First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Do belive that british colonialism was justifiable
Posted 11/1/08 , edited 3/27/09
Everyone likes to talk about how europe screwed up the world by creating their empires where others lived,but did they really screw it up,there are many examples for and against so i guess it would be most likely to say that some places the colonialism worked and in others it created nothing but genocide,but in general,the places europe went to werent exactly utopia before they got colonized,explain to me how being ruled by foreign mughal emporers was better for india than being ruled by foreign british parliament(except under some of the earlier mughals like akbar the great,they actually did a lot for their people)And if any of you watched Gunga Din(though it is disputed whether or not the thugees existed)the villain made a good point by saying "You believe war is of british invent,we indians had conquered half the world while you still dwelt in caves and painted yourselves blue" As i was saying,nothing britain did was new,places they made into colonies once had colonies and empires of their own,and they were just as bad if not worse than what the british did but they aren't as hated for some reason,probably because after so many years the old evil seems less evil(the grass is always greener on the other side)And also because half the people here think only in black and white,some colonies turned up bad so all colonies are a bad idea,or the colonists are doing good now so they always would have done good even without colonies,hahaha...no...it doesn't work like that no matter how hard you wish it to be true

And also,tell me this, is there a single nation,any nation whatsoever,anywhere and any time in human history,has any nation ever not been part of a brutal and oppressive colonial empire?and if so,name them,name any single empire that didn't have a single colony and didn't kill a single native in all of their territory....to be honest i cannot think of any.

Remember that when you say its not justified, you're saying that every good thing done by America,Scotland,England,Wales,Ireland,Canada,South Africa,China,India,Japan,Egypt,Cyprus,Israel and every other colony/influenced nation is all outweighed by the things that they suffered while they were colonies,because everyone conveniently forgets that.


As we all know,America is probably the most powerful nation on earth right now,l know I'm usually one of those who likes to insult them for their arrogance at that kind of thing but its true,America does hold much power over most of the world,but Britain in its heyday was just as strong,if not stronger,all nations in the world are in some ways based on Britain,the British revolution inspired revolutions in America and France,the English language in dominant in the world,democracy is spread all over,industry outpaces agriculture in many nations today,to this we owe Britains influence but my point is here that the American civil war,the north fought because it wanted power,and to stay powerful they needed the land and resources of the south,and sure,there was a token idea to ban slavery as well but it mostly for power, if America had broken up it wouldn't be very powerful today,the same goes for Britain,if they hadn't gotten their colonies they wouldn't be strong,and so they wouldn't have had any influence,and then who knows?maybe if France became the most powerful nation then life would actually be better,but the point remains that: Babylon,Assyria,Egypt,Greece,Macedonia,Rome,The Holy Roman Empire,Byzantine,The Ottoman Empire, Spain,France,Britain...those nations all rose and then fell,its a natural cycle,all plants and animals do the exact same thing,notice how every nation bases everything on its predecessors except its always just a tad better? notice how the Ottomans copied Byzantine social and judicial structure to the letter,the Romans copied everything from the Greeks,Charlemagne copied the Romans,Britain copied France and Spain... they were absolutely necessary to continue the cycle,notice how America copied so much from Britain,and the next empire to control the world will undoubtedly copy America.

One thing i dont get is that ,when belgium made rwanda,there were 2 tribes,the differences between the 2 tribes led to the rwandan genocide,i get that part by what i dont get is that napoleon united the german tribes(a hundred some tribes in total) into one country,and they haven't committed too many genocides against each other so the part i dont get is how is it europes fault that the africans are bigoted people who hate each other?o i guess its because we created civil war,because apparently war is ok when its with an OUTSIDE group but its not when its with an INTERNAL group?

I find it kinda hilarious though,Europeans are,according to people on this site, some sort of Saturday morning cartoon villains cross bred with the legion of doom,like it was their only goal to hurt people,they had no other objectives in making colonies,its like people think they actually had other options(honestly,i haven't seen or heard of a single realistic alternative to colonialism)you DO realize that the average lifespan of an African slave was much higher than the lifespan they had in "freedom" in their homeland,just like people say its wrong to not pay someone for their work...who the hell did they think were paying the Indians before they did?the Mahratta confederacy was greedier,crueler and by far more oppressive than Britain ever was,you do realize how many Indians rejoiced when the Wellesley brothers liberated them from their warlord masters,how many Egyptians begged the British to save them from the French and the Turks, the celebrations in Hong Kong when they realized they were free of the horrors of Chinese rule,and the terror and hatred when they were abandoned by Britain and sent back to the very government they fled from in the first place.

Ok...so people seem to be saying that the english need to give back all the colonies they still own....for example north ireland, bermuda,the falklands,scotland,wales,the danelaw,mercia,angola,wessex...in short the english need to pack their bags and go back to germany and let the celts and picts and scots and irish(those who aren't colonists from scandinavia,normandy,germany or elsewhere that is)take everything back over...oh,you disagree?so your saying that the celtic peoples dont deserve what the other people get? thats awfully cocky of you to simply say who gets to go free and who doesn't,so the irish are worth more than welsh,is what your saying?that scots dont count as people but bermudans do?why can you just pick and choose which human beings are worth more than others? Look,sure it may be reasonable to give the irish control of north ireland and get the english settlers there to move back to England, but where do you draw the line?by all fairness you must give Istanbul back to Bulgaria,and over 80%of the japanese islands are in fact colonies,they have to go back too,as does all of the americas (theres not a single country where actual natives are in power) and most of Africa(north africa is ruled by arab colonists,the zulus colonized and then massacred or drove the natives out) israel and lebanon must recreate Phoenicis,all descendants of mughal colonists in India should have to leave.....look there isnt a country anywhere on earth that is ruled by its natives,thats a natural fact,inuit are colonists who forced off the native tunit,english are colonists who forced off native celts, same goes for the french,the swiss,the spanish,the russians... hell the mongols aint the natives of mongolia,the japanese arent the natives of japan..... if we made everyone go back to the land the really belong in then germany and china would be filled to the breaking point whereas most of asia,the americas and europe would be uninhabited.

