I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Colonialism
-
A number of people have posted comments supporting colonialism. I’m curious as to their reasoning, how they define it, what constitutes colonial rule, etc. The international colonial system won’t be established again, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.
Similarly, I’d be interested in how people who are against colonialism define the concept.
-
That’s tough. It’s like the pornography question: I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.
Colonialism, to me, is a parasitic relationship- one country’s resources are used for the benefit of another, more powerful country with minmal regard given to the “host” country. My 5th grade Social Studies text has a great quote from a Parliament committe back in the 1700’s:
“We must remind all members of Parliament that colonies were set up for the good of England, not for the good of the colonists. These settlements can provide us with many needed things- tobacco, lumber, whale oil, fish, grain, and furs. And, they also provide England with a place to sell our manufactured goods.”
And another from Prime Minister George Grenville during the same time:
“So it is only right and just that the colonists help pay for the protection we are giving them. Clearly, Parliament and the King have authority over the colonies. It is in the name of that authority that we suggest new rules which will make the colonists pay taxes to the English government.”
So, substitute “lumber” and “fish” with “oil” and “military bases”, and you basically have Iraq. We even had a scheme to make Iraq pay for repairs for all the damage WE did with OUR bombs (and how is Haliburton doing these days?). I can see three reasons for the U.S. invading:
- To remove a potential threat (we all know how THIS one turned out)
- To secure a huge reserve of oil with a pro-U.S. regime.
- To establish a dominant military presence in the region.
Any improvement in the lives of Iraqis is either accidental or just a necessary condition for securing those objectives. We may eventually succeed in our objectives, but it will only be for the short-term. Eventually, Iraqi’s will demand we leave so they can settle their own affairs. But why use “eventually”? They already want us gone.
-
Ok ill start off the fireworks because I favor this strongly. Consider:
Introduction
The period of so called “High Imperialism” the most autocratic phase of colonial rule lasted from 1885-1945. This is the period that i defend. Some can go back further to the slave trade but that earlier period was purely exploitation and even i agree to that. With that being stated my argument
centers around the of all countries the F-R-E-N-C-H (Yikes!) and their concept of “mission civilisatrice” which invariably was to organize the population into model citizens. France would build industries and improve schools, roads, public works, while systematically pushing the “french culture” on the people. I do not maintain or subscribe to the idea of
“multi-culturalism” when it does not improve peoples lives. I dont want to have any sections of this earth inhabited and populated by what i call “savages”. Yes i want western culture to be impressed upon these lands and peoples and their language destroyed so they can essentually complete the transition to full globalization. That way they can after a while begin to develop commerce and trade with their “parental” host nation and eventually leave the yoke and sustain what was learned and prosper from it. Again as in the French example i accept a certain amount of exploitation to occur, because in the beginning the host nation will accrue some debt and to work this off while rebuilding the african basin which will include cheap labor. However, the host nations obligations are to sustain the population at decent living conditions. Something like FDR’s “works progress concept” in the 1930’s.Being the host nation is akin to allowing a foreign student stay in your home for a summer academic program. It is a fair analogy to make but it does not hold the entire program and its purpose. WE are involved with changing this region and bringing it “up to speed” with the rest of the world. This done inspite of themselves. The french had another concept called “rayonnement”, which literally means lighting the way for others and this is not “superior vs. inferior culture” but rather to give our tools to others in order for them to profit latter from it.
The bad side of colonialism
The causes of the partition were mainly political and economic. That is, national rivalries, power politics, and a quest for national glory were behind the political motives. The desire to acquire and control new markets and to obtain raw materials were also strong motives. this is the necessary offset that could occur. I advocate that while it may in fact occur, that the infrastructure and long term investments will provide adequate compensation to sustain the nation until it reaches “maturity”.
