First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Do belive that british colonialism was justifiable
12079 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / location location...
Offline
Posted 11/23/08 , edited 11/23/08
Bloody hell, that's almost a page..
Well its survival of the fittest. Whichever country had the most land was considered the most powerful not to mention trading was the top priority among fellow Europeans. Natural resources were required to outbeat other nations. So colonisation is just a way to survive and improve.

Besides, the Brits got a flag
Eddie Izzard says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/23/08

makimaki_sataandagi wrote:

Bloody hell, that's almost a page..
Well its survival of the fittest. Whichever country had the most land was considered the most powerful not to mention trading was the top priority among fellow Europeans. Natural resources were required to outbeat other nations. So colonisation is just a way to survive and improve.


At the height of imperial power for most countries, it took more money and resources to maintain rule than they actually got out of those colonies. So Social Darwinism does not apply to this example. Misconceived ideas don't materialize into fact.
4659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / over the hills an...
Offline
Posted 11/23/08 , edited 11/23/08
NO!!!!!!

joking ... yes the british rule
12079 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / location location...
Offline
Posted 11/24/08

leviathan343 wrote:


makimaki_sataandagi wrote:

Bloody hell, that's almost a page..
Well its survival of the fittest. Whichever country had the most land was considered the most powerful not to mention trading was the top priority among fellow Europeans. Natural resources were required to outbeat other nations. So colonisation is just a way to survive and improve.


At the height of imperial power for most countries, it took more money and resources to maintain rule than they actually got out of those colonies. So Social Darwinism does not apply to this example. Misconceived ideas don't materialize into fact.


I actually read the whole post, but I'm in a state of confusion now.
Since I live in Malaysia(formerly known as Malaya), my facts are based on what I've learned about this country's past.

Maintaining a colony takes plenty of money but do you think that the Brits would spend any penny on the locals. English schools were built by missionaries but they were expensive not to mention the introduction of English wasn't well recognised among the locals. So instead Vernacular schools were built so that the locals had a chance to receive education. There was a lack of man power which resulted in higher education being given to the locals. Brits started giving opportunities to the locals as to lessen the burden. Social Darwinism? I think not.

E.g. Malaya, at that time had 3 major race. If these 3 races were to join forces and rebel against the British government, it would cause many casualties. That is why the Brits had these 3 races divided, each in different sectors such as, Malays were given a chance to work for the government = better pay, some Malays were left in rural areas. Chinese, were to work in digging sites, for tin was a major resource at that time and were mainly in the city, doing business and trading. Indians, were rubber tappers. Laws and human rights were emitted, causing disharmony among the nation.

If you were to compare European rule and the native rule in Malaya ( portugal and holand once ruled Malaya)
The country has improved a lot. When the West first invaded Malaya, it was knives against guns. Trading had already been started by then but it was put to the full scale. This caused the population to increase, same goes to technology. People lives improved, hospitals were built in major cities. The British didn't pamper the locals, they just made sure that their workers wouldn't die off or run away. When communism started gaining popularity, people's lives improved as well since the Brits didn't want the locals siding with the communist.

If the Brits hadn't colonise, a country might still be undeveloped for the colonisation had lighten up the love for their mother land in their hearts. This caused leaders to rise up and fight for freedom, these leaders after achieving independence were able to lead the country forward. People started realising that word could bring peace, it wasn't all about firearms and manpower. Due to the Brits prioritising the export of rubber and crude oil palm, Malayasia now has a stable agriculture foundation.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that The British colonisation had indeed benefited certain colonies and at the same time caused displeasure. There were pros and cons. I'm not siding with the Brits or against them. From my point of view, if it wasn't for the British Malaya would not be of today, a third world country. But because of the Brits, there is racist discrimination right now, due to special privileges given to the Malays in the past. I agree on the fact that the British colonisation in Malaya was beneficial.

I have not studied other colonies' history about the British colonisation therefore I cannot judge the state the other colonies were in.
18998 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 11/24/08

Nope not at all...It ruined my country (sri Lanka) and even today we're still a developing country becuase of the changes made by them.. In the past we never depended on other countries..But today almost everything is imported.. The british colonialism was one of the main reasons that today Sri Lanka is going though a really bad war between the Sinhalase and the tamils after the misunderstanding which they arose amongst the 2 races..And this is on aspect that's delaying our country to develop if there was no war we could easily develop since Sri Lanka is a country that's blessed with natural resourse etc
Posted 11/24/08

Miyurox wrote:


Nope not at all...It ruined my country (sri Lanka) and even today we're still a developing country becuase of the changes made by them.. In the past we never depended on other countries..But today almost everything is imported.. The british colonialism was one of the main reasons that today Sri Lanka is going though a really bad war between the Sinhalase and the tamils after the misunderstanding which they arose amongst the 2 races..And this is on aspect that's delaying our country to develop if there was no war we could easily develop since Sri Lanka is a country that's blessed with natural resourse etc


Oh come now you people did not know about wheel barrels before the British came in.
3491 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Belgium
Offline
Posted 11/24/08
Well Imperialism is always good for the Imperialist, only in a certain degree for the "subjects". 19th century Imperialsim is what made today's world: the poor of those days are still poor, and the rich of those days even get more rich. One exception is the USA who started their semi-colonisation during ww1.

Basically Colonialism is about sucking dry one country, and bring cheap ressources back home. For us Europeans, it was - and still is (think about the third world) - a good thing. We also pretend(ed) that it's good for those who are ruled. English were masters in that: bringing gradually change for the better to those underdevelopped country in order to prevent them from revolting.
1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/24/08 , edited 11/24/08
It is justifiable from an imperial standpoint. Every country believes themselves to be the best, and what other way is there to go about proving this than to assert dominance over as many other people as you possibly can?

It's also true that the English/British did not randomly just decide that colonizing places would be a good idea. England was jealous of the early start that Spain and Portugal got on extracting wealth from South and central America, so to survive in Europe one had to start looking outside of the continent to ensure their country's future prosperity.

It's just that the wealth of England's empire outdid any previous one that came before it.. and since its wealth was greater, its poverty was also proportionally greater. However, it is true that England's economical and political systems were more developed than other European nations, naturally allowing it to build its empire more easily and effectively.

The effects of colonizing are of course still evident in certain parts of the world, and for the most part they are deplorable.

But when you consider the opposite of colonizing.. if in the 16th centuries and on England had decided to take a true moral high ground and treat its own citizens humanely and conceive of themselves as just another part of the world, they would have been destroyed by Spain or France or whichever other European nation decided to invade them.

So is it justifiable? Yes.
1288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
A small place in...
Offline
Posted 11/26/08

ruee102 wrote:

It is justifiable from an imperial standpoint. Every country believes themselves to be the best, and what other way is there to go about proving this than to assert dominance over as many other people as you possibly can?

It's also true that the English/British did not randomly just decide that colonizing places would be a good idea. England was jealous of the early start that Spain and Portugal got on extracting wealth from South and central America, so to survive in Europe one had to start looking outside of the continent to ensure their country's future prosperity.



makimaki_sataandagi wrote:

Bloody hell, that's almost a page..
Well its survival of the fittest. Whichever country had the most land was considered the most powerful not to mention trading was the top priority among fellow Europeans. Natural resources were required to outbeat other nations. So colonisation is just a way to survive and improve.

Besides, the Brits got a flag
Eddie Izzard says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k


As more countries colonized, no longer a means of survival but to show off Prestige among nations.
The small size, of Britain, growing population and growing industry as well as the need to gather resources to compete with other European nations started out based on that, to conquer and colonize other countries so as to grow their country but it turn into something else when they started colonizing countries after countries. Between all these colonial powers, Holland, Britain, Germany, Spain, France it wasn't a matter of survival anymore, it became a matter of prestige, to show off their power, Was Imperialism justified then?

Imagine a small group of people in those old style banquets who obtain their wealth from a lot of people underneath them but now parading diamond rings and fur coats among them. The same reasons that you gave for Britain colonizing, small size, growing population, survival was the same reasons Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and invaded China and parts of South East Asia, including a majority of British colonies in World War 2.


They are savage, we gave them invention. They are better off now,
I noticed a lot of people posting the benefits of British colonization and how colonization brought about invention and benefited their lives now. Yet I spoke before on alternatives to colonization which have benefited countries during colonial times instead such as Japan and Siam now known as Thailand where due to enlightened leaders in Japan and Thailand and colonial power deciding not to invade them, where European experts in different aspects were invited and trade was allowed.

There are ALTERNATIVES to colonization which colonial powers could have done instead of colonizing such as trading peacefully and sharing of ideas or invention between one another. These alternatives can just as well bring in invention and new ideas between one another. Just because a country is less advanced or lacking in certain parts does not mean that you should invade in the long run as these "savages" in the long run will gain new ideas or invention because shared ideas or invention can be obtained alternatively. Note that with shared ideas, the western world are seeing the benefits of Eastern medicine and exercise (eg. acupuncture) and even Indian form of exercise (eg. yoga).

My Past thread - http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-372030/Do-belive-that-british-colonialism-was-justifiable.html?pg=1#18946509



Good points from Stephykot87 - colonialism provide benefits (above spoiler)
StephyKot87 provided an excellent article read http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i35/35b00701.htm, from a past thread, where an Indian spoke how British colonialism had brought about great change for the country, where the descendants of British colonialism have improved as Britain, where Britain brought about western civilization. The author also reinforced his point by explaining that certain parts of Africa now have suffered because had not enough western civilization that, the country was too under colonized, and had undergo too little colonial rule thus not enough exposure to western civilization.

Indian freedom movement and enlightened leaders cause of potential of India's descendants now
The Indian's author explanation to explain away the success of the descendants purely on colonialism is somewhat misplaced. The success of the descendants is primarily because the descendants are able to achieve their full potential without the chain of colonial rule over their heads, and this was primarily achieved because of the loss of lives by the Indian freedom fighters from the Sepoy rebellion of 1857, the alleged British lack of sensitivities to Sepoys with the use of cow and pig fat used in rifle catridges, to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Salt March to Dandi in 1930, an act of organized opposition to British rule. With Indian independence, the Indians leaders took positive aspects of Western civilization thus benefiting Indian descendants now.

Africa remains a poor nation largely due not to under-colonialism (as quoted in the article provided by Stephykot87), a lack of exposure to western ideas, but of misrule from its leaders (some of these leader have western ideas and implemented them) and to some extend foreign intervention in parts of Africa. This deserves a whole new Topic and threads by itself on the state of Africa now so I won't elaborate on this.

My Past Threads:
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-372030/Do-belive-that-british-colonialism-was-justifiable.html#18594100

References:
Posted 11/27/08 , edited 11/30/08

leviathan343 wrote:


makimaki_sataandagi wrote:

Bloody hell, that's almost a page..
Well its survival of the fittest. Whichever country had the most land was considered the most powerful not to mention trading was the top priority among fellow Europeans. Natural resources were required to outbeat other nations. So colonisation is just a way to survive and improve.


At the height of imperial power for most countries, it took more money and resources to maintain rule than they actually got out of those colonies. So Social Darwinism does not apply to this example. Misconceived ideas don't materialize into fact.


But while they lost money,machinery and human life they gained resources they didn't have but needed such as oil,gems,many types of minerals and woods,foodstuffs, spices etc.which were far more valuable than simple cash and without these resources they couldn't have built the industries that put britain so far ahead of the rest of europe,no cotton=no mass production of cloth which means no industrial revolution and then britain loses its only advantage over the mainland,with colonies they became the fittest country on the planet at the time and were able to beat the weaker nations,such as napoleonic france,so the colonies were needed for survival.
200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Chennai,India
Offline
Posted 11/27/08
Actually the current Indian eduction system, law and order, the side of the road we drive on, railway infrastructure, civil service, Indian's amazing proficiency in English are actually due to the British rule.

I don't think Britishers are blind conquerors or marauders.

If they had treated the citizens of their principalities on par with their citizens then many would have accepted British rule.

In fact British made India a single Nation,literally speaking as before that it was just a sub continent with many states , principalities or mini countries which constantly fought against each other
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 11/28/08
I would say the colonialism itself (people settling in another land) is justifiable as it is survival. However, the massacres and religious persecution (forcing everyone to be Anglican) was wrong. I think the exploitation of the nations was a terrible atrocity. Of course, a few good things have come from the British colonialism (USA, Australia, Canada, and several other developed and developing nations)
5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 11/29/08
your post was a fucking essay!!!
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 12/2/08

digs wrote:

I would say the colonialism itself (people settling in another land) is justifiable as it is survival. However, the massacres and religious persecution (forcing everyone to be Anglican) was wrong. I think the exploitation of the nations was a terrible atrocity. Of course, a few good things have come from the British colonialism (USA, Australia, Canada, and several other developed and developing nations)


Colonialism is survival? Really? Please show examples of this.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/08
People being oppressed in one land and moving to another. When a land can no longer support a population, when jobs are no longer avalible... People have always had to relocate to survive.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.