Look at it this way,the only way for society to prosper is trade,this is demonstrated by the immense wealth of trade empires in modern Japan and China,and the immense decadence and poverty of Japan and China before the invasions by America and Britain respectively Now since we all know that since Japan was divided before America put the imperial power back in place and China was following completely suicidal plans of complete isolation and turned down massive amounts of wealth and technology that was being offered by Europe in exchange for silk,spices,porcelain,etc. and since this had made China the sick man nation of the world,i can honestly say that they needed trade,without it they would have died a slow and horrible death being bled dry as their empire vanishes beneath them. Britain-and Britain's former colony of America-brought trade,wealth,prosperity and happiness to China and Japan.. so it is justified there,Africa and India were backward and more importantly they were disunited so they pretty much had no concept of trade with the outside world,after all North Africa was in the midst of being ethnically cleansed by the Ottoman empire,the Zulus were killing every living thing in the south,the Moroccans had finished wiping Mali off the map,and the Swazis were hiding in caves,and India was caught up in horrible civil war between Afghan muslim occupiers and Indian hindu natives,then Britain took over India,put the Hinuds in power (well...in more power then they were before that is) and then a few years later,the Indians rose up to get an Afghan put back on the throne(Mughals,by the way, were Afghans) so basically,by ending the Islamic rule is India,and putting an end to the most brutal,warmongering empire in existence(the Zulus) the British brought much wealth to India.also, its funny how people conveniently forget how virtually all of the plantations in India were run by Indian nobles,the British got all their wealth out of India by controlling the trade of the goods that those nobles were selling to the English,and once the East India Company collapsed and the crown took over,then the standard of living for the Indians skyrocketed, it was much much better than it had been under Mughal rule for sure.

Ok...so what i seem to be hearing from people on this site is that if you are not english,then kill whatever you want because you are perfect,peace-loving gods among men...and if you are english,then you are the spawn of satan sent to torment mankind... and if you are not european then you are some sort of earth loving spirit that had no war or hunger or disease or unhappiness until europe apparently invented those things and gave them to you.

And sorry to those who say things about how much they disagree with democracy,how it is flawed,how it is only good in theory,etc. But i do believe that democracy is the greatest thing man has created,and since it was britain that spread the first modern democracy,and it seems to be all but impossible to do that without colonizing,right there,is why i believe it to be justified,after all,almost every colony got its wish to be free and now they all have unlimited potential to be prosperous,israel and egypt,canada and the states,australia and new zealand,china,india and south africa,oman and the UAE...all of these nations use what britain gave,or should i say forced upon,them,yes i admit it wasnt of the natives free will to be democratic so maybe someone will argue that it is better to be oppressed by your own kind than by foreigners,but you see,the countries that complain of british colonialism are those that suffer because of their own stupidity,coupled by the effects of being a colony/protectorate. Uganda suffers because the indians prospered there and were kicked out,the ugandans then had no doctors or teachers or tradesmen or anything,but the indians all moved to america or canada(my family doctor is a refugee from uganda)and now they live in the lap of luxury,but britain didn't tell the ugandans to kick out the indians,britain told the ugandans how to run elections,then the ugandan people voted and the dictator who won,who was a native,then kicked out the indians.Darfur,Sudan suffers because of islamic-christian rivalries that started when africa became christian,partly due to the ethiopian church founded in the 3rd century AD,and islam spread because the romans destroyed egypt,then couldn't protect it from the new invaders(arabs)who brought islam with them.They arabs then conquered all of north africa and spain,and attempted to conquer gaul but people like charles martel and peppin the short stopped them and later spain wiped out the moors,and because of this charlemegne became the holy roman emperor,so you see it was all due to moorish colonies in spain that charlemegne,one of the greatest leaders in history,existed.

No colonies means that very little trade will ever exist,do you know how arrogant the chinese were about trade?the deal was that imports were illegal because all things chinese are(in their opinion)so much better,and so the europeans must pay high prices for any chinese goods,without hong kong,then china would spiral lower and lower downwards into poverty and stagnation,no new technologies flow in and soon,after the theft of the silkworms and the gunpowder recipe,their exports start to slow down,europe can make its own silk,its own gunpowder and eventually the europeans stop needing the chinese spices.Do any of you enjoy foreign foods?or live in countries of different ethinticities?Well guess what?you wouldn't without colonies,nope no immigrants,no culture mixes,much less trade,and no new technologies spread across the world,you all seem to think that if colonies never existed no war would either,that a huge global free market would be formed and we'd all live in golden palaces in the sherbet kingdom,guess what?life ain't that nice,theres no chance in hell of that happening,we'd all be little statelets struggling for supremecy but unable to do so as we are all too evenly matched and none of us are capable of getting the new resources we need since if the resource isn't within our little statelet then we will never have nor see nor hear of it,and since we hate everyone who isn't us we don't believe in trade,lets see how that works out.

Britain was among the first nations to abandon slavery,and by comparison to other european nations their colonies were much more looked after,there were schools and hospitals run by the anglican church,a few german colonies did this as well but the british had more,britain was probably the only nation to incorporate natives into the ruling class,though it was very very difficult for this to happen,and also allowed natives to become soldiers and get paid equal soldiers wages(of course if you were hindu they made u use rifle cartridges made of pork or beef products which is very intolerant),many indian and south pacific nobles actually gained much more power and wealth under british rule since it opened up a lot more trade and resource exploitation,however the british were much like the indians in their obsession with class and caste,only certain people could get these jobs and only under certain conditions,usually only certain races on certain countries were accepted.

