Discussion in 'World Events' started by Abdiel, Jun 10, 2003.
Then why in hades would you say this:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Because after they become colonized, educated, industrialized and put to work, they will have jobs that the colonizer can tax the income from.
You don't think that taxing the income of natives is going to get very far do you?
Taxman: How much game did you kill the week shi'tuta?
Shi'tuta: click, tack tack, clik tut tack (which translates to two lions)
Taxman: Very well then. I will be needing about half a lion skin then.
Look, man. I was talking small scale here, more like sharecroppers downsizing in the U.S. and taking their business to mexico or major companies doing the same and setting up sweatship in thailand or calcutta-
globalization is techincal colonization, no?
The displacement of people, the quelling of culture by greed, the fleecing of continents vis a vis econimical diplomacy.
You've got me sounding like a pundit here............NOW STOP IT.
(i get what you're saying though)
since you have admitted defeat and hence been 'tamed', I will stop..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
(but only because you asked so nicelyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here is a snip from a website on the history of the kilt. Those that believe the Englishman made the kilt thing are believing a legend:
Just a few quick notes on how this large wrap became the kilt of today. I will only touch on this briefly since this takes us well out of the SCA period. One story commonly repeated is that an Englishman named Thomas Rawlinson opened an iron-smelting factory in the Highlands around the year 1730. His workers all dressed in the belted plaids, which proved too hot and cumbersome for close work in his factory. He solved the problem by cutting the garment in half. The lower part could now be worn separately and the upper part discarded when coming indoors. This is considered proof that an Englishman invented the Scottish national dress.
The problem with this story is that we know of numerous illustrations of Highlanders wearing the only the bottom part of the belted plaid that date long before Rawlinson ever set foot in Scotland. Remember that the belted plaid consisted of two widths of material stitched together. If one neglects to stitch the two together, and only the bottom 4 yards are worn, pleated and belted around the waist, the resulting garment is called the feilidh-beag (little wrap). The word is often spelled in English “phillabeg.” I will not go into detailed evidence of the wearing of the phillabeg here, but I will say that there is some suggestion of its use in the late 17th century, and it was definitely being worn in the early 18th century. It most likely came about as a natural evolution of the belted plaid and Rawlinson probably observed its and quickly deduced its usefulness in his situation and introduced it among his workers.
I may not be living in Scotland, but I do try to know my heritage Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've heard many a valient debate on the topic which was presented. Now should we consider another point of view. Certainly, you all view the break of India from Britain as a people earning their own country. However, wouldn't other instances be classified as a people uniting and wishing for their own way of life. That is in certain civil wars througout these years.
I mean to say that if you view colonization or globalization as detrimental to culture and for the native peoples, that each group of peoples should be able to unite themselves under their own flag then what about the Amercian civil war. Certainly the Southerners united and wished to live out their lives by their own standards. Now I'm not saying that I view Southern independence as a great thing worth attaining but what exacetly classifies one country. That is to say wouldn't India be British ground and their break a dissolving from it? Perhaps it is not viewed in this light because these colonies were always viewed as second to the Motherland.
I find it hard to articulate what I'm trying to say, perhaps you may help?
Colonization is part of the globalization process.
Nothing is right or wrong, but some things have adverse effects.
Both Colonization and Globalization lead to assimilation.
"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?"
Some would say its called immigration. Although the right wing newspapers here overstate it, the numbers are still quite high.
"Because after they become colonized, educated, industrialized and put to work, they will have jobs that the colonizer can tax the income from. "
Trash. What happens is that the colonisers move in and appropriate the resources and the ownership of the companies, and cream off the profits. There is no need whatsoever to industrialise them, you make far more money keeping them as procductive colonies. Why do you think development of underdeveloped countries has moved so slowly? Because its not in anyones interest to develop them and merely tax the income.
ahh, kilts, yes thats interesting. thanks Dougermouse.
just look at the devastating effects that Europeans inflicted upon the Africa continent and answer whether colonization is wrong or right?
Then I guess some should learn what colonization is actually about. The idea is for the colonizing country to expand its wealth and holdings by controling new territory, not giving other countries more citizens. If they are immigrants, they become citizens and then held to the laws and policies of the new country. If they are colonists, they are still ruled by the laws of the old country. In one case you are talking about a country expanding. In the other you are talkng about people moving.
Let me ask you this; If I move from one city to another, Am I colonizing the second city in name of the first?
