Colonisation discussion

[loup99]

From UK Politics.

Also, not to defend colonial empires, but the British one was actually the mildest and most civilised of the colonial empires. Much better than France, Netherlands, Germany, or Belgium. E.g. they were the first ones to abolish slavery. Plus they've done some cool other things like help win WW1 and WW2. So to say the UK is particularly evil and cynical doesn't really make sense and reeks of anglophobia.

As a counter-argument to this very idealised view of the British colonial empire, France also used its colonial empire in WW1 and WW2. And we also abolished slavery, in 1794 (the reestablishment can largely be blamed on a counter-revolutionary UK). Additionally, the UK was equally nasty in most of its colonies, see Rhodesia for example. So this argument can largely be used to defend any colonial empire.

Again, first of all, like I said, I'm not trying to defend colonial empires. They're all bad, but I think that overall, the British one was the least bad.

About slavery (which was intended as a more separate "thing" Britain did, as a counter to the "evil and cynical" description by DC): Napoleon reinstated slavery in 1802. During the peace negotiations in 1814, Britain was trying to get France to abolish slave trafficking but France wasn't budging. Then Napoleon came back and abolished slavery in 1815. Ofc the British then helped defeat Napoleon again, so if you are very picky with your historical events you can claim that France's slavery after the Napoleonic times is due to Britain... but that wouldn't be very fair, would it? As soon as Britain had stopped slave trafficking they were actually quite eager for other empires to follow their example, and tried to push that cause diplomatically (and sometimes even by force).

BTW I didn't mean to talk about Britain using its colonial empire in WW1 and 2 (although indeed it, and France, did), but I just meant to point at the simple fact that the UK as a country decided to help defeat the baddies in both world wars. That's gotta count for something against the "evil and cynical" description by DC.

Not so sure on the "least bad". Personally I would say that colonialism caused a lot of suffering, and while the death toll wasn't as high for all empires, we shouldn't be speaking of positives and negatives or good and bad when it comes to colonial empires.

I think you have to differentiate between the abolition of slavery (1833) and slave trade (1807). While the UK pushed for the latter they didn't do as much for the former, which poses a problem when we compare with France.

Re: colonial empires

There isn't a former colonial power that doesn't think theirs was the least bad. It's all bullshit. Different approaches led to different kinds of specific harm in time X in place Z for class Y but it's all graduations on complete and utter disaster. That we're even back to arguing this is a terrible sign.

Re Colonial Empires: I would reject that they are all awful. Nearly every country was better governed when part of one than it was before and, in many cases, is today, even those that got the really rough end of the stick like the Congo. They achieved an awful lot of global development, even if the benefits were one sided at the time.

I think we should move on from 19th century rhetoric consisting of lauding the benefits of respective colonial empires in bringing "our European civilisation to the tribal locals". No colonial government provided good government, because the only government there was about dividing and conquering, ruling to oppress. No colonised nation was provided with global development because colonisation implied the systematic pillage of all local structures to the profit of the metropole. Let us not have any illusions on this dark past, and instead focus on how the damage done at the time can be repaired, today by global economic reform and perhaps different forms of reparation.

My problem with that argument is that it’s bollocks.

Do you seriously believe that north and South America and sub Saharan Africa would have a better level of: gdp per capita; life expectancy; level of malnutrition; literacy rate; access to education; access to healthcare; female liberation; or access to global culture if they had never been “discovered” and then oppressed by the West?

Colonial empires stole resources and oppressed the local population but they provided technology and governance structures and those have led to a far higher level of growth and development overall. The damage done has already been repaired many times over.

That is an absurd assertion.

GDP per capita isn't a helpful tool of measurement if we don't look at how the wealth is distributed with relevant data, otherwise the same colonial families could still be sitting on the wealth of a country as during the colonial period (while this isn't the case, a few indigenous capitalists earning all money and spending it abroad isn't much different to a few colonial capitalists earning all money and spending it in the colonial metropole). In terms of life expectancy, the demographic transition happened after colonisation, not during, and happened earlier in countries who weren't as ruthlessly oppressed, such as Japan. As for malnutrition, if the agricultural production is directed towards the colonial metropole rather than the local region, how is it addressed? Before colonial conquest the agriculture was local and fed everyone accordingly. Education came at a very late stage of colonisation, and wasn't adapted to local needs, being directed for a "civilisational mission" rather than teaching the necessary to build up the countries. In terms of healthcare and female liberation I'm not sure at what countries you are looking: most of the former British empire has deep structural issues with this still today, caused by colonisation favouring patriarchal structures in the local society and a lack of infrastructure investment. Access to global culture and contact would have come anyway, without colonisation, as evidenced by the case of Japan.

No stolen ressources have been repaired, they are still being stolen today in many countries of Africa, for instance. And I'm skipping parts that are occupied by the descendants of colonists. The UK largely industrialised itself at the expense of its empire, which still staggers behind, and hasn't been given the tools to sustainably develop today. And I haven't heard many pardons when it comes to all the victims killed in the brutal oppression. Furthermore, governance structures that lead to authoritarian dictatorships and bloody civil wars due to ethnic strife and arbitrary borders are completely pointless. Technology could have been shared anyways, as it is being done internationally today.

God can Tanzhang come back already, this thread is garbage now.

Maybe if we pray enough.

I pray everyday to forum gods.

Explain how? Japan is an extreme outlier on the world stage in that regard. It's apples and oranges to most of what you could compare it to.

But how does this mean that colonialism was globally positive for the countries that suffered from it?

Capitalism has lifted, and continues to lift, more people out of poverty than any other economic system in existence Loup. There are always allocative shocks, and those cause real suffering, but it always helps in the end.

Embrace it!

No one said capitalism was objectively worse than the previous systems, the issue is rather that capitalism itself isn't the best system and should be replaced by a better one, since it leads us to an impasse. Generalised poverty and mass unemployment are a thing in capitalism, and the former hasn't been resolved, while the latter has been expanded. The very few instances in which we see individuals going from lower classes to wealthiest few individuals are exceptions that confirm the rule, and caused by instances where we actually limit capitalism (education).

Ok, I know I replied to it too, mea culpa and all that, but send the colonization discussion to the history forum where it can die like the south American natives after Columbus arrived thrive under the sun of glorious Britannia/Francia/Lusitania/Germania/Italia/Netherlandia/Belgaea(?).

 

[Sarmatia1871]

"Good or Bad?????" is probably the most tedious question that you can ask about the history of colonialism.

 

[th3freakie]

Holy shit @loup99 that was some high effort copy pasting quoting

 

[th3freakie]

"Good or Bad?????" is probably the most tedious question that you can ask about the history of colonialism.

What are you, some History Professor?

Tell us what is the interesting question then, and how it validates the obvious objective truth that colonialism was bad.

 

[bz249]

What are you, some History Professor?

Tell us what is the interesting question then, and how it validates the obvious objective truth that colonialism was bad.

Why should it be bad? Ask any random spanish conquistador/ portuguese slaver / dutch banker / british pirate... they all gonna say colonialism was cool.

 

[Taylor]

Why should it be bad? Ask any random spanish conquistador/ portuguese slaver / dutch banker / british pirate... they all gonna say colonialism was cool.

Dutch bankers are the only ones we can actually still ask this question... the others have all gone away

 

[Blastaz]

Actually it's a fallacy and you know it, but you have no serious arguments to make so you just make it a black or white choice in the hopes to make it at least plausible that colonisation is a positive. Hint: it isn't.

To keep it short, there are several tiers of competition. Colonialism ranks pretty low.

My basic point with the “not discovered” scenario is when in human history do you expect the advanced old world to react to the discovery of the less advanced new world by not colonising it? In my view about 1950.

After then it would just be economic subjugation (see China today) not pol/mil oppression.

Yes we could imagine a better world, but it’s not the one we live in.

If it hadn’t been for old world interaction with the new world, even via the medium of colonialism, the third world would be even poorer than it is today. Colonialism was objectively good.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Autobahns.

 

[Tufto]

My basic point with the “not discovered” scenario is when in human history do you expect the advanced old world to react to the discovery of the less advanced new world by not colonising it? In my view about 1950.

After then it would just be economic subjugation (see China today) not pol/mil oppression.

Yes we could imagine a better world, but it’s not the one we live in.

I think that is a little problematic. You're assuming A) the Old World could become more advanced without colonialism and the Columbian Exchange, B) that the New World would for some reason start stagnating, and C) you seem to be making a bunch of teleological assumptions about how both would develop according to

Since it is the overwhelming consensus of scholars that the New World's colonisation was not the result of some intrinsic technological-military advantage, and since (IIRC) it is also consensus that the West's dominance was largely a result of the riches gained via aggressive colonialism, I don't think your argument entirely holds up. It is possible that things could happen as you claim, of course, but there's nothing predetermined about any of it and I think you're assuming a bit too much about how the world would develop without colonialism. Things are not set onto some predetermined path from their inception.

 

[Arilou]

Apart from, as Sarmy mentions, this being a wrong and annoying question, we do have the issue that the "alternative" to colonization isn't neccessarily "no contact ever". There is the alternative of peaceful trade rather than simply stealing people's stuff, for instance.

nd since (IIRC) it is also consensus that the West's dominance was largely a result of the riches gained via aggressive colonialism

That, AFAIK, is not neccessarily the consensus. Or at least truth with modification. (largely limited to certain specific colonial projects, IE: The West indies and to some extent latin american gold/silver).

Arguably the greatest impact of asian colonialism (apart from giving specific powers, eg. the portugeuse/dutch/british a leg up on their competitors) was quashing any competition from that quarter, at least where europeans were concerned.

 

[Taylor]

My view is mostly that, regardless of any technological or economical benefits the colonised countries may have received, the colonisers did really bad things, and they ruled against the will of the locals, and this cannot be said to be 'outweighed' by the benefits the (offspring of the) locals received. To give a bit of a weird analogy, it would be like forcibly capturing someone, then for years torturing them while giving them some money and teaching them some skills; then releasing them. Depending on the amount of money and skills one could argue the captured person is better off in the end, but since the captured person never agreed to the "deal" it is still an undeniably evil act. It simply cannot be outweighed by anything.

 

[Taylor]

Since it is the overwhelming consensus of scholars that the New World's colonisation was not the result of some intrinsic technological-military advantage

I was not aware of such a consensus. Is the assertion that the tech-mil advantage wasn't substantial or that it was, but it didn't matter in the end? Because on first sight I have a hard time imagining either of these things to be the case.

 

[Arilou]

I was not aware of such a consensus. Is the assertion that the tech-mil advantage wasn't substantial or that it was, but it didn't matter in the end? Because on first sight I have a hard time imagining either of these things to be the case.

The consensus tends to be that the Military advantage wasn't enough on it's own: But rather the combination of various factors (like european diseases) and exploiting internal divisions among the natives were paramount.

The aztecs were largely conquered by native allies of the spanish, and the rest of Mexico/Central america by aztecs under spanish rule.

 

[Taylor]

The consensus tends to be that the Military advantage wasn't enough on it's own: But rather the combination of various factors (like european diseases) and exploiting internal divisions among the natives were paramount.

The aztecs were largely conquered by native allies of the spanish, and the rest of Mexico/Central america by aztecs under spanish rule.

Ah ok, that I can easily imagine.

 

[Blastaz]

The consensus tends to be that the Military advantage wasn't enough on it's own: But rather the combination of various factors (like european diseases) and exploiting internal divisions among the natives were paramount.

The aztecs were largely conquered by native allies of the spanish, and the rest of Mexico/Central america by aztecs under spanish rule.

Whatever happens, we have got.
The Maxim gun, and they have not.

 

[Avernite]

The consensus tends to be that the Military advantage wasn't enough on it's own: But rather the combination of various factors (like european diseases) and exploiting internal divisions among the natives were paramount.