As i've said before,i do not think that total european extinction is a good alternative for not making colonies, as i've stated only europe had real trade(well...north america had trade but they didn't know that the west existed and vice versa so it doesnt really matter) and since the only way to feed their people was to trade,and since the only places that they good get food from didn't want to trade,europe had only 1 option,colonize or die.Notice also how little england actually had on its own,about 90%of its military was colonial(primarily scottish and indian),as was all of its oil, around 80-90% of their food was imported from colonies,all of the wood they used to make the ships,all of the metal they used for tanks, bullets,ships,planes etc., all of their gunpowder,all of their tobacco and opium(which were thought to be healthy in those days),all of their cotton,about 40% of their workforce(the factory workers,the farmers) and also the entire economy ran off of colonial goods,colonials,colonial lands and colonial-powerd factories....the only resource britain really had was coal and some heavily exhausted metals....and that soon became completely useless.So basically people think that an England without guns, soldiers, ships, planes,tanks, land, food, water, oil,money, stone, wood, a population, and many other commodities could survive,and not to mention just about how useless the rest of Europe was at dealing with the French,well....the prussians beat Napoleon III but apart from that it was an entirely british imperial army that defeated Napoleon Bonaparte,and before that when Louis XIV(14th) tried to conquer the world,after the germans,dutch and spanish proved to be uselss against the french it was the British that defeated him and curtailed the might of France, not to mention how it was only thanks to the colonies that the Spanish armada was destroyed,well...thanks to the colonies AND a lucky storm that came along... but the point is that Britain was the worlds biggest empire,no one has ever matched it and as such they had a lot of influence,notice how they are the only reason that the empires of Russia,Prussia,Austria,Ottomans,France,Spain,Holland,Portugal all fell,notice how Ethiopia was the most corrupt,insane,pathetic and backwards of the all the Christian empires,was ruled by a mad emperor until the British military led a rescue of British prisoners(including an ambassador and several priests who had all been invited in),and in the process overthrew the dictatorship of the mad king theodore...well,i'm sure the Ethiopians were much better off beforehand... also notice how it was the British empire that won both world wars single-handed,true many of their colonies were independent by then but you all forget that a former colony can't exist unless they are a colony,unless of course a bunch of angry Zulus with spears are gonna stop Hitler that is,then i say its a damn good thing that we defended Egypt and Palestine,you think that the natives there could fight worth anything?god no..they were useless,hence why they've been conquered about 2 dozen times in the past, Britain is the only reason that America,who defeated the most brutal,oppressive,horrific and monstrous empire ever to commit a massacre(Japan) exists,Canada is the only reason that WWl was won,ahh how quick we all forget the greatest general in history, Canadian general Currie,who won the biggest major victories in WWl: Paschendale,Vimmy Ridge,and then single-handed they turned the tides of the war,the only reason that Allied Belgium didn't fall,and the only reason that we were able to make a push and finally reverse the german offensive is Canada.And since Britain created Canada and America,they can claim credit that they only reason that the great things they have done were done is because of British colonies....

And,just to say this,was any nation that was colonized anywhere in the world really any better off independant? its not like britain invented slavery,they were much fairer rulers than any other empire that preceded them,rome is constantly heralded as a glorious empire but what did they do that was any different?they made just about every animal in europe endangered for no reason more than fun,they enslaved every new race they could.And for a very good example,ethiopia,guess who colonized them? give up?it was nobody,they were never colonized,though ethiopia was briefly occupied by the italins under mussolini during world war 2 they were for the most part completely independant they even had their own christian church,and where is the biggest hell hole in the world right now?you guessed it,ethiopia,proving that people are quite capable of fucking things up on their own without european influence.

On the other hand,as everyone knows,lots of bad things happened due to colonial influence,colonies of every empire since the beginning of empires have been used to make money and goods for the homeland,as well as a way of getting rid of excess population,britain also used its colonies as a way to make even more profit by using them as ready markets for goods even though the colonies produced all or most of the materials to make the goods,though the church and some parts of the british and german governments gave aid to natives in the colonies they still were not all to well looked after,but still better than any other empire who used natives as free labour or as sacrifices,now thats one thing earlier empires did that the more modern europeans didn't,sacrifice,zulus,aztecs,romans,they all used the natives as sacrifice in some form though the romans were more on gladiator fights which started as sacrifices where they would battle to the death at a funeral to ensure good luck,the reason everyone thinks of the modern europeans as demons is just that,they were more modern,its easy to forgive the italians,after all they haven't been massacaring natives by the hundreds of thousands for almost 2000 years during the roman ages,but since there were british slaves up through the 1800's its a lot harder and also the modern europeans had such better technology that it seems unfair that there were zulus with asagais and knobkerries fighting against riflemen,and yes every last hotentot(yes that was a real tribe name)was wiped out by smallpox without even fighting a single war against britain.If the huron tribe had been less greedy,it is very posssible that france would have given up on canada and gone away but the hurons who were asked whether or not there was any gold and jewels in canada said yes,there is a kingdom of magic and wonder with diamonds the size of dogs and streets paved in gold,where strange races of pygmys and giants live,so the french went in,found no riches or magical kingdoms but decided to stay,this led for the british and their allies the iroquois (yes allies,they were given many rights including the right to live on their native lands)launched a long war and after many tries finally took quebec and ended french interests in north america,molly brant later petitioned parliament and gave the mohawk people a place in the empire,the mohawks repaid this during the war of 1812 in which they did an amazing job defending the north from the american invaders,and while on the subject of americans,most tribes in north america joined britain since the "long knives" proved to be far more brutal and the british,though not accepting them as full citizens,gave the natives more rights,not as many as the whites but still more.

Slavery ended in britain earlier than most of the rest of the world,a few years later the rest of the empire abolished it,followed by america and finally brazil.Though there were abolishinists who protested equal rights for all,slavery was truly banned mostly to undermine america as many slaves then would run to canada which was greatly threatened by american expansionist policies this not only gave canada some new and loyal citizens but also hurt the american economy,this is also a reason why the british gave aid to natives in america though the americans seemed to think that the british were giving them a lot more help than they were,though there still was some slavery lingering throughout the empire,this led to riots led by the abolishinists and eventually the british government made the colony of sierra leone a free nation that the slaves could go to and start a new life in their homeland....a lot of good that did.

