First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Do belive that british colonialism was justifiable
2724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / big UK chinatown
Offline
Posted 12/2/08
the british always treated there colonies with respect and they flourished u notice these former colonies still have there mother tongue languages , hong kong , nigeria , south africa.

compere to the french colonies who murdered and made everyone learn french. Sudan, Niger , Haiti.

if france had colonized hong kong no one would speak Cantonese there. Britain had the most respect for the fellow human being no one can say that they dont. thats why the uk is top of the human rights league table.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 12/2/08 , edited 12/2/08

digs wrote:

People being oppressed in one land and moving to another. When a land can no longer support a population, when jobs are no longer available... People have always had to relocate to survive.


Where are the examples of this in British colonialism? Not to mention, this was never an implemented reason for colonialism.

How does oppression begin to equate with population controls?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/08
I mean people who are oppressed by their government (Like the Pilgrims) Why is colonialism such a hated thing? Most of the colonized countries developed into thriving nations (Hong Kong, US, Canada, Australia). It helped them move away from feudal systems and establish economies. All of the colonies recieved independance, and in Brittans case, the only negative thing I have heard is that they had heavy taxation on the colonies. Injustice is bad, but peaceful colonization is acceptible.
2104 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F
Offline
Posted 12/5/08
Colonisation and oppression are two sides of the same coin.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 12/6/08 , edited 12/6/08

treasonirish wrote:

the british always treated there colonies with respect and they flourished u notice these former colonies still have there mother tongue languages , hong kong , nigeria , south africa.

compere to the french colonies who murdered and made everyone learn french. Sudan, Niger , Haiti.

if france had colonized hong kong no one would speak Cantonese there. Britain had the most respect for the fellow human being no one can say that they dont. thats why the uk is top of the human rights league table.


Ha ha.. haha

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

The lie is strong within you, young padawan.

Colonialism is all about exploiting poor people to do menial labor, and it always has been. Don't ever lose sight of this when your society and higher ups throw their bullshit at you.
5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/7/08 , edited 12/7/08
dats a fucking essay! my answer is HELL NOOOOOOO!!!
Posted 12/7/08
There are more negatives from colonization then positives. Enough said.
Posted 12/7/08 , edited 12/10/08

treasonirish wrote:

the british always treated there colonies with respect and they flourished u notice these former colonies still have there mother tongue languages , hong kong , nigeria , south africa.

compere to the french colonies who murdered and made everyone learn french. Sudan, Niger , Haiti.

if france had colonized hong kong no one would speak Cantonese there. Britain had the most respect for the fellow human being no one can say that they dont. thats why the uk is top of the human rights league table.


I beg to differ. That was just rather present or in the modern times. you know. A few hundred years British didn't treat that Africans with respect in fact. Africa used to be a highly civilized empire. Example: The Spanish didn't understand there way of cutlure and thought they worshipped the devil. This lead to what Africa is right now. British did that with native americans... now the native americans have a lost of culture and pride. Native americans used to be happy and had a paradise.. till they came around. Small pox, muscle pain, corruption.
Posted 12/9/08 , edited 12/13/08

Ragnaroks_Riot wrote:


treasonirish wrote:

the british always treated there colonies with respect and they flourished u notice these former colonies still have there mother tongue languages , hong kong , nigeria , south africa.

compere to the french colonies who murdered and made everyone learn french. Sudan, Niger , Haiti.

if france had colonized hong kong no one would speak Cantonese there. Britain had the most respect for the fellow human being no one can say that they dont. thats why the uk is top of the human rights league table.


I beg to differ. That was just rather present or in the modern times. you know. A few hundred years British didn't treat that Africans with respect in fact. Africa used to be a highly civilized empire. The British didn't understand there way of cutlure and thought they worshipped the devil. This lead to what Africa is right now. British did that with native americans... now the native americans have a lost of culture and pride. Native americans used to be happy and had a paradise.. till they came around. Small pox, muscle pain, corruption.