Secondly, the host nation is developing the economic and political infrastructure necessary for modernization and democracy which invaribly shall lead to further progress toward globalization. while Globalization and advances in technology create significant opportunities for people to connect, share and learn from each other, they do also engender some level of anamosity by segments of the population.During a recent conference on Globalization and the effects of colonialization the UN charter had this to say:
“Globalization should be made to work for the benefit of everyone: eradicate poverty and hunger globally; establish peace globally; ensure the protection and promotion of human rights globally; ensure the protection of our global environment; enforce social standards in the workplace globally,” the Declaration states. “This can happen only if global corporations, international financial and trade institutions and governments are subject to effective democratic control by the people. We see a strengthened and democratized United Nations and a vibrant civil society as guarantors of this accountability.”
To sum up: The problems that exist now in Africa are a direct result of of the European community pulling out after “the independence” movement en masse. Africa wasnt ready for this change no matter how much they wanted the west to pull out. Now they are suffering hunger, strife, human rights violations unimaginable under colonial rule, rampant Aids and desease because they “had to have it their way” and didnt learn to use the tools inherent with colonial rule and just threw away the suit and tie for a loincloth and decided upon a path that resembles an ancient tribe rather than a modern society. Now they cant forsee a day of trade and commerce and sustain themselves in a “life brutal,violent, and short.”
-
Interesting…anyone else?
What do you think about issues of revolt? Please correct me if I’m misreading, IL, but it seems like you hold up the French model as - not an ideal - but a good way to approach colonialism. However, the English versus French mandates ended very differently. Vietnam of course, but also Algeria, and to an extent Syria. Actually, the differences between these situations point to another question I had. Algeria is arguably where the French invested most heavily in the colonial idea (they made it a new province after all). But it was also a particularly bloody revolt. Is your idea of colonialism then dependent on a will to see through the assimilation? Or is it a matter of strategy? For example, it could be argued that the UK’s divide and rule strategy was significantly less bloody and had less fallout than France’s methods.
Also, could you tell me a bit more about how much you think the African nations, or at least the ones with lots of civil strife, are to blame for their current situations? Colonialism leaves legacies of course, and slavery too. Is there an obligation on the part of past colonial powers to help nations rebuild on the nation’s terms?
-
but it seems like you hold up the French model as - not an ideal - but a good way to approach colonialism.
Thats basically it. The french indo debacle is an episode of what happens when a weak european nation begins to flex its power but has not power of its own to sustain its traditions. France now economically has not a pot to pee in. Germany and England will have to carry the burden once again. Ukraine might be a good substitute as well.
-
let me warn you, im here to support it.
Collonialism is the possesing of lands for the benefit of ones nation.
If a unclaimed region of Africa is found to have rich oil deposits, we could collonize the region, and utilize its resources to strngthen our country. Its perfectly reasonable, it just doesnt make sense to people who are not nationalists. -
Okay, then, I suppose I’m concerned by two (maybe three) things.
First, the delinking of time periods. I’m not certain it’s really possible to consider the latter period of colonialization (which was switching to mandate form anyway) without consideration of the first couple centuries. It can be argued that the trusteeship model was only adopted after the European powers began to realize that their colonies were unsustainable. Weapons proliferation and military tactics made resistance more successful, the international climate was turning against it as countries increasingly became based on nation-state structures, and it was just so expensive. But tying into all of that was the history of violence and repression which really didn’t do much to endear the population to the colonialists’ cause, no matter how liberally conceived. The legacy of slavery in Africa, say, or the humiliation of the Ottoman empire or China, has still left an impression on international politics today. In what sense can we then delink the issue when considering colonialism?
Second, I’m worried that colonialism necessarily involves claims of racial, ethnic, or cultural superiority. While I know, IL, that you said that that doesn’t matter as much, at some point, I am concerned that colonialism lends itself to those excesses, whereas at least self-government holds out the prospect mitigating that (though not always of course). In colonialism, where are the institutional structures that restrict the colonists’ extreme behavior? What is to prevent economic or social exploitation in this situation? The goodwill of the colonists? In which case, this goes directly against what Marine has said.
And third, turning to Marine’s post, I am also concerned by the loose-ness of your definitions. To an extent, I think you’re right: if there is an unclaimed region in Africa and a country decides to claim it, fine. The concern of course is that “unclaimed” very rarely exists nowadays, and there are problems with, say, territorial integrity. If the Sudanese government can’t currently control a part of its territory, does that mean then that the territory is up for grabs? I doubt it. Similar to my second concern, there is often a tendency to sell the prospect of colonialism by either emphasizing its benefits to the host population, or to negate their existence entirely. A legitimate grievance of the Palestinians, for example, is that the early Zionists in some cases willfully denied that they were living in what became Israel. “A people for a land without a people, a nation for a people without a nation.” was the credo, and it was wrong. But it was also effective.
Beyond that, I think your conception of nationalism is a little…myopic. What about nationalism for people who live in the territory that is being claimed? Second, I do believe it is legitimate to question whether the moral jeopardy of colonies doesn’t itself cause greater harm to the nation than the benefits the colonies gain. For example, a reason that Egypt, Iran, and Iraq all went against the Western powers at various points was because of the legacy of colonialism, and don’t think that Beijing doesn’t have that in the back of their mind as well.
Okay, and a fourth concern :-) - nation-building is hard. To support a benevolent conception of colonialism, I would need examples of where it worked. And not just in the US, Canadian way, where the colonists killed 95 percent of the native population (check out Jared Diamond’s book for confirmation). That kind of negates the whole point of a benevolent colonialization. I mean where the influence of a colonial power, and the imposition of its administrative system on the native population, actually resulted a significant, sustainable improvement in their lives. It’s insufficient, in my mind, to say that colonies wanted to have it their way, threw off the yokes of the colonists, and then screwed things up. The native nationalism is a direct product of colonialism, and therefore, to an extent, the European powers should have expected and managed it. Indeed, they did, in switching from a colonial system in India and the Middle East, to the mandate system. But, I’ll leave off saying anymore, and I’m looking forward to your comments and defenses.
-
for many years, people did not realize that they would have to “claim” land. When they realized this, then Europeans killed them.
(Aus/Cdn/US/Tasmanian aboriginals, Maori etc.)i’m against the concept of colonialism as it has been/is being implimented. Having said that i am pro organizations like CIDA (http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/index-e.htm) however.
-
I agree completely with CC.
Myself, I am against this concept except in the possible case of completely barren territory (like Mars). If the global warming predictions are true, it may be possible to colonate Antartica someday - although I believe most nations have signed a treaty to leave it uncolonized.
Yet one must also take into account when urgent needs of people must be met (I am thinking of refuges such as from the Irish potato famine). Immigration is a better solution to overpopulation problems - but it is understandable that other people would not necessarily want to absorb large numbers of culturally different people. And sometimes the land is then taken by force. So does anyone today criticize the Huns for taking what is now Hungary because they were chased out of Asia? These are not easy questions to answer IMO, but clearly the European colonists did not need the vast stretches of land they claimed.
-
i agree, there must be a distinction made between “lebensraum” or the idea that a country simply wants more than it has, and colonialism out of necessity, or unused land. also, if the huns had no homeland, and were conquering others, thats not really colonialism.
-
naturally, if a country decides to take a territory by force from another country, thats not colonialism, thats war. i think people tend to misunderstand what it means to colonize.
-
Actually, to better define my position, I define a colony as a place where the culture of the first country, as well as a significant portion of the receiving areas population is transplanted from the mother country (as happened with Australia/NZ/US/Canada). This was not always the case with some colonies (French West Africa for example) and I would use another term (like subject nations rather than colonies).
Marine: So, what was the difference between the nation of Poland and the Cherokee nation? Or the nations/tribes in Africa before the colonial period?
-
Well I dont support “the living space” concept. I would basically cut off all free or “loaned” grants of aid to any third world nation that didnt comply a complete restructure of how they conduct their affairs. a few points:
-
Render all females infertile untill the nation can sustain itself by providing a standard of living thats acceptable. After about 20 years then gradually allow grants to familys that have enough wealth to provide for no more than one child.
-
Socialize medicine and provide free education, until such time as the standard of living goes up.
-
Forced labor of every able person according to their skills, while allowing for training of a field of study of their choosing (during the evening).
-
abolition of native language and state supported religion. They have to pray on their own time at home. If they want to keep their own traditions it will stay at home…not in public.
