, to the traditional approach to law enactment and enforcement, entire motifs, histories, and schools of thought are supplanted and lost every time a people is conquered. Yes, some colonial powers did a better job than others. The British left at least a representative cross-section of India’s and Africa’s languages intact; the Romans left half of Europe speaking pidgin Latin. The Spanish conquistadores left their women at home and intermarried with the Amerind peoples they encountered; we Americans committed genocide. China sent monks to Korea; Japan sent armies. But to a greater or lesser extent, every instance of colonization snuffed out traditions, philosophies, crafts, literature, and thought processes that could now be enriching all of our lives. It has been said that the Roman Empire fell in on itself because it ran out of motifs. (Yes I know it’s motives but that’s a stupid spelling.) Their people had exhausted their source of spiritual energy, and that’s why they put up such a lackluster, disorganized defense against the Visigoths and other invaders. It’s hard to say which is cause and effect, but Roman culture definitely sank into mediocrity long before the empire did. Greek culture had already run out of steam and its people, devoid of the spark that makes life feel alive, were ripe for a takeover back when the Romans were just getting started. Chinese culture began to stagnate under the Manchus and really went downhill under the faux republic founded by Sun Yisen (Sun Yat-Sen in Cantonese) and his masquerading aristocrats. In their souls, millions of Chinese unconsciously felt that they had nothing to lose to the “colonization” by the communists. And American culture...? We’re making movies out of old TV shows which were themselves based on comic books. We’re so jaded by the sameness of the new TV shows that we’d just as soon watch family members beat each other up, a random collection of one-percenters stranded together on a really sucky camping trip, or live footage of cops chasing petty criminals. Most of the people in Los Angeles, once America’s center of popular culture, listen to Spanish-language radio stations. What will we do when the whole human race runs out of motifs? Mourn all the great ideas that were bulldozed by colonizers? Sink back into another thousand years of Dark Ages? Or wait to be colonized by aliens, hoping that at least it will be the Klingons and not the Magog! I begin to see the wisdom behind the Prime Directive.
Culture is overrated Fraggle: Great post, very literate, very well thought out, and of course, complete rubbish Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (I kid because of the great effort) I for one believe that culture is overrated, and why shouldn't cultures that can't keep up not die out? Taking your thread of borrowed cultures forward, the Scottish Highland fling is a French dance, and the modern kilt is a very French garment. Was the older kilt harmed or mad less relevant? Yes, but only because wearing 9 feet of cloth when your house has heated was not as nice as the little french number. Especially when a fine lass is making it swing via the Fling Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I digress. Culture makes differences between populations that only get bigger and grow into conflicts. Teaching old culture (and old langauges) just to make yourself different is the easy way to say I don't want to be like you anymore. So what that all of Scotland will someday probably know Gaelic. They will still conduct business in English (or Japanese or Chinese probably by then) so what is the advantage of speaking Gaelic. Pride? Pride leads to prejudice. Sense of Worth? Like your more "Scottish" if you speak Gaelic? I was born in Scotland but I don't speak Gaelic does that make me not a Scot? Does somebody from Korea or Fiji or Mars for that matter, does it make them a Scot because the learned Gaelic at a University? Reviving the past? The past died once because it couldn't survive, forcing it to survive is not a good way to spend resources. Darwin and survival of the fittest applies here to me. "Fit" cultures survive, weaker ones fad away. The Safir-Worf hypothesis that we think in our primary language is not a good point to use here. The older, dying langauges may be good for beatnik poetry, but if the world around you isn't expressed in the langauge, it isn't going to be useful. What is the Gaelic word for computer? I don't know, but either it is 'computer', some made up word, or some massive hybrid like whatever "data input device" is in gaelic. Is that better than computer? Is it more accurate? is it enriching? If the culture really has something to add, it will survive and be added into the culture that won out. The words wee, Loch, Glen, Ben all are part of the English language. Making strong cultures stonger is what it should be about. I would argue that Roman culture died out because it quit growing because it was trying to remain pure. The real shame of colonialism is that if they were a little more Borg and incorporated the best of each culture (like the orginal US Melting pot) the culture would be very wide and very rich. Look at US culture now, the melting has stopped, and the culture has stagnated. People are turning to cloning old cultures to invigorate dying culture, when cross breeding existing cultures is what's needed. English is a rich language because it borrowed/bred with all sorts of languages and that makes it rich! Ballet, Kindergarten, chutzpah, the latin influences, the influx of spanish words (Remember kids, Tonto is spanish for idiot) makes it more rich. The point about Los Angeles is really funny because the name Los Angeles IS SPANISH! So what once spanish has returned to its original culture, but you call it bad. Make your mind up!