And what about cowboys and indians?that was americans colonizing the interior of what is now the US,and that was completely glorified and still is to some extent but the americans complain of how the british ruled them and their other colonies,and then started the reservation act and made the natives they conquered just as bad off as the british had done before,and what about europe?no one pities how they were treated when they were colonized by other european groups,i don't see anyone in holland getting reparations from the spaniards who occupied the netherlands for so long,people in calais aren't complaining about being occupoed by the british anymore,the swiss forgave the austrians ages ago,no brits are complaining about how much they hated being under norman rule.And in many cases of colonies being conquered by other nations who want them,canada was way better off being british than being french,south africa was much better as a british colony than a dutch one,again showing my point that britain wasn't good by any means,but it was a lesser of two evils,it didn't do much,but it did some and that may not seem like much,but its a hell of a lot more than anyone else can say.And what about denmark?they colonized iceland,greenland,norway and parts of canada and the faroe islands,nobody cares,why is that?why doe no one care of the attrocitied committed by every other colonial power but britain?i mean rwanda and the congo were belgian and nobody cares how bad they are.

And of course,yes,they did wipe out cultures and peoples from all around the world but what is an alternative?without colonization the entire caucasian and hispanic population of the world would be dead,along with all their religions and languages,after all the reason they were so advanced is because that necessity is the mother of invention,they needed to be able to make their tiny area able to feed the worlds largest populations,not very easy is it?the reason the places they conquered were so unadvanced was because they had more than enough room so that they never needed to make new inventions just to survive,ever wonder why greece was so advanced?its because they were small and desolate and thats how nature works,they needed food,they didn't have food,they took food.thats what all animals including humans must do to survive.The british in particular,all of europe is small but britain is even smaller and since they had been so successful their population far outweighed the available growing space,so an agricultural revolution took place and that saved them from certain starvation,how was this done you may ask,well it was mainly thanks to how well the crops from the colonies took to european soil(for example,the irish potato farmers) without those new crops and the colonies where many crops were grown and shipped off to the homeland,europe would likely go from a center of enlightenment to a hell hole as every nation declares war for even the smallest areas of farmland in order to stave off the deaths of their people,and as we all know war goes hand in hand with plague,his loving wife and business partner furthering the doom spreading across the continent until new nations conquer what was once europe,and then all civilization is sent back a couple of centuries as japan,also unable to expand dies out,and one day when another nation starts it all over again,some other country runs out of room and needs to expand,a new breakthrough in technology gives them an upper hand and they start colonizing wherever they need to,my guess would be chinas the first to do this,after all their power was on par with that of europe,so they go around doing what europe would have if it hadn't descended into anarchy and had been wiped out,and if they didn't do it then someone else would,eventually.

WWII would be lost without its colonies,ethiopia was never colonized but it still is a hell-hole,britain was better than any other colonial nation,if only by a little bit,and without colonies no empire would exist,ever,and so very little advancement would ever appear and without their colonies all of europe would be dead,as would,most likely,japan.And how exactly would the world enjoy the luxuries it does?the colonies were given the benefits of the mother country and those who colonized assimilated many parts of the colonies cultures (new foods,medicines,sports,etc)which,in the long run,has benefited both parties but it wouldn't happen without colonies,and finally,how was any nation better off before it became a european colony?There were still slaves and wars going on,don't even try to say britain invented either of those.

Also,getting away from what-ifs,people use things like war and disease as reasons to hate britain...but conveniently forget that everywhere britain went they found war was present,the iroquois and the hurons,the arabs and the turks,the zulus and every other living creature that they could find,they were all oppressive,they were all brutal and britain was just a stronger,smarter and just as brutal (if not less) oppressor,we can argue of the death brought by smallpox but it is absolutely impossible to make contact with others without going to them in person or sending them messages which are made by you or your people,either way brings material infected with smallpox(whether it be humans or papers)so it is impossible to have any trade without contact,and impossible to have contact with people who die upon going within a kilometer radius of you so it would be impossible to bring the zulus or the iroquois any semblance of technology whatsoever not to mention the other natives of the americas,africa and australasia that were spanish,french,dutch,portugese and british colonies.People also seem to forget that the iroquois and hurons begged french and british settlers to come,Donnacona willingly gave the french the land of arcadia on the condition that the french build forts there to help massacre some more iroquois,the zulus gave the dutch some empty land whose former occupants were killed and driven off,then like idiots,they tried to betray the dutch and were slaughtered at blood river,so to the people who willingly brought colonialism onto themselves you have to admit that even if you dont call it justified,they deserved it.

It is not possible to exist without some oppression,short of making a nation filled entirely with copies of the same person,there always will be some racism,some sexism some bigotry it is natural,people on this thread seem to conveniently leave out that every society britain took over were the exact same as all the colonial powers,from sumer and babylon to china and the states,they have all killed for power,land,money and survival ,all empires need colonies and all people were once an empire.I think it is very narrow minded and wrong to judge more modern empires more harshly simply because they were newer,i say that if british colonialism is not justified,then neither is any colonialism from the dawn of man to the modern day,from the aztecs to the mowris to the japanese to the romans to the persians,none of them did anything anymore or any less enlightened,they were not more peaceful conquerors they were not better rulers they were not kinder to their subject states and to say otherwise is simple hypocrisy.

All of the US,apart from the 13 british colonies,are in fact american colonies,so therefore they are not justified,they should be independent from the rest of the americans.

Japan,most of the islands in the japanese archipelago are in fact colonies so they too are not justified to be part of japan.

Russia,siberia is a colony so all of russia east of the urals is not justified to be under russian rule.

China,tibet is a colony so therefore not justified to be under chinese rule.

I suppose you could say that,since they were empty,or so the scientists believe,that the people from south america colonizing the south pacific(as many believe)so therefore they are justified,as is the taking of certain empty islands by the europeans(on some islands the natives had driven themselves into complete or near extinction)that is justified,but only then.

