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.
Our traditional homelands covered most of Mississippi and portions of Louisiana and Alabama. The French "claimed" and then settled the central Gulf Coast and the lower Mississippi River. This gave rise to the French Settlements at Mobile and, a bit later, New Orleans. Generally, they treated my ancestors with a modicum of respect -- something that Hernando DeSoto did not do ( being quite diplomatic here).
This was echoed in what is now Canada/northern US, where the indigenous Indian Nations went to war with their French allies against the haughty and arrogant English. Anyone remember the "French and Indian Wars"? Anyone remember how the name came about, and why?
Moving forward in time, (General) Andy Jackson welcomed the alliance and support of my Choctaw ancestors in his war against the Creek Nation, and later against the haughty and arrogant English in the War of 1812. I'm here to tell you that our alliance with Jackson was AT LEAST as much against the English as it was for the newly-formed United States.
Later, (President) Andy Jackson forcibly "Removed" us - his trusted allies - to southeastern Oklahoma in the 1830's. Oddly, though we were his staunch allies, we were the first of the five "Civilized Tribes" to be forcibly Removed along what would later be known as The Trail of Tears. This also leads directly into the reason for our alliance with The Confederacy in the Civil War ...... an entirely different story.
All in all, I think we've proven that there are no Universal Truths - and no Universal Nice Guys - in the Colonial movements of the 1700's and early 1800's. For me, personally, and knowing what I know about what happened in the Americas, in India, in South Africa, in Australia, and SCOTLAND, and IRELAND, and WALES, my vote for the "most bad" of the colonial powers will always go to "Merrie Old England". The Spanish and Portuguese were terrible, to be sure, and the French didn't exactly wear haloes, but IMO the English were worse.
That's my studied and quite personal opinion which, with the addition of about a buck, will get you a cuppa coffee at most McDonald's restaurants.
With Regards to All and Enmity to None,
-- Nighteyes
Last edited by Nighteyes; 12-05-2013 at 05:50 PM..
Most former British colonies are in pretty decent shape.
Most former French and Spanish colonies are a mess.
Yes, with the exception of some African nations, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Something must be said for the British system of government/law and order I think. Singapore is an example of a country that retained or adopted a very British system of government and law and order (basically just replacing the monarch with a ceremonial president and having a PM in a parliamentary system). Then again, some criticise Singapore as a quasi-authoritarian state where one party - the PAP - has held the reigns of power ever since 1965. They call Lee Kwan Yew the 'benign dictator' but I think most respect the man too much to think too ill of him. Oxford educated, he sort of symbolised both the old colonial as well as the new Singapore.
First of you have to control for British colonies and British holdings, by that I mean, colonies that were established for the purpose of immigration (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.) and colonies held for the purpose of economic exploitation, (India, Africa etc). The second variable that needs to be controlled for would be how much importance you place in the presences or lack of institutional racism, respect/tolerance for indigenous cultures and ways of life.
So let's exclude the British migration colonies and look at those that were primary economic in nature. By enlarge the transition to independence is a mixed bag of gradual and peaceful moves to independence on one hand and violent and brutal opposition on the other. In either case, the British did leave behind important infrastructure, democratic institutions and a legal foundation, but in virtually every case a legacy of institutional racism unseen in the rest of the world. The French, Spanish and Portuguese for the most part left behind a mixed bag of inadequate economic development, few democratic institutions, and questionable legal foundation, but for the most part less racially antagonistic relations particularly for former slaves and their descendants.
Of course, there were far too many colonies with far too diverse histories, civilizations or economies for such a sweeping analysis. So it really depends on the colony in question and what you value most when it comes to colonial legacies.
The irony is that overall, post colonial times, the former British colonies did a lot better economically and for their own than the others. That their institutions survived them and were filled with the educated who had been needed by the British is a legacy which has had a positive effect. Former British colonies are far more stable and functional than those of other colonial powers. Others have descended into disastor without them.
It's always a mixed bag, the postive and the negative. Each colonial power operated on their own choice of priotities and methