@Curtmungus your honor of being more famous than me is quite deserved. I salute you.
Colonialism
-
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.
-
interesting how you make a judgment about it before reading the book. has it ever occurred to you that he was very much a patriot, and was warning people about the failure of Western policy in SE Asia? the book is decidedly anti-communist, and heavily pro-western/capitalist. he just approaches the subject with an open mind, and the acknolwedgement that as people, we are fallible, and that our foreign policy in this case was an example of us being wrong. additionally, the fact that communists are the enemy does not preclude them from doing things which we should do as well. (i.e., if the USSR does A, that doesnt mean we have to do B, just to be different. if A is good, we should be doing A as well). you should read the book. despite being a fictionalized story, its almost entirely based on firsthand experience, or second hand accounts.
Suggested Topics