Look,i don't really care if you think colonialism is bad,but really people....it damn well pisses me off to have people refusing to admit that people who aren't white actually were just as racist,had more slaves,and were more brutal occupiers. Its as if you all cant see any other ethinticity as anything other than a victim.For example,if someone were to call the nazis good then they are freaks(i dont disagree with this btw)but if someone were to call the aztecs good...no one cares,but heres the funny part....the aztecs were worse than the nazis,they killed people,they kept human livestock,they doomed tribes they conquered to generations of suffering,massive tributes were demanded,the aztecs grew rich and complacent under this kind of life,and their arrogance was their downfall,that arrogance also destroyed many other empires.

Also,how many nations are screwed up by being a colony? Pakistan is a basket case because the pakistani government is useless,the indians prosper because the indian government isn't.Many african nation suffer because many tribes hate each other, well guess what?when was the last time you heard the spaniards or the french try ethnically cleanse andorra?unless you say that all white tribes have to get along but it is impossible for any black tribes to get along?I have a friend who is tunit,guess what most of the tunits were wiped off the earth by the inuit,but ive never seen him go out and try to kill a bunch of inuit people...the africans can say that its all europes fault but coming from a former protectorate and spending most of my childhood in a former colony....i say that britains biggest mistake was in not colonizing uganda or swaziland,if they had,then they would both be nations with a prosperity to rival south africa.Same goes for the arabian colonies,saudi arabia and iraq were under british influence,but not colonies,hence why saudi arabia is an absolute monarchy and iraq is a hell hole,oman is a democracy and a pretty prosperous one at that,same goes for Israel,they were colonies,colonies are much more prosperous than protectorates.

Now you might be tempted to simply say it wasnt justified because of the obvious reasons...death,suffering etc,but dont forget that saying no means that you think those deaths are more important than the formation of any modern nation (from canada to china to japan to australia to britain itself)every modern nation in the world owes everything from democracy to farming to the brits,they taught the natives(the ones they didn't kill that is) everything they knew and then,eventually, left them...now since all of those colonies were forced to be democratic then they elected leaders...the smart people elected good leaders,and most of africa decided for some reason to trust despots with their countries,so somehow thats all britains fault i suppose?

Dont forget also that any good british PM or military officer was a colonial or fought in colonial wars,also dont forget that over 3/4 of britains army came from colonies at one point,in fact do we forget who it was who really took harfleur?it was the welsh,it was the irish who saved afghanistan from the russians and it was the indians who took down the mad king theodore of abyssinia,it was canadians who finally took down paul kruger and his boer army,it was iroquois that defeated the americans in 1812,yes they were all led by and supplemented with british forces but the england itself was not very strong, it was british trained and educated people who led almost every revolution movement (george washington was the leader of the british army in the states ,gandhi was born in africa)also everything that we enjoy in life was invented by the british or by their colonies and the only reason they exist is because of the colonies.

Also, as ive constantly been saying, why is any time a person who isn't white commits mass genocide its all ok?for example what do you think of when you hear Isan'lwana? lemme guess....you think its a great and glorious victory,and what about Rorkes Drift?lemme guess again....those poor,poor zulus?another example...when the yanks burned york to the ground what do you think?i suppose you think that it was a great thing and you think its funny...what about when the brits burned washington and the white house?an atrocity i suppose?thats it,you all think britain is bad without thinking of anything done to them....so as such i will only admit any abnormal wrongdoing on britains behalf if anyone can tell me why having normans in britain is such a great thing,it was so amazing and so beneficial etc,etc...and why having brits in africa is a terrible thing,a war crime, etc,etc.

If i may,i would like to use things from other forums...most notably the topic entitled "Tibet will never be free" now i didn't look at every post in that forum but most of the ones i did were all in agreement about things like tibet is so much more prosperous and more advanced now so its ok for the chinese to stay there forever...now substitute the word british in for chinese,and colonial in for tibet...and anyone who agreed with people on that forum would have to be complete hypocrites to disagree with what i'm saying.

O and by the way...again with the britain was no worse than___ point...if you are anti-british colonialism then you must be,unless you are a hypocrite (o my,i am using that word a lot lately aren't i?) you must agree that israel has no more right to exist than the british empire (what was done differently?they took the land from the people who lived there,arabs,they oppressed them,and still do,and they use the lands they took,including the golan heights and the west bank,to support themselves) so therefore...all those forums about poor israel.. keep in mind that they are exactly the same as britain(even though britain created israel)

Another reason people used to say it wasn't justified was the loss of culture,the nations britain took over were forced to adopt several british policies(though they kept their language)so by that logic,you must agree that the moors invading and forcing their culture onto spain,and the normans forcing feudalism of england is just as bad,if not worse than what britain did(also,though the brits did send missionaries and somewhat persecute the non-christians,they did allow the other religions to exist,hence why hinduism and islam are not extinct)So,answer me this,do we all still hate the normans?no we don't and if you think about it,then that is horribly wrong because why does what year people died in make a difference?so until i get paid some reparations from the normans,i will not admit that we should pay reparations to the blacks.

Just wondering people,but do any of you know what the WW2 wolfpacks were?they were german U-boats that attacked and decimated convoys. You know what those convoys were?they were the only things keeping britain from total annihilation,you all forget just how small and actually quite resource poor britain is,and almost every single one of those colonies departed from Halifax,in other words canada was the only thing keeping hitler from winning the war,you know that there is very little oil on the mainland of western and central europemin other words until britain learned how to get at the north sea oil...they had to import it all.And all of that oil came with the convoys,from canada.Those convoys carried hundreds of thousands of tonnes of oil,food,metal and wood across the atlantic ocean...you think that there is even the slightest shred of hope for britain if it had no oil or metal which made almost all the bullets,planes,tanks and ships that stopped hitler from winning.Also,do you know who hitlers best military leader was?it was Rommel...where was rommel?Egypt,fighting Montgomery,you do all realize that if germany had oil,then there would be no chance in hell of any possibility of defeating them,that much is obvious,hitler wouldn't have sent rommel to capture palestine if it wasn't the most desirable target,if they had oil then they would have been unstoppable,and just think for a second...egypt and palestine were both protected by britain,as such they were relatively safe from germany BUT,do you think for a second that the natives could have held out even the italian army for more than...lets say a week?no,it would have taken only hours to march through the pathetic native resistance and then it would have been a matter of days before the oil reaches germany.

