Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Aside from the emotion-charged principle of self-determination, what is so bad about Colonialism?
Case in point. The four Comoro Islands. Three of them chose independence, and became a republic which now, after 38 years, has a per capita GDP pf $700. The fourth one, Mayotte,opted out and remained a part of France, and now has a per capita GDP of $4,900. The highest GDP in South America is in French Guyana. The American and British Virgin Islands have much more developed economies than the Caribbean islands that escaped from colonialism. Hawaii is certainly better off than any other Pacific island group, with second place to Tahiti, which has remained a French territory. Same for Macao, compared to any former Portuguese colony. Compare Spain's Canary Islands with any former Spanish colony, even in the New World. Even a century earlier in history, Liberia certainly never proved that all a nation needs to prosper is self-rule.
Benign colonial administrations have all done very well. Republics under malevolent forms of independence have all done badly. It's not a question of colonialism, its a question of humanitarian administration, regardless of where the seat of government is located.
Maybe its something to do with the benefits of being 'tied' to a larger economy?
The real problem with colonialism has nothing to with lofty concepts like self-determinism - even though these things are important.
The real problem with colonialism is that its purpose is exploitation. Nations do not create empires as a benign gift to undeveloped peoples, to bestow unto them the knowledge and wealth of their civilization. Empires colonize peoples to profit from them by exploiting whatever natural abundance the land of those people offers, including the people themselves. The fact that colonizers often leave behind infrastructure and strong institutions has nothing to do with them wanting to improve the cololnized land - it is all created to make their plunder more efficient. As an example, rail systems are built to penetrate deep into the land and remove natural resources, or bring in troops to maintain the staus quo, and rapidly move people and goods to where they're needed. Any tertiary benefits this may have for the colonized people is entirely unintentional.
The main problem with colonialism will always be its exploitative nature. It will always benefit the colonizer far more than the colonized. If you really think colonialism can be a good thing, just ask yourself if you wouldn't mind being colonized by another country. If the answer is no, then why is it okay for other people?
Aside from the emotion-charged principle of self-determination, what is so bad about Colonialism?
Case in point. The four Comoro Islands. Three of them chose independence, and became a republic which now, after 38 years, has a per capita GDP pf $700. The fourth one, Mayotte,opted out and remained a part of France, and now has a per capita GDP of $4,900. The highest GDP in South America is in French Guyana. The American and British Virgin Islands have much more developed economies than the Caribbean islands that escaped from colonialism. Hawaii is certainly better off than any other Pacific island group, with second place to Tahiti, which has remained a French territory. Same for Macao, compared to any former Portuguese colony. Compare Spain's Canary Islands with any former Spanish colony, even in the New World. Even a century earlier in history, Liberia certainly never proved that all a nation needs to prosper is self-rule.
Benign colonial administrations have all done very well. Republics under malevolent forms of independence have all done badly. It's not a question of colonialism, its a question of humanitarian administration, regardless of where the seat of government is located.
I had thought from your other posts that you were a thoughtful and intelligent person, but the above is deeply naive and ill conceived.
The success of nations is based on a number of things. Quality of domestic governance is one, but might, strategic position, and access to international trade are also highly influential.
Your reading of colonial and post-colonial history seems to conclude that better economic outcomes in territories that have remained under colonial ownership can be put down largely or entirely to better governance. But these colonial possessions could not have attained and retained such prosperity without the military protection and trading advantages conferred upon them by their colonial parents. Likewise, small, newly-independent countries, largely lacking both diplomatic and military clout with which to defend themselves and forge economic links with the world, usually have little chance of becoming economically developed in the short term.
Of course, the above might not matter in the case of a 'benign colonialism', in which the coloniser merely provides institutions and a seat of government. But this doesn't seem to have been the experience of most colonised people, who aside from lacking political self-determination (however much of an emotive frippery you may find that to be!), were also usually placed at a relative economic disadvantage (the GDP figures you quote give no account of how that wealth is distributed or what it would buy in a given territory), and repressed in their cultural expression.
For a comparison of post vs. past colonialism, examine sub Saharan Africa. Am unable to find a single country that has been better off under independence than they were when a European power ran things.
For a comparison of post vs. past colonialism, examine sub Saharan Africa. Am unable to find a single country that has been better off under independence than they were when a European power ran things.
You may want to read up on the Belgian Congo. I know someone from there. He said that the Belgians were quite savage in their treatment of the native people. In college, I had a class with a woman from Rwanda. She survived the Genocide. She said there was a direct connection between the Europeans who 'ran things' during colonialism, and the genocide that ensued after. Europeans brought devastation everywhere they went in sub Saharan Africa. To think otherwise is to live in denial.
For a comparison of post vs. past colonialism, examine sub Saharan Africa. Am unable to find a single country that has been better off under independence than they were when a European power ran things.
Oh, of course it's meaningful to look at a region that was under foreign occupation for in excess of a century, was subjected to vast and bewildering change, divided up along borders with no historical meaning, and then to ask, in the ~40 years since, why it has not become a beacon of peace and prosperity!
In the last half century plus, Sub Saharan Africa has largely descended in savagery, with endless civil wars that have taken millions of lives, produced brutal dictatorships, which in turn have produced coups, which in turn have produced more wars and brutality, with economies wrecked and societies in disarray. For just one example, was Rhodesia bettter under the Brits or better off under Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe?
was Rhodesia bettter under the Brits or better off under Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe?
Which of course ignores that fact that had the Rhodesias allowed native participation in the society as equals and the U.S. and the Soviet/Chinese hadn't used Rhodesia as a geo-political playground during the wars of liberation, Robert Mugabe like all the other tin-pot dictators perhaps would have never come near the seats of power in the first place.
But I keep forgetting that self-determination, neo-colonialism, or the cold war are never to be discussed in the context of such discussions. So I apologize for not following the flow of the discussion.
Which of course ignores that fact that had the Rhodesias allowed native participation in the society as equals and the U.S. and the Soviet/Chinese hadn't used Rhodesia as a geo-political playground during the wars of liberation, Robert Mugabe like all the other tin-pot dictators perhaps would have never come near the seats of power in the first place.
But I keep forgetting that self-determination, neo-colonialism, or the cold war are never to be discussed in the context of such discussions. So I apologize for not following the flow of the discussion.
Too many people forget that the "powers that be" didn't give up on colonialism, they just found a cheaper way to do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