The aztecs were largely conquered by native allies of the spanish, and the rest of Mexico/Central america by aztecs under spanish rule.

Apart from diseases, I would think those very advantages stem from the European technological advantage; the Spanish could pile themselves on top of the Aztec powerstructure because they were more militarily capable and because they had the logistic muscle to get to Mexico in sufficient numbers. Neither of which anyone else had the technology to do to Europe.

 

[Blastaz]

My view is mostly that, regardless of any technological or economical benefits the colonised countries may have received, the colonisers did really bad things, and they ruled against the will of the locals, and this cannot be said to be 'outweighed' by the benefits the (offspring of the) locals received. To give a bit of a weird analogy, it would be like forcibly capturing someone, then for years torturing them while giving them some money and teaching them some skills; then releasing them. Depending on the amount of money and skills one could argue the captured person is better off in the end, but since the captured person never agreed to the "deal" it is still an undeniably evil act. It simply cannot be outweighed by anything.

Except really bad things done to the average peasant against their will was the average state of affairs for most of the world through most of history.

On the one hand you get continued despotic oppression mostly by your fellow "countryman" and occasionally by outsiders.
On the other hand you have a century of two of despotic oppression by outsiders coupled with continued improvement in governance structures, up to a couple of thousand years of technological advantages, and eventually self determination maybe even into a democracy.

One of those situations is clearly better, no?

Spoiler

I always pull the lever on trolley problems

 

[Blastaz]

we do have the issue that the "alternative" to colonization isn't neccessarily "no contact ever". There is the alternative of peaceful trade rather than simply stealing people's stuff, for instance.

Yes you do have that as an alternative thought experiment, I just think given human nature its not very likely. Even in the 21st century people are still oppressing each other and playing their position. In the 16-20th C without concepts of human rights or rules based international law the abuses are always going to be there.

 

[Blastaz]

I think that is a little problematic. You're assuming A) the Old World could become more advanced without colonialism and the Columbian Exchange, B) that the New World would for some reason start stagnating, and C) you seem to be making a bunch of teleological assumptions about how both would develop according to

Since it is the overwhelming consensus of scholars that the New World's colonisation was not the result of some intrinsic technological-military advantage, and since (IIRC) it is also consensus that the West's dominance was largely a result of the riches gained via aggressive colonialism, I don't think your argument entirely holds up. It is possible that things could happen as you claim, of course, but there's nothing predetermined about any of it and I think you're assuming a bit too much about how the world would develop without colonialism. Things are not set onto some predetermined path from their inception.

I'm sure it's a very "problematic" view .

I'm not really making those assumptions because I am not trying to claim that the west would reach the same level of advancement, like a trade war isolationism would make everyone worse off. And maybe if the West had cut itself off in the same way that Ming China did it would lead to a similar degree of stagnation, although intra European competition would probably lead to more advancement than there.

My question is did Colonialism by the "old world" (Europe & North Africa through to China) have a positive or negative on the ROTW (North and South America, sub Saharan Africa). Is life in the ROTW better or worse today because it happened? My argument is that it is better due to the sharing of technology, governance and thought. There are obviously different cases to consider from Central America, to North America, to Africa, to the cases where local people were completely replaced (Arawaks, Tasmania).

In the last case things are obviously much, much worse. For the rest of them i would say better. In the African case some almost stone age societies were brought up to the 20thC spec in about 80 years of oppression. In the long run advanced case you have the Inca/Aztec but as they lacked decent metallurgy I doubt they would have come up with an industrial revolution by themselves in 500 years.

 

[Imgran]

What are you, some History Professor?

Tell us what is the interesting question then, and how it validates the obvious objective truth that colonialism was bad.

The question of is Colonisation good or bad is boring because the answer is "yes."

Colonisation accomplished many things, some great, some awful.

It would be willfully blind to suggest spread of technological and technical knowledge from the Europeans to other cultures was worth the cultures it completely obliterated, but pretending that the bad didn't come with some good is just as blind.

Like everything, the truth is far more complicated than a simple binary answer will allow for.