If u call mass genocide and bitter wars a paradise,well..only the natives from the south were into the mass genocide bit,except when the inuit killed every single tunit,but the hurons were all too happy to accept french help in killing every last iroquois,until britain joined on the iroquois side and saved them,and even then its becuase of the americans,not the brits that the natives lost so much culture,sure the brits weren't that tolerant,but they gave the natives the right to own their cultural lands (the royal proclamation,one of the key points of the american revolution)the iroquois confederacy,especially the mohawks(due to inspirational men like molly brant and john norton and the heroic deeds done during the war of 1812 by chief tecumseh and his peers) were given more rights than any other native group that has ever been colonized by britain,until of course the americans took those rights away and passed the reservation act,but it was the spanish and portugese who killed tonnes of aztecs and incas (who kinda had it coming,sacrificing millions and keeping humans as livestock for sacrifices is bad,just as bad as the massacre and slavery that the conquistadors inflicted upon them) but the brits and french up north were allies and trading partners to the iroquois and hurons,and yes,there is no excuse for the ways the africans were treated,but all i can say is that,britain was fairer than the other europeans;egyptians,zulus,swazis and a few other tribes were...not treated well by in any way,but they were treated better than most other tribes in the areas and just to say it,the zulu empire was just as bad as the british empire and so were the different arabic empires who controlled north africa,but regardless,saying they were better is still not good enough for how bad they were treated,but on the subject of north america,those tribes were treated considerably well,even though general geoffrey tried to wipe out some people using smallpox blankets,and for a time the natives got ripped off during the trades,the natives eventually learned how to hold out for better deals,also it was iroquois and hurons who convinced the french and british to help them wipe out rival tribes such as the algonkins who were nearly wiped out entirely,and it is chief donnaconna of the hurons fault that canada was even colonized by the french,if they didn't think that magical kingdoms and hoards of riches and spices were to be had they wouldn't have stayed too long,but he wanted the french millitary aid and so he tricked them into staying and into trying to massacre the iroquois.And yes,the iroquois had a great form of government,very female dominated though which is quite interesting really from a historical point of view but the point is,britain brought three things that you cannot call bad to all their colonies:Economies,Industry(and hand in hand with that is resouce exploitation),and Democracy(though a few colonies had a sort of democracy already)And so you think that places like egypt,saudi arabia and the united arab emirates who have the worlds highest standard of living,a standard of living higher than britain,could have that without the knowledge to exploit petroleum?its possible for sure,but unlikely.

And i think it was just a wording error,but africa was not an empire,it was several corrupt and cruel empires who,in several parts,could not even cast metals,let alone build an advanced society,mind you a slave to an african is far better than a slave to a european or an arabian.Their idea of a slave involved a person who worked off a debt and could not be separated from his family,and once he worked off his sentence he was freed,no strings attached,but what of the morroccans who wiped out mali once the arabs sold them guns,or the berbers who ruled cities that can only be described as pirates nests,they were not kind,they were not advanced,they were just as bad maybe even worse than britain.And the zulus in the south,killed and subjugated everyone they could,which it turns out is everyone but the swazis who hid in caves and,interestingly enough,were the only known african tribe who used battle axes,but the zulus were killed by the dutch and later the british,and eventually the zulus became the best treated(oce again,fairer,but not fair)whereas the other surrounding tribes were beneath the zulus who were in turn beneath the boers who were beneath the brits who were the top of the south african political chain.
Posted 12/10/08 , edited 12/10/08

Adaephon wrote:


Ragnaroks_Riot wrote:


treasonirish wrote:

the british always treated there colonies with respect and they flourished u notice these former colonies still have there mother tongue languages , hong kong , nigeria , south africa.

compere to the french colonies who murdered and made everyone learn french. Sudan, Niger , Haiti.

if france had colonized hong kong no one would speak Cantonese there. Britain had the most respect for the fellow human being no one can say that they dont. thats why the uk is top of the human rights league table.


I beg to differ. That was just rather present or in the modern times. you know. A few hundred years British didn't treat that Africans with respect in fact. Africa used to be a highly civilized empire. The Spanish didn't understand there way of cutlure and thought they worshipped the devil. This lead to what Africa is right now. British did that with native americans... now the native americans have a lost of culture and pride. Native americans used to be happy and had a paradise.. till they came around. Small pox, muscle pain, corruption.