The problem here is you are speaking of how it is done, and i am speaking of how it should be done. When is the last time a new colony was established. I am fairly sure the U.N. and I.C.C. and every other 'world wide peace keeping agency' would have a field day with, say, the U.S. claming a large chuck of the middle east for its own. That would be a colony. There would be no talk of setting up their own goverment the way they want. It would be set up how we want. No if, and, or buts. So your whole argument about how this isn't what happens is trash. you're right it isn't. why? Because nobody colonizes any more. It's not nice...
what happens today is more along the lines of a hostile corporate take over.
If there was colonization, it would be in the controlling powers best interest to raise industrial and educational standards of the territory up to the national level because they are a direct part of the national level now. They become citizens of the ruling country, and protected and ruled by the same laws as the rest of the nation.
OK, fair point about people moving, but as for the otehr thing, I am talking about how its done to maximise money output. its been done taht way before, because it gives lots of short term money and long term debt to people in charge.
Presumably, your how it whoudl be done is an ideal of how to do it, exploit people "for their own good" and still make money out of it?
Oddly enoug, your only half right.
"what happens today is more along the lines of a hostile corporate take over. "
that has been happening for 200 years and more. Go read some South american history, I did recently, and its been interesting. Tis very hard to disentangle the capitalist influences and the gvt/ country expanding influences.
What you describe as colonisaito there is invasion and occupation of a country, absorbing it into your own. Then it makes sense to raise tehir levels, but merely colonising, when the whole point of colonisaiotn is that the colonies are subservient to the motehr country, its better to keep them taht way. Or it used to. Now its better to let them pretend to grow up and keep the IMF etc on their tail, but either way, its anotehr form of colonialism and remember, capitalism doesnt look at the long term very well. All your doing it saying that it shoudl be done this way, and I can say oh i should be able to fly, but I cant, and it doesnt get done that way either with colonisaiton.
Whats interesting is that whats happened now, with globalisaiton, is a form of your raising up living standards and educaiton, but its all being done at the expense of the colonies, by loans etc, so they end up paying for it all depsite the colonisers making lots of money out of it. But thats more economic colonialism, not physical colonialism. remember south africa, the boers etc moved in and killed off the locals. Who cares about locals whgen you want Lebensraum? Much better to import your own people with the right atttitude already trained in them, get the colony related to the mother country.
WEll met. I will accept your point and concede. Firstly, you appear to know more about this then I do. Secondly, I think of colonization in the old sence of claming that territory. Having them in debt to you works just as well, if not better (as you have pointed out.) Lastly, I am only arguing this side, because nobody else seems to either
a. have the balls to or
b. be doing it effectively
(although I think I am actually starting to believe what I'm saying, so it must be good. hehPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Anyway, in your definition of colonization, The controling power takes that control by loans and such, correct? While it is true this leaves a debt the 'colony' must eventually repay, that is the colony's concern. I guess the point I am trying to make here is that the colony is being given money/resources that it could use to raise the education/industry levels on its own. However in doing this, they should be mindful of their debt. In ways, this is even better than the old way. there is no messy conflict for 'freedom', none of the displaced culture the gendanken was ranting about, etc..
I look at it like a school loan. That is alot of money that the bank is giving you for the express purpose of you going to school and bettering yourself. The bank is making a profit and you are getting an education. If you ask wisely, you cancome out of the situation witha controlled debt; one that there is hope of escaping from. If you are stupid about it, you will be paying that debt off, and in a way be controlled by the bank, for a very long time.
Far too many of you are falling into the old trap of applying 21st century ethics to 18th and 19th century actions.
Empire building was the done thing in those days, so it is wrong for you to criticize Britain, France and the other colonial powers for what they did. Maybe after the passage of time it will all stop, after all none of you say a word about the Romans who utterly crushed all who stood in their way.
Actually, the Romans do a great job of illustraiting my earlier points. They came in too over, and bettered the civilizations they 'touched'. Sure, perhaps inthe mean time alot of people weren't happy, but who cares. You can't worry about the little people too much when running the world. You can't make everyone happy you know? The romans brought aquaducts, roads, law, and many other aspects of 'modern life' to alot of places by steping in a kicking ass. Honestly, I think we need more of that today, not less.
To put it simply, running a country, an empire, whatever is hard work. Governments should strive to be fair, but harsh. Make laws that are simple and few. The more freedom you give, the less they want, because they can be content with what they have. Screw ethics and screw the 'human issue'. Governing isn't about being nice. Its abot getting things done and keeping the populace content, or at least sedated.
The Civil War: an interesting issue for this thread
If the South had been allowed to secede peacefully, which, arguably, was their Constitutional right (the argument hinges on whether it was the "people" who were seceding or the state governments usurping the authority of their citizens), they would have had the opportunity to try to preserve their way of life as it became increasingly uncompetitive in the world market. Economics as a discipline had sprung up, and the truth that slave labor is not an economical way to produce crops was rapidly becoming clear.