I dont know about the highland fling, but the modern, ie little kilt isnt french, it was invented out of hte great kilts by some mill owner, possibly english, who thought the big ones got in the way when his workers were working. (this is during the highland clearances.) "Darwin and survival of the fittest applies here to me. "Fit" cultures survive, weaker ones fade away. " Except that Darwin can only erally be called ito play in species. Cutlures are different from species. Besides, weaker in what context? The colonisted cultures were often perfectly fit in the context say of the Andes, but couldnt cope with these foreign madmen with guns and disease. End result? lots of people die off, and culture destroyed. Culture is not overrated as a survival mechanism for societies. It is an essential regulator of interpersonal communication and activities. But for all that there are so many cultures, you should think of them more as the requisite variety necessary to ensure curvival of the species. eventually cultures will mix and change, but dont use darwinism among cultures as an excuse for colonialism. It has to happen more slowly and naturallly, otherwise they all go into culture shock and nobody copes. (hey sont we have a variety of that nowadays?)
Says Mephura: Now, with the incentive to expand being that of economic exploitation and tiranny, how much effort really do you suppose goes into 'education' and 'infrastructure'? The motives behind manifest destinies is tax money and the prestige of profit. Sure we can talk about 'throwing off unjust bound of subjigation' but are we really saying much when all it really is is a thin coat of 'political' and 'social' reform that diplomacy is so keen to blind the poor with? Remember what happened to the Aztecs? So then it'd have to be just as easy for you to have been stolen from home in your teens, injected into some dirt poor aboriginal family and told to get over it?
First off, I may be older thatn you, but remember the Aztecs? I'm not that old. Secondly, reguardless of why the controlling powers are draping their 'thin coat of political and social reform' about, it still gets done. There is still money and effort be injected into a system in order to make it profitable. Its all about the money. Countries are little more than giant companies. Hell just look at the 'merger' happening in europe. In order for the companies to make money of their investment, the colony, they need to train the workers, make efficient use of materials, and keep company loyalty. In other words, if they are smart, they will keep the people either blind or mindlessly happy (see real life) in order to prevent rebelions and at later dates, keep great minds in the country. Also they will have to industrialize to use the resources of the colony to any profitable extent. Industry means as least a base level of education. More like the aborigine moves in with me and gets free schooling and a job. And actually in my teens, I would have loved that! During the height of my rebelious years I get to rebel against everything I didn't like and go back to a more natural and 'real' existance? Hell yes. Am I saying that they are going to like it? No. But it is better to do it that way and give them an oppertunity to move into the big world instead of just killing them to get what we want. besides, its more efficient.
But presumably old enough to pick an old history book and read about it....... Why.....yes it does. On paper. And if you'd venture to see who's writing you'll find he's being payed to do so with tax money. The lucrative payback of capitalizing resource is fine and dandy, friend, but the point we're contending with here is the disenfranchizing (sp?) of whole peoples. What industry does is make the poor man a mill horse, an automaton to do little more than factory work and hard labor. Not everyone's trainable, in fact in any populace you'll find only a handful able to adapt to the new tune. This means that in this little utopia of yours there are only about 12 people that actually 'reap' profits. Industry does not translate to 'at least a base level of education'- it's language is money, greed, and of the worst kind if its to practiced by, as you put it, "great minds" No. The point was to make you see how it'd feel to be in someone else's filthy sandals. An aboriginee most likely won't think his sandals, home, food, or customs filthy but you might.
some people have no sense of humor. tax money gotten from the paychecks of people that (90% of which) have a base level education. A fine example of this being native americans. Your absolutly right. Only about 12 of them had the intelligence to learn the white man's ways. That's why they are all dead and not raking it in with, say i dunno, casinos I told you how I would like it. Personally, don't like modern society. I can, however, see how it works and that there is no sense in fighting the iinevitable.
Blasphemy! I put up with you don't I? Now, in underdeveloped countries where that 90% is sweating its back off in coal mines, cane fields, and crude oil refineries with 'gratuities' shaved off its so called salary, do they qualify as educated when more than 3 quarters of them can't read? You're talking about the Western genteel stealing back money through civilized means income taxes but I'm talking about the carnage in these backward countries where corporations are downright stealing the bread off the table. Don't muddle up the two, friend. That's selfish. Absolutely. Admitting I'm right is absolutely right. (uhh.....kidding, of course)
True, dear, true. Its the underdeveloped countries I'm talking about colonizing. Surely you aren't saying the underdeveloped countries would be colonizing the major post industrialized societies of the world, are you?