If u call mass genocide and bitter wars a paradise,well..only the natives from the south were into the mass genocide bit,except when the inuit killed every single tunit,but the hurons were all too happy to accept french help in killing every last iroquois,until britain joined on the iroquois side and saved them,and even then its becuase of the americans,not the brits that the natives lost so much culture,sure the brits weren't that tolerant,but they gave the natives the right to own their cultural lands (the royal proclamation,one of the key points of the american revolution)the iroquois confederacy,especially the mohawks(due to inspirational men like molly brant and john norton and the heroic deeds done during the war of 1812 by chief tecumseh and his peers) were given more rights than any other native group that has ever been colonized by britain,until of course the americans took those rights away and passed the reservation act,but it was the spanish and portugese who killed tonnes of aztecs and incas (who kinda had it coming,sacrificing millions and keeping humans as livestock for sacrifices is bad,just as bad as the massacre and slavery that the conquistadors inflicted upon them) but the brits and french up north were allies and trading partners to the iroquois and hurons,and yes,there is no excuse for the ways the africans were treated,but all i can say is that,britain was fairer than the other europeans;egyptians,zulus,swazis and a few other tribes were...not treated well by in any way,but they were treated better than most other tribes in the areas and just to say it,the zulu empire was just as bad as the british empire and so were the different arabic empires who controlled north africa,but regardless,saying they were better is still not good enough for how bad they were treated,but on the subject of north america,those tribes were treated considerably well,even though general geoffrey tried to wipe out some people using smallpox blankets,and for a time the natives got ripped off during the trades,the natives eventually learned how to hold out for better deals,also it was iroquois and hurons who convinced the french and british to help them wipe out rival tribes such as the algonkins who were nearly wiped out entirely,and it is chief donnaconna of the hurons fault that canada was even colonized by the french,if they didn't think that magical kingdoms and hoards of riches and spices were to be had they wouldn't have stayed too long,but he wanted the french millitary aid and so he tricked them into staying and into trying to massacre the iroquois.And yes,the iroquois had a great form of government,very female dominated though which is quite interesting really from a historical point of view but the point is,britain brought three things that you cannot call bad to all their colonies:Economies,Industry(and hand in hand with that is resouce exploitation,and Democracy(though a few colonies had a sort of democracy already)And so you think that places like egypt,saudi arabia and the united arab emirates who have the worlds highest standard of living,a standard of living higher than britain,could have that without the knowledge to exploit petroleum?its possible for sure,but unlikely.

And i think it was just a wording error,but africa was not an empire,it was several corrupt and cruel empires who,in several parts,could not even cast metals,let alone build an advanced society,mind you a slave to an african is far better than a slave to a european or an arabian.Their idea of a slave involved a person who worked off a debt and could not be separated from his family,and once he worked off his sentence he was freed,no strings attached,but what of the morroccans who wiped out mali once the arabs sold them guns,or the berbers who ruled cities that can only be described as pirates nests,they were not kind,they were not advanced,they were just as bad maybe even worse than britain.And the zulus in the south,killed and subjugated everyone they could,which it turns out is everyone but the swazis who hid in caves and,interestingly enough,were the only known african tribe who used battle axes,but the zulus were killed by the dutch and later the british,and eventually the zulus became the best treated(oce again,fairer,but not fair)whereas the other surrounding tribes were beneath the zulus who were in turn beneath the boers who were beneath the brits who were the top of the south african political chain.


There was also a graph to show that after the Europeans came (Includes British) the population in the two Americas were dramatically decreasing, you know something about it?
Don't ask me I don't know anything about this so called Genocide. I just researched it from the book in school where some researchers said that it used to be a paradise. Ever heard of the French and Indian war? I remember that the french were aiding the iroquois not the British. But at some time the British were aiding the Iroquois anyways I'm just going to point out one thing. Yeah I had a typo I actually ment Spanish. I also had the wording for Africa wrong, and I never said they had the highest standard of living I just said it was a high level civilizationg because they had buildings, religion and such. Right now in America, The lowest population or Native Americans, Native Americans became the most alchohilic people in America from research and also they also have a grudge against Columbus Day even though U.S. did give them reservation. care to explain then? Also, even if Africa was several empires that were cruel and corrupted, you don't see that in the modern times?
Posted 12/10/08

Ragnaroks_Riot wrote:


Adaephon wrote:


Ragnaroks_Riot wrote:


treasonirish wrote:

the british always treated there colonies with respect and they flourished u notice these former colonies still have there mother tongue languages , hong kong , nigeria , south africa.

compere to the french colonies who murdered and made everyone learn french. Sudan, Niger , Haiti.

if france had colonized hong kong no one would speak Cantonese there. Britain had the most respect for the fellow human being no one can say that they dont. thats why the uk is top of the human rights league table.


I beg to differ. That was just rather present or in the modern times. you know. A few hundred years British didn't treat that Africans with respect in fact. Africa used to be a highly civilized empire. The Spanish didn't understand there way of cutlure and thought they worshipped the devil. This lead to what Africa is right now. British did that with native americans... now the native americans have a lost of culture and pride. Native americans used to be happy and had a paradise.. till they came around. Small pox, muscle pain, corruption.


If u call mass genocide and bitter wars a paradise,well..only the natives from the south were into the mass genocide bit,except when the inuit killed every single tunit,but the hurons were all too happy to accept french help in killing every last iroquois,until britain joined on the iroquois side and saved them,and even then its becuase of the americans,not the brits that the natives lost so much culture,sure the brits weren't that tolerant,but they gave the natives the right to own their cultural lands (the royal proclamation,one of the key points of the american revolution)the iroquois confederacy,especially the mohawks(due to inspirational men like molly brant and john norton and the heroic deeds done during the war of 1812 by chief tecumseh and his peers) were given more rights than any other native group that has ever been colonized by britain,until of course the americans took those rights away and passed the reservation act,but it was the spanish and portugese who killed tonnes of aztecs and incas (who kinda had it coming,sacrificing millions and keeping humans as livestock for sacrifices is bad,just as bad as the massacre and slavery that the conquistadors inflicted upon them) but the brits and french up north were allies and trading partners to the iroquois and hurons,and yes,there is no excuse for the ways the africans were treated,but all i can say is that,britain was fairer than the other europeans;egyptians,zulus,swazis and a few other tribes were...not treated well by in any way,but they were treated better than most other tribes in the areas and just to say it,the zulu empire was just as bad as the british empire and so were the different arabic empires who controlled north africa,but regardless,saying they were better is still not good enough for how bad they were treated,but on the subject of north america,those tribes were treated considerably well,even though general geoffrey tried to wipe out some people using smallpox blankets,and for a time the natives got ripped off during the trades,the natives eventually learned how to hold out for better deals,also it was iroquois and hurons who convinced the french and british to help them wipe out rival tribes such as the algonkins who were nearly wiped out entirely,and it is chief donnaconna of the hurons fault that canada was even colonized by the french,if they didn't think that magical kingdoms and hoards of riches and spices were to be had they wouldn't have stayed too long,but he wanted the french millitary aid and so he tricked them into staying and into trying to massacre the iroquois.And yes,the iroquois had a great form of government,very female dominated though which is quite interesting really from a historical point of view but the point is,britain brought three things that you cannot call bad to all their colonies:Economies,Industry(and hand in hand with that is resouce exploitation,and Democracy(though a few colonies had a sort of democracy already)And so you think that places like egypt,saudi arabia and the united arab emirates who have the worlds highest standard of living,a standard of living higher than britain,could have that without the knowledge to exploit petroleum?its possible for sure,but unlikely.

And i think it was just a wording error,but africa was not an empire,it was several corrupt and cruel empires who,in several parts,could not even cast metals,let alone build an advanced society,mind you a slave to an african is far better than a slave to a european or an arabian.Their idea of a slave involved a person who worked off a debt and could not be separated from his family,and once he worked off his sentence he was freed,no strings attached,but what of the morroccans who wiped out mali once the arabs sold them guns,or the berbers who ruled cities that can only be described as pirates nests,they were not kind,they were not advanced,they were just as bad maybe even worse than britain.And the zulus in the south,killed and subjugated everyone they could,which it turns out is everyone but the swazis who hid in caves and,interestingly enough,were the only known african tribe who used battle axes,but the zulus were killed by the dutch and later the british,and eventually the zulus became the best treated(once again,fairer,but not fair)whereas the other surrounding tribes were beneath the zulus who were in turn beneath the boers who were beneath the brits who were the top of the south african political chain.


There was also a graph to show that after the Europeans came (Includes British) the population in the two Americas were dramatically decreasing, you know something about it?
Don't ask me I don't know anything about this so called Genocide. I just researched it from the book in school where some researchers said that it used to be a paradise. Ever heard of the French and Indian war? I remember that the french were aiding the iroquois not the British. But at some time the British were aiding the Iroquois anyways I'm just going to point out one thing. Yeah I had a typo I actually ment Spanish. I also had the wording for Africa wrong, and I never said they had the highest standard of living I just said it was a high level civilizationg because they had buildings, religion and such. Right now in America, The lowest population or Native Americans, Native Americans became the most alchohilic people in America from research and also they also have a grudge against Columbus Day even though U.S. did give them reservation. care to explain then? Also, even if Africa was several empires that were cruel and corrupted, you don't see that in the modern times?


If pre-colonial africa was so great,then why is ethiopia which was never colonized,apart from a brief italian occupation during WW2,and had chosen of their own free will to become an extremely christian nation,such a hell hole?and did you just say that the reservations were a gift,a good thing?read about the american revolution and you will see that the main reasons were the stamp act,which was a new import tax,the quebec act which gave all french canadians equal rights to the british and the royal proclamation which stopped americans from extending into the american interior,and could not enter such areas without permission,after the revolution the sioux were all but wiped out,the iroquois who supported britian because of their immense hatred of the hurons who had been backed by france(no the french did not help the iroquois)were kicked off iroquoia which was their ancient homeland that was given to them by the british due to the royal proclamation and,as i said,the great leaders like tecumseh,molly brant and john norton who helped england so much during the seven years war and the war of 1812

And the reason the american population fell so much is because:
1.As i said,the incan and aztec empires were wiped out by the conquistadors,and spain and portugal killed or enslaved just about every native in the carribean(and as south america,the aztec empire,the incan empire and the carribean made up about 70%or so of the americas population,you can see that the british and frenhc affected the major loss of population much less than the portugese and spaniards),hence why all people in the carribean and south america are either hispanic or black,either former colonials or former slaves,but not former natives as is the case in africa,the middle east,hong kong and india.