Look,can we all agree that,compared to any other of the colonial empires(which include japan,china,portugal spain,holland,the US,germany,russia,the ottomans and france)that britain was better?because if so,you see...every where britain went was in fact previously under foreign control,india was divided between portugal,france and britain before britain took complete control,france germany britain russia and japan all competed for influence and territory in china,palestine and the french colony of syria both used to be under the cruel grip of ottoman control,canada was under french control,the US was divided between spain,france and holland,south africa and the entire cape colony(including the orange free state and the transvaal)was under dutch control,all of britains carribean and south american colonies were taken from france or holland(i think belize might have been under spanish or portugese control though) australia was also a dutch possession before britain took control,british somaliland was taken from italy,british east africa was taken from germany,the west african colonies were taken from portugal,spain and france,greeks,romans byzantines,arabs,mamelukes,ottoman turks and the french all held egypt before britain took it,after the egyptians became free,sudan became under anglo-egyptian control,and you know all that stuff about the horrible treatment of native americans,that was mostly america not britain,in fact one of the main causes of the revolution was so that the americans could steal native land that britain had deemed off limits.The only independent prior to britain colonies were malta,cyprus,wales,scotland and ireland...and despite IRA attacks in ireland,and greek-turkish division of the island of cyprus,all those places are very prosperous.

Lets look a bit at a comparison of colonies shall we?what country has the worlds highest standard of living?The answer is the former british colony of the United Arab Emirates....What countries make up the worlds biggest economies?former british colonies of USA,China and India,Canada has the worlds 9th biggest economy which is also quite impressive. Whereas Haiti..a french colony..is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. Look at British colony is Belize compared to Spanish colony in Guatemala....britain still has an army stationed in Belize to protect it from guatemalan invasions,and Belize is also among the most advanced of all the central american(including mexico)nations...Guatemala is among the poorest, British Somalia compared to Italian Somalia...a government(not a very good government mind you) compared to a band of rival warlords...which do you think is better? British colony of Egypt compared to Italian colony of Libya...Egypt aint perfect i know but still,.compared to Libya it is paradise,British Palestine compared to the former Ottoman colonies in Arabia and the French colony of Syria...Now we all know that Palestine is war-torn because of british and UN divisions of the country and since Israel has annexed almost the entire area,forcing the Palestinians to become refugees or to suffer immensely under Israeli rule...but Israel still is damned sight better than Syria or Jordan. All the prosperous arabian nations with the exception of Saudi Arabia were british colonies...Qatar,UAE,Bahrain,Oman...however Iraq was a british protectorate and Yemen was also a british colony so im not saying that they did no harm at all.

I still dont get why the only people who are deemed OK to kill are the europeans..i mean the Mad Mahdi was a horrible,monstrously cruel person to say the least,and hes considered a hero just because he killed Chinese Gordan?that makes no sense to me...The aztecs sacrified over 200,000,000 people in one year to their gods...and that was ok,people idolize and respect the aztecs for doing that...the spanish kill the aztecs in the name of christianisty,and they're monsters for it?Oda Nobunaga buys guns,ironclads and professional european armies and uses them to massacre his enemies and and unites Japan...and hes a hero, a god-like figure in japanese history,completely glorified in every way for this...And yet the French kill two iroquois chiefs with harquebuses and their the worst people ever to live in the world apparently? The afghans under the leadership of Babur conquer most of india...they are heroes for doing so because they didn't destroy hinduism...the british conquer india and also dont destroy hinduism...and they are deemed brutal oppressors for this?The Chinese occupy Tibet,a couple token protests and half-assed boycotts take place but common sentiment seems to be that Tibet should never be free because they are more modernized,they used to be a feudal and monarchic society...every british colony was modernized and their oppressive monarchs are torn down and democracy was introduced...common sentiment remains that they were the most brutal and horrific empire in history for doing so?

Also,why was it that during the Boer war in south africa,when the british finally started winning and managed to start taking cities did the millions of Zulus,Bantus,Basutos and Swazis who lived in those Boer cities hold huge festivals and celebrations when they heard that they were now part of the British empire?the reason is simple...they much preferred to be part of britain than be under the control of Paul Kruger,same goes for why once america became independent did hundreds of thousands of natives flee to Canada?Notice that the population of native people in Canada is vastly higher than the amount of natives in the US,reason is simple, the british were much nicer to the natives whom they held as allies,not that that stopped them from crushing the half-breed rebellion in the 1880's,but still...you notice where the british wanted the natives to live compared to americans:British,royal proclamation decrees that native land is sovereign and belongs to the natives and the colonials are not allowed to infringe this land,this results in massive native armies defending british interests from land-hungry americans.Americans pass the reservation act which sends millions of natives to live on barren wastelands bereft of any usable resources,this causes the trail of tears and the sioux war involving the famous battle of little bighorn.....This was summed up best by one of the 2 million or so americans who were massacred,raped,beaten,robbed and exiled to canada,he said that he found it wrong for a group of people to force freedom down the throats of those who didn't want their kind of "help"
This is also evident during both american invasions of japan(first under admiral perry and then during WW2)when the bulk of the japanese population actually rejoiced that their own failed governments were going to collapse to modernized western people,and yet for some reason or another it is deemed by many that admiral perry was right to force trade upon japan...but why is it that no one ever accepts that it was just as right for britain to force trade upon china?