-
The first thing they are forced to build are homes for each other. Not stupid shacks that get washed out when it just happens to rain one afternoon. Everything to western building codes.
-
National public works construction: Hostitals, roads, industrial complex, etc. This second tier (after homes are built) level introduces the “cheap labor concept”
-
This would include basically a 10 hour day working in what was constructed in terms of good and services to the “host” nation.
-
after a long period of stability this skilled labor force would be allowed to travel and if they have a required skill , then a grant of citizenship would be made. There will be no more “we just let you in here because you have waited a period of time” It would be akin to hiring the right person for a job. The same goes for citizenship. The host nation does not allow another “hungry mouth” looking for services.
-
-
see how long you can force a native population to work for 10 hours without a complete breakdown of progress, or else a rebellion
-
They had to agree to allow the transfer of power in the first place. Are they just to then say “Wait we have to work to make our situation better?” Or " I just thought everything was gonna be handed to us on a silver platter like before." I think not! If they want to rebel, then the host nation should just leave and never do business or trade with them again. call it the “let them rot idea”.
-
this sounds much like Cuba . . . .
-
LOL… It could be real soon!
-
Is there a part of colonialism that views the colonies as not part of the core territory? I know the French tried really hard to believe Algeria was part of France, but somehow I feel like deep down they knew it to be a tenuous case. Similarly with India and even the US to an extent. Britain treated none of its colonies as “full equals” so to speak, and that’s reflected in its mercantilist policies.
Moving on to IL’s policy outlines, I guess we’re approaching more practical applications of the ideas we’ve been discussing. It’s fairly clear that those policies won’t ever work, but the question is why. I don’t think it’s simply because the international norms and standards have changed, but that’s part of it. It’s also a valid point that you would quickly have a revolt on your hands if you implemented only a few of these policies. However, IL, your comment
@Imperious:
They had to agree to allow the transfer of power in the first place. Are they just to then say “Wait we have to work to make our situation better?” Or " I just thought everything was gonna be handed to us on a silver platter like before." I think not! If they want to rebel, then the host nation should just leave and never do business or trade with them again. call it the “let them rot idea”.
does seem to imply that the people who are colonized are themselves responsible for the situation that they find themselves in. I partly agree with this statement, as post-colonial Africa has been wracked by wars, famine, etc. in many ways due to the corruption of its own politicians. But that doesn’t exonerate the European and American (slavery) colonial powers either. The question is how much, and that is very difficult.
And I think you’ve got a strawman here as well. In my travels to former colonies, the last attitude I find is one of entitlement. Rather, I think your comments are reflective of US attitudes towards Mexico, which is not quite on point. Even then, migrant workers come here to work, not for a handout. Almost all are lured not by the potential for care in a social system, but for the opportunity for work that doesn’t exist in their home country.
In addition, I don’t think any colony in history actually agreed to the transfer of power as a matter of democratic decision-making or even autarkic decision-making either. Remember, India resisted, so did the Philippines, and New Zealand fought the British almost to a standstill (reflected in the strong Maori culture today). In addition, I don’t think it’s always or even often possible for former colonists to leave a country to its own devices. International economics and sometimes sheer necessity pushes hard against this. Just think of Iraq, India, and China as prominent examples.
Again, I remain unconvinced that colonial projects would actually have a chance of succeeding. If we’re going to take a more practical turn in the discussion, then I would need examples of the unmitigated benefits that colonialization provides. But seeing as how I don’t usually have internet access over the weekend, this might be something I’ll get to next week. :-)
-
have you read “The Ugly American”, IL?
-
I dont read fiction unless it was a school project. Only non-fiction books interest me. The closest i come to fiction is books of philosophical discourse… but only the classics and of them only the ones that confirm my ideas as to reinforce them with greater substance. However i can think outside the box if need be. This Lederer chap seems to write enough about a similiar string of ideas: problems with the CIA, government coverups, wars starting by accident because some hawkish president jumps the gun, failure in Vietnam, Hmmm i wonder which side of the fence hes on? Wait hes not related to that director…. whats his name…hmmm.
Suggested Topics