2.The hurons asked the french for millitary aid agaisnt huronia,after a few battles where the harquebus proved a devestating weapon,the iroquois and their british allies defeated the weaker french and hurons,but it wasn't france who actually looked for a war with iroquoia,it was the native hurons,especially huronian chief donnacona who tried to trick the french into helping him defeat his enemies and making the hurons the most powerful tribe around,and so he gave all kinds of things,from a cure for scurvy to lands to build forts and towns to samuel de champlain and the people who followed after him.

And if a nation is advanced just because they have buildings and religions,then i suppose that aztecs who sacrificed millions,who kept humans as livestock,who obliterated every tribe they came in contact with,were the greatest people who ever lived?And i hardly call what the zulus had advanced,the biggest building in the zulu empire was chief shaka's karal,and what with 90%of the zulu male populaton being in the warrior caste,and having asagais and knobkerries(the pinnacle of southern african technology)the zulus conquered every damn person they could,but if the arab colonies up north had met them,then the zulus would all be dead right about now,but thanks to the british they are not.
Posted 12/10/08 , edited 12/10/08

Adaephon wrote:


Ragnaroks_Riot wrote:


Adaephon wrote:


Ragnaroks_Riot wrote:


treasonirish wrote:

the british always treated there colonies with respect and they flourished u notice these former colonies still have there mother tongue languages , hong kong , nigeria , south africa.

compere to the french colonies who murdered and made everyone learn french. Sudan, Niger , Haiti.

if france had colonized hong kong no one would speak Cantonese there. Britain had the most respect for the fellow human being no one can say that they dont. thats why the uk is top of the human rights league table.


I beg to differ. That was just rather present or in the modern times. you know. A few hundred years British didn't treat that Africans with respect in fact. Africa used to be a highly civilized empire. The Spanish didn't understand there way of cutlure and thought they worshipped the devil. This lead to what Africa is right now. British did that with native americans... now the native americans have a lost of culture and pride. Native americans used to be happy and had a paradise.. till they came around. Small pox, muscle pain, corruption.


If u call mass genocide and bitter wars a paradise,well..only the natives from the south were into the mass genocide bit,except when the inuit killed every single tunit,but the hurons were all too happy to accept french help in killing every last iroquois,until britain joined on the iroquois side and saved them,and even then its becuase of the americans,not the brits that the natives lost so much culture,sure the brits weren't that tolerant,but they gave the natives the right to own their cultural lands (the royal proclamation,one of the key points of the american revolution)the iroquois confederacy,especially the mohawks(due to inspirational men like molly brant and john norton and the heroic deeds done during the war of 1812 by chief tecumseh and his peers) were given more rights than any other native group that has ever been colonized by britain,until of course the americans took those rights away and passed the reservation act,but it was the spanish and portugese who killed tonnes of aztecs and incas (who kinda had it coming,sacrificing millions and keeping humans as livestock for sacrifices is bad,just as bad as the massacre and slavery that the conquistadors inflicted upon them) but the brits and french up north were allies and trading partners to the iroquois and hurons,and yes,there is no excuse for the ways the africans were treated,but all i can say is that,britain was fairer than the other europeans;egyptians,zulus,swazis and a few other tribes were...not treated well by in any way,but they were treated better than most other tribes in the areas and just to say it,the zulu empire was just as bad as the british empire and so were the different arabic empires who controlled north africa,but regardless,saying they were better is still not good enough for how bad they were treated,but on the subject of north america,those tribes were treated considerably well,even though general geoffrey tried to wipe out some people using smallpox blankets,and for a time the natives got ripped off during the trades,the natives eventually learned how to hold out for better deals,also it was iroquois and hurons who convinced the french and british to help them wipe out rival tribes such as the algonkins who were nearly wiped out entirely,and it is chief donnaconna of the hurons fault that canada was even colonized by the french,if they didn't think that magical kingdoms and hoards of riches and spices were to be had they wouldn't have stayed too long,but he wanted the french millitary aid and so he tricked them into staying and into trying to massacre the iroquois.And yes,the iroquois had a great form of government,very female dominated though which is quite interesting really from a historical point of view but the point is,britain brought three things that you cannot call bad to all their colonies:Economies,Industry(and hand in hand with that is resouce exploitation,and Democracy(though a few colonies had a sort of democracy already)And so you think that places like egypt,saudi arabia and the united arab emirates who have the worlds highest standard of living,a standard of living higher than britain,could have that without the knowledge to exploit petroleum?its possible for sure,but unlikely.