People seem to be trying to use China as an example of colonialism not being justifiable...but heres a little tidbit you might like,pre opium war China was the most decadent,pathetic,backward and arrogant nation on the earth(except of course for the ottomans) post opium war China was a superpower...i doubt that is a coincidence,same goes for Japan,before the american invasion by Admiral Perry,Japan was a war-torn godforsaken nation with virtually no modern technology,after the americans forced advancement upon Japan,it too became a superpower...and since america is a former british colony,britain is indirectly responsible for starting the Meiji restoration...and since india only exists because of britain...that makes china,japan and india-the three modern asian superpowers-a result of british colonialism,so therefore colonialism is justified for the asians as it is the only reason that they exist right now,also,japan would still be a monarchy run by bad emporers being run further and further into the ground if not for the americans dropping a bomb made from uranium mined in canada...so unless you are that much of an idiot to honestly believe that japan was not a bad guy in WWll...then you realize that their empire of extreme brutality and oppression would still exist,china,korea and parts of russia would remain under their thumb...you know that in every nation that became independent from england,at least part of the house of commons supported them?it happened for southern ireland,for america,for canada,for india and for china...i can guarantee you that there would not be a sinlge man women or child in japan who would want the colonies to be cut loose,and even if their was then they would definitely not be in any place of power to actually do anything about it.

Honestly it is almost hilarious how so many people want the benefits of being under british rule(having an economy,industry,democracy,etc)but dont want any of the downsides,like paying taxes to britain... honestly racism doesnt mean it has to be white people doing the oppressing.....has nobody ever heard of algiers? people all say "o poor algeria being a french colony" what about poor white people...millions of irish,french,greek,italian and english civillians and sailors were forced into the most brutal form of slavery,but nobody cares because its only an inhumane atrocity if the bad guy is white,really people out there have these ideas that aztecs,incans and even the zulus were in any way enlightened or advanced...they say that its OK to kill a couple million to the sun god...after all,some of them thought they would go to heaven...theres a very similar belief around now..its called suicide bombing,they kill for religion and go to heaven afterwords,so that must be nice,we should stop trying to stop them and let them do it if they want.

Do you know the main difference between Canada and the States?,well apart from the standard of living, education,health care(canada is better in those areas),economy,military(thats where america is better) and those more well known things its simply that americans are land hungry people,this is evident simply because you can see america is so drained of resources because they exhausted them,Canada has huge amounts of oil,wood,farmland,fish and minerals because the British weren't idiotic enough to drain the resources that fast,notice how americans forced the natives onto reservations and then took all their land while britain deemed several native territories off limits... also,people think its cruel to control India and force the Indians to work the land while the whites get rich,kinda funny how more than half the Indian plantations were owned by Indians...also,ever heard of a certain man named Ouluhembe?he was one of the richest land owners in the Carribean..he was also famous for being a black man who ran a plantation worked entirely by black slaves,but in his defence he never took any slaves from his own tribe,only from tribes he thought were inferior enough to be slaves,also, ever hear of the Miskito tribe?they sent an emmisary to england to beg,thats right they begged,for england to take over their territory,the reason for this is simple,they knew that if england didn't protect them then spain would crush them.

Its almost funny what problems people won't blame on the british....get this straight,muslims hated jews and christians,christians hated muslims and jews,jews hated christians and muslims,blacks hated whites,hindus hated muslims,all of these were present before the british even understood that there was a land across the atlantic ocean,hell it existed before most brits even realized there was life beyond the channel...the reason for the hostilities between Pakistan and India date back to the days of the Mughal Empire,Babur and his descendants(like Ackbar)were Muslims from Afghanistan...they were overthrown by Hindus,ever since then they have hated each other,all Britain did was turn civil war into regular war by removing the muslims and putting them in Pakistan,also,we all are quick to point the finger at Britain for the Israel-Palestine conflict...i guess no one on this site knows what the League of Nations is then,Syria and Palestine were both provinces and colonies of the Ottoman Empire,after the Ottomans were defeated by a British-led Arab revolt and British-backed leaders like Kemul Attaturk took power,the Ottoman colonies in africa,the middle east and the balkans all were quite pathetic,Greece fortunately bounced back eventually but the League of Nations decided that Britain should take care of Palestine and France should take Syria... so in other words,Britain didn't take Palestine spontaneously,they were told to take it,and you know who started the partition?Again,Britain couldn't control the extremist Zionist terrorists,so they asked the League of Nations for help,the answer was to make Jerusalem multi-national,and then the rest of Palestine would be divided,at first Israel accpeted this and the Arab League did not,then the Israelis defended themselves from an attack and then took over all of Palestines territory,refused to give it back and brutally oppressed the people,this leads to the Arab league and the PLO(palestinian liberation organization)to use that as a claim,they use that claim to justify their actions to this day,so you see although once the LoN decided that palestine should be split and the jews agreed,from that point on the arabs are more or less the "bad guys" and before that the jews were the "bad guys" for all the terrorist attacks and the whole thing is just a bitter cycle of bidotry and hatred on both sides,its attack and counter-attack and then attack again,it never ends....And somehow that is ENTIRELY Britains fault,no fault of the rest of the worlds governments who actually divided the country,no fault of the people for their intolerance at all,its all the Brits,everyone else is some kind of innocent bystander who couldn't hurt a fly until Britain invented war,invented hunger,invented disease and strife and misery and hatred.

Lets see what certain nations have to show from being colonies...Canada and America,they are both G8 members with two of the strongest economies,armies,standards of living and wealth in the world thanks to British rule...Myanmar,deep seated instability and poverty caused almost entirely by Japanese and British occupation...Algeria,most importantly Algiers,heart of the Muslim worlds enormous slave trade operations,poverty and slums,Islamic state religion and the French rule did little to help ease their situation however,Algeria is quite prosperous if you compare it to its more southern neighbours...Basutoland,after decades of horrific Zulu occupation Basutoland became the worlds biggest refugee camp,under British,Dutch and South African rule it became the thriving heartland of South Africa...Jamaica and Barbados,sugar was the most important resource on Earth a few centuries ago,and so Britain placed special care in keeping its chief sugar colonies alive and well,as such they are the wealthiest nations in the Americas south of the US....Egypt was a colony for more than 2000 years to many different powers,cruel Turkish overlords attempted to wipe out the Egyptian culture by desecrating priceless ruins,greedy Europeans stole priceless artifacts but didn't destroy as many as the Egyptians and Turks did but the benefits of such mixed rule is that Egypt is by far the most secular nation in the middle east with the possible exception of Turkey,and also that the lingual and cultural types of Egypt are extremely varied,also Egypt has the strongest and stablest economy in north Africa...Belize,their very existence is only guaranteed by the fact that an entirely British army defends them from violent and greedy enemies in Guatemala who want to control Belize,just like British forces stopped greedy Americas who clung to the cult-like ideals of manifest destiny,the belief that America had the god given right to liberate and rule North America...whether or not anyone wanted to be liberated.
463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Paris
Offline
Posted 11/2/08
NO.
232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / AR
Offline
Posted 11/2/08
NEVER!!!
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/2/08
If you ignore all of the genocide, destruction of entire cultures, slavery, and near-extinction of some animal species that it caused, then it's not so bad.
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 11/2/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:

If you ignore all of the genocide, destruction of entire cultures, slavery, and near-extinction of some animal species that it caused, then it's not so bad.


but it did create america

altho it wasn't their intention lol
Posted 11/6/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:

If you ignore all of the genocide, destruction of entire cultures, slavery, and near-extinction of some animal species that it caused, then it's not so bad.


So...none of those things existed prior?
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/7/08

Adaephon wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:

If you ignore all of the genocide, destruction of entire cultures, slavery, and near-extinction of some animal species that it caused, then it's not so bad.


So...none of those things existed prior?


As far as I know, none of that occurred in the areas they colonized before they arrived, except maybe the animals being hunted to extinction thing. And if it did, it's not as well-known as when it happened during European colonization, so it's easier to feel sorry for them.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/7/08 , edited 11/7/08
Your whole shitty argument is nullified by the fact that the British Empire never intended to release these colonies from their military and economic subjugation. Not to mention these by-products do not come directly from British rule and the ones that were implemented were only done so to soldify their power. All your points are flimsy and can be easily refuted by anyone with a basic knowledge of history.
5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 11/7/08
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 11/7/08

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Adaephon wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:

If you ignore all of the genocide, destruction of entire cultures, slavery, and near-extinction of some animal species that it caused, then it's not so bad.


So...none of those things existed prior?


As far as I know, none of that occurred in the areas they colonized before they arrived, except maybe the animals being hunted to extinction thing. And if it did, it's not as well-known as when it happened during European colonization, so it's easier to feel sorry for them.


Under Shaka,the zulu empire extended to cover a very large portion of southern and central africa,the nations he conquered were subjugated and enslaved,the aztec empire took millions of captives at a time to be sacrificed,hundreds of tribes were wiped out and many more were used as livestock,they forced them to breed in order to have a fresh supply of sacrifices at hand,the tribes of the northwest of north america,along the pacific shore on british columbia,slavery thrived as the haida,squamish and dozens of other tribes fought for supremecy,and whenever they conquered a new area,they took the conquered people as slaves,or they killed them,the algonkin tribe of north america was all but wiped out by the blackfoot tribe.
10599 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / bOx
Offline
Posted 11/7/08
i am not a britsh
21144 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / PLANTS
Offline
Posted 11/8/08
i think this wont lead to anything...the british only colonized other country to gain power and to have trade with them..
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 11/11/08 , edited 11/26/08

Adaephon wrote:



For? - http://www.british-israel.ca/colonialism.pdf

Against? - http://www.countercurrents.org/uk-khan220905.htm

Slave trade was really ended due in fact to Samuel Sharpe
Samuel Sharpe, a slave whose uprising or rebellion in Jamaica 1831, British colony was the major contributing reason to why the slave trade was ended by the British.

Hong Kong was the result of Britain forcing Opium into China and prospered more due to the industrious nature of their people
Hong Kong was seceded to Britain due to the Opium wars (1839-1860), by which Britain forced Opium trade into China by which the Chinese government tried to prevent because of the harmful effects of Opium (addiction), which resulted in the Opium wars which China lost in. After World War 2, Hong Kong become more industrious as more immigrants fled a communist China and help grew the textile and manufacturing industry.

Malaya and Singapore
Singapore despite its small size was considered the crown jewel of Britain for helping the country (strategic location) win the trade wars (securing the spice routes to China) with the Dutch in the 1800s and securing Malaya which was rich in resources of tin and rubber with the Anglo-Dutch treaty. During the days of British colonialism, more often the British settlers were separated from the natives and the colony was left on its own, and there was overcrowding, crime and spread of disease. The situation became so bad that the British had to intervene as for fear that the disease or crime will affect their own settlers as well.

Justifiable?
When you said whether British colonialism was justified? Justified means an action done with good reason, In this case it was justified for more of the British side, that securing the middle east for oil, the malaya for their natural resources tin and rubber, India for their spices and men of arms, was more to secure British interests or profits and not some noble reason of population control or spread of religion. But at what price do those whom they conquered, was it justified for them?

References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sharpe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire
http://uk.geocities.com/tafk2/sneeze/decolonisation_of_malaysia.htm

23428 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / F / Missouri
Offline
Posted 11/11/08
I do not beieve in colonialism
3090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / The Kingdom
Offline
Posted 11/11/08 , edited 11/11/08
Its like saying, "Was it right for the Romans to invade the British Isles?"

It happened, They did some bad things but they also brought with them some decent improvements too. (Aquaducts, Basic sanitation, Trade ETC)

Just like modern times the American Empire has brought some awesome improvements to the world, For example: McDonalds... Ummmmmmm? Yep!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.