Every other country in the New World except Haiti abolished slavery peacefully -- some by attrition, others simply by the government purchasing the slaves at depressed prices and freeing them individually. And look at them now. Their people are all different shades of brown. Except for friction with the aboriginal inhabitants in several countries, a problem which may have less to do with race than with historical baggage, the unimportance of race was inherited by subsequent immigrants. Peru recently had a president named Fujimori. Shakira's father is Lebanese and she speaks Arabic as fluently as Spanish.
Contrast that with the U.S. For nearly a century Whites could kill Blacks in the South with little fear of prosecution, and residential neighborhoods were segregated in almost every state. After fifty years of government-enforced integration and a whole generation of naive, idealistic Flower Children growing up sincerely believing in equality, racism thrives in America and affects nearly every ethnic minority.
A lot of reasons have been suggested for this unexpected and intractable outcome. If you're interested in reading candid discussions of this politically hypersensitive issue, check into the libertarian magazines like Reason, Liberty, and The Pragmatist. They all cast the Civil War in a new light.
There is a raging argument over whether Lincoln was a tyrant (the issue of whether it was the states or the people doing the seceding) and/or a butcher (the Civil War still holds the record for most Americans killed in a single event, by an entire order of magnitude). But there is also a hypthesis that by playing the slavery card halfway through the war, when the North was losing dismally, and changing the focus of the war away from economics, its real cause, Lincoln set black Americans up to be convenient scapegoats when the war finally ended and White America took stock of the unbelievable damage it had done.
If the Confederacy had managed to survive and not be reclaimed by an England that wanted their cotton and had already outlawed slavery throughout the Empire, it would surely have seen the handwriting on the wall and freed its slaves within a decade or two after the Civil War. Brazil's slaveowners are universally regarded as sadist wackos, and even they gave up around 1895. Of course those extra decades would have been miserable for the slaves. But if given the choice, I wonder how many of them would have made the sacrifice so that their great-great grandchildren would not now be living in ghettos or incarcerated far out of proportion to their numbers.
"You can never do just one thing." It's possible that by seizing and exerting "colonial" authority over the Confederacy, the Union under dear old Honest Abe may have brought on 140 years (and still counting) of racial tension.
Is your surname 'Hitler' by any chance.
Why would you ask me such a thing?
i think u guys are meaning Imperialization(which isnt a word but more accurately describes what the point is), not Colonization.
ahhh, Mephura, yes, well I realised after I had posted that you were talking hypothetically, therefore what i said wasnt quite relevant.
An woohoo, youve conceded! heheh. Nobody else has to me. thanks.
But nit pickingly, whether you colonise a place or imperialise it or whatever, the ultimate point is that you take away much of the self determination of the inhabitants, therefore part of how you view it will be down to how much you think self determination for socities/ cultures/ countries is a good thing or not.
Teh school loan one is a godo example, and im trying toremember the problems with that. its been a buys weekend. Anyhow, the one question is, why borrow the money? And what happens when banks make huge profits off lending? And where does the money they lend come from?
Are you honestly asking me about banking??
The banks use the money that people put into savings accounts and money got from the selling of cd's. that money they invest on in things with good yields. Basiclly they are getting money through interest rates on loans and investing your money. The money made is generally higher than the money they are forced to pay out.pluss, they have fees on things like checking and mac/atm cards and whatnot. You couldsay they are in the business of buying and selling money.
As for why loans: Because most students require somekind of financial aid be it loans or grants to pay for tuition, books, housing, etc. Its hard having a full class load and a full time job at teh same time.
People can overcome oppression. I think the main probalem we are having here is we are both assuming things about how colonization is/should be done. Things go how they go, and reguardless of what we say, something completely different could happen. A government could take over the country and work on being very inobtrusive working only on public schooling, medical and living assiatance programs for example. Of course they would have to intice industry to come in, but if you kept the areas where industry was allowed regulated and approached the whole process from a holistic point of view. In other words do what is good for the people and economy by pumping money only into those area which either
a. keep your population happy and increase the standard of living
b. industrialize your new teritory.
While this may seem like alot of money lost in the early stages, you wouuld wind up with a population that would probably support the government because their culture and way of life hadn't been influenced much and their lives had been bettered.
The key is the education. Educatin is a tool to control people. The better educated people are the more they will want to become doctors, engineers, architects, and so on. The education is where you will slowly and innocously change the culture. Over time the culture will change, but it will be seen as a choice made by the people.
Separate names with a comma.