And i think it was just a wording error,but africa was not an empire,it was several corrupt and cruel empires who,in several parts,could not even cast metals,let alone build an advanced society,mind you a slave to an african is far better than a slave to a european or an arabian.Their idea of a slave involved a person who worked off a debt and could not be separated from his family,and once he worked off his sentence he was freed,no strings attached,but what of the morroccans who wiped out mali once the arabs sold them guns,or the berbers who ruled cities that can only be described as pirates nests,they were not kind,they were not advanced,they were just as bad maybe even worse than britain.And the zulus in the south,killed and subjugated everyone they could,which it turns out is everyone but the swazis who hid in caves and,interestingly enough,were the only known african tribe who used battle axes,but the zulus were killed by the dutch and later the british,and eventually the zulus became the best treated(once again,fairer,but not fair)whereas the other surrounding tribes were beneath the zulus who were in turn beneath the boers who were beneath the brits who were the top of the south african political chain.


There was also a graph to show that after the Europeans came (Includes British) the population in the two Americas were dramatically decreasing, you know something about it?
Don't ask me I don't know anything about this so called Genocide. I just researched it from the book in school where some researchers said that it used to be a paradise. Ever heard of the French and Indian war? I remember that the french were aiding the iroquois not the British. But at some time the British were aiding the Iroquois anyways I'm just going to point out one thing. Yeah I had a typo I actually ment Spanish. I also had the wording for Africa wrong, and I never said they had the highest standard of living I just said it was a high level civilizationg because they had buildings, religion and such. Right now in America, The lowest population or Native Americans, Native Americans became the most alchohilic people in America from research and also they also have a grudge against Columbus Day even though U.S. did give them reservation. care to explain then? Also, even if Africa was several empires that were cruel and corrupted, you don't see that in the modern times?


If pre-colonial africa was so great,then why is ethiopia which was never colonized,apart from a brief italian occupation during WW2,and had chosen of their own free will to become an extremely christian nation,such a hell hole?and did you just say that the reservations were a gift,a good thing?read about the american revolution and you will see that the main reasons were the stamp act,which was a new import tax,the quebec act which gave all french canadians equal rights to the british and the royal proclamation which stopped americans from extending into the american interior,and could not enter such areas without permission,after the revolution the sioux were all but wiped out,the iroquois who supported britian because of their immense hatred of the hurons who had been backed by france(no the french did not help the iroquois)were kicked off iroquoia which was their ancient homeland that was given to them by the british due to the royal proclamation and,as i said,the great leaders like tecumseh,molly brant and john norton who helped england so much during the seven years war and the war of 1812

And the reason the american population fell so much is because:
1.As i said,the incan and aztec empires were wiped out by the conquistadors,and spain and portugal killed or enslaved just about every native in the carribean(and as south america,the aztec empire,the incan empire and the carribean made up about 70%or so of the americas population,you can see that the british and frenhc affected the major loss of population much less than the portugese and spaniards),hence why all people in the carribean and south america are either hispanic or black,either former colonials or former slaves,but not former natives as is the case in africa,the middle east,hong kong and india.

2.The hurons asked the french for millitary aid agaisnt huronia,after a few battles where the harquebus proved a devestating weapon,the iroquois and their british allies defeated the weaker french and hurons,but it wasn't france who actually looked for a war with iroquoia,it was the native hurons,especially huronian chief donnacona who tried to trick the french into helping him defeat his enemies and making the hurons the most powerful tribe around,and so he gave all kinds of things,from a cure for scurvy to lands to build forts and towns to samuel de champlain and the people who followed after him.

And if a nation is advanced just because they have buildings and religions,then i suppose that aztecs who sacrificed millions,who kept humans as livestock,who obliterated every tribe they came in contact with,were the greatest people who ever lived?And i hardly call what the zulus had advanced,the biggest building in the zulu empire was chief shaka's karal,and what with 90%of the zulu male populaton being in the warrior caste,and having asagais and knobkerries(the pinnacle of southern african technology)the zulus conquered every damn person they could,but if the arab colonies up north had met them,then the zulus would all be dead right about now,but thanks to the british they are not.


Well thanks for the knowledge I appreciate it. But spare me with that advance civilization talk, I'm fully aware of it. I'm saying advance civilization because they were able to create a society that's all there is to it, nothing more. I never said they were the best or the greatest but they were advance compared to Paleolithic age. Your opinion and my opinion what it means to be advance is a little bit different. of course you could yet again prove me wrong with that and the Paleolithic age.
5355 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/11/08
I hope China will colonise UK, america, canada, australia, new zealand,...
Posted 12/12/08 , edited 2/20/09
Answer me these questions,anybody,and i am being serious here,these are not sarcastic or rhetorical questions,but answer as many of them as you can and I will cede the point that colonialism was bad in every way:
You know,i thought that people in an EXTENDED DISCUSSION could actually answer 9 questions,i mean i know they weren't that well put together when i posted them but does anyone actually check back on previous posts?

1.How could any of britains/former colonies' wars be won(either world war,napoleonic wars,cold war,afghan wars to prevent russians from getting access to attack india,english revolution)

2.How could industry,technology,medicine,economies,ethnic diversity,new ideas,foodstuffs,democracy,end of feudalism,or resource exploitation exist or be spread without colonialism?

3.How could global trade,or in some cases fully open borders exist without colonialism,or how would nations discover one another?

4.How could any empire survive without the food,goods,resources,citizens,manpower and living space provided by colonies?

5.How were any other african,european,american or asian colonial powers colonies any better than british colonies?

6.How could the many tribes and groups of an area be unified into a nation without colonialism?

7.How could NATO,OPEC,the arab league,the UN,and other such groups exist without colonialism?

8.How could the many great heroes,groups and leaders who were born in,gained all their legacy in or hid from enemies in colonies exist or be able to do what they did?(such as: Winston Churchill,Willem Van Oranje,The Duke of Wellington,Charles de Gaulle,Josef Stalin(born in russian colony of georgia),the english protestants including Oliver Cromwell,Florence Nightingale,T.E.Lawrence,Kemul Attaturk,Lenin,Field Marshall Montgomery,Gandhi,Mother Teresa etc.)

9.What is your theory of a colonial-free world?(essay question)(after all,if you don't think its justifiable,do you think it should have happened?)

Look,britain won most wars it fought because it was,and still is,strong.What made it strong,you may ask,well it was the industrial revolution,which was started because the agricultural revolution made it so many former farmers, tenets and crofters were without a home or work,so they went to cities and because of this sudden influx of manpower it was possible to run factories,but imports from colonies,such as potatoes,are the only reason the agricultural revolution managed to exist,not to mention that the industry that sparked the industrial revolution,was textiles.And the textile industry would not be able to do this without cotton,which was grown in the colonies,so you see,the colonies gave britain the means to defeat napoleon,hitler,the ottoman empire,russia,austria-hungary and many other enemies.

Also,i do admit i am being unfair.After all,one of the things i have said repeatedly is that it would be impossible to defeat hitler or napoleon without colonies,but truth be told i don't think that either of them would exist.Feudalism in europe and japan was overthrown in the same way,because of guns.Now you see the europeans invented guns because they stole the secret of gunpowder from the chinese,and china would not exist if they had not colonized,especially if the manchus had not colonized and japan would not have gotten guns if not for the portugese who,after a few sailors who were looking for colonies were shipwrecked there,and left behind the musket making techniques.So you see,we would be stuck under the brutal tyranny of feudalism,and to some that is better,after all i already said that it is human nature to prefer others to suffer in our stead,so let europe and japan wither away and die,as long as wherever you came from is good,you're happy.

I would also like to list the lives saved vs the lives lost in the process of colonialism:

First off is lives lost:

Tens of millions,perhaps hundreds of millions of natives die of starvation,overwork and war during the time that they are a colony.

Colonial wars cost over a million soldiers.

Disease and problems left behind(such as the partition of palestine) cause millions of deaths each year.

Wars caused by colonialism(revolutions,genocides)has cost,and continues to cost,millions of deaths each year and contributes to the horrible state of many nations in the world which also cost millions of deaths.

Lives saved:
12 million innocents(non-soldiers) died from hitler,at least 20 million more would have if not for the intervention of the commonwealth,about 5 or 6 million innocents died from the japanese,at least 15 million more would have,and as the commonwealth would not exist and the british would be a pathetic nation without colonies,and there is no canada or australia or egypt or india or scotland or ireland or wales or south africa or the states to bail them out,the axis(the bad guys)would win.

1.3 billion now live in the middle east,britain liberated the arabs from the turkish oppression(and put them under british and french protection),and gave them the technology to exploit petroleum,so at least a hundred million lived and prospered(saudi arabia and the UAE now have the worlds highest standard of living,thanks to petroleum)

The huron-iroquois wars would have gone on for centuries or longer,causing dozens of generations of strife,the british and french intervention in that war saved around 2 1/2-3 million potential lives.

British/colonial troops defeated not only napoleon and hitler,but also the ottoman empire,the austrian empire,prussia,russia,spain,france,holland,and many other world powers,the amount of lives saved by this,subtract the lives lost,comes to around 2 million.

India and china now have over a billion people each,they live well due to their powerful economies(the two most powerful in the world)and their powerful military strength,the economy and the modern military were introduced by britain,also china had little to no outside contact before britain forced it onto them,and india would not have been united if not for britain.The british colonies in india and china has led to the ability for tens of millions to live,and in relatively good comfort.

Japan would have no outside contact without the americans and that would make them,rather than the technological superpower they are into a pathetic and backward nation,thus allowing for over 10 million lives at least.

No spices or fruit lead to mass scurvy and all meat in europe is inedible,killing by disease and starvation at least a hundred million.

We need spices,is the public outcry,navigators try,and fail miserably,to get to india via the cape of good hope (a few make it)as there is no suez canal and no egyptian colony to get all the indian trade,this causes a couple thousand death due to shipwreck,and contributes to the scurvy/starvation problem already mentioned.

Mass unemployment(no factories,or industry)leads to over ten million starvations

Certain european powers such as spain,russia and france never lose their power since britain has absolutely no power to stop them,the wars done by these powers causes millions more to die.

All of europe runs out of food and other resources since they cannot access them from their colonies,just short of a billion people would die from that.


Or we could look at different wars in the past:

Upper Bavaria 1704....an army comprised of 80% irishmen,welshmen and scots,with about 3-5%english and the remainder being a mixture of dutch,danish,prussian and hessian troops are the only thing keeping the sun king and his bavarian allies from conquering all of europe...so what ppl on this site apparently believe is that an army at about 20% of its strength could do easily what it barely accomplished at 100% strength could do?do you think the french are that pathetic that they could be defeated without any of the actual soldiers sent against them,the scots made up over 90%of britains military....in fact they still mainly do,AND THE SCOTS ARE COLONIALS so you see that it is impossible to stop the french/bavarian army from conquering europe without colonies..

Waterloo,an army led by the only man in existence capable of challenging napoleon,a man who only exists because of india i mught add,leading an army comprised almost entirely of colonial troops,who were only trained because of the wars in India....people think that an untrained army led by a raw recruit commander with less than 10% of the forces he should have had, can defeat napoleon?

Battle of El-Alamien Egypt,an army that was only in Egypt because of the suez canal(which only exists because egypt was a colony) defeated hitlers best army led by nazi germany's best leader...so you all think that the arabs,who were at this point angry guys with pointy sticks,could defeat an army of modern infantry,tanks,etc....and that even if he had oil,he would still have lost to britain.

No colonization of america,america cannot do anything(since it does not exist)so it cannot:
1.create japan(the only reason japan exists is because of admiral perry's invasion)
2.defeat japan(they did the most against japan in WW2)
3.Defend britain in its time of need
4.help defeat mussolini and hitler
5.defeat the soviet union

Canada also does not exist so it cannot:
1.Turn the tides of WW1(done by the brilliant general curry at paschendale,vimmy ridge,ypres)
2.Help to defend britain and to end the second world war
3.Start the trade war with spain in 1995 which stopped them from destroying out fish stocks
4.defend the native peoples of canada from greedy american invaders in the war of 1812
5.Be britains only lifeline(every single supply,whether it be food,metal,oil,wood or gunpowder went from halifax to britain during WW2)
6.defeat the wolfpack U-boat threat(the canadian invented corvette did this)


Or how about this....Russia was without a doubt the most brutal of all the european colonial powers,that is fact,russia had obvious desires for many nations in asia which only remained outside of their grasp because of Britain,for example,you may not know this but Afghanistan is the most strategically placed nation IN THE WORLD hence why hundreds of different nations,from persia to britain,have tried to control it. Alexander the great knew that the only to take India was to take Afghanistan,this led to a 3 year nightmare war,but thats not the point,the point is that if you look at a map of he soviet union,or the russian empire for that matter,India bordered on Afghanistan(since the separation of Pakistan it doesn't anymore)The russian colony of Turkmenistan bordered on Afghanistan,and the Afghan emperor was friendly with the russians...it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the russians were gonna try for India sooner or later....so Britain preempted them,and because of that India was spared complete ethnic cleansing at the hands of the russians,and after the disastrous betrayal and mismanagement in Kabul...Britain left the interior of Afghanistan...but the interior is worthless,the part that makes it good is the mountain passes that are the only land route to India,as long as Britain controlled the passes,India was safe.
Posted 12/12/08
Things are wrong are never justifiable. End of point. You could find a bright side of anything wrong, if you tried. I have no confidence in the character of anyone who does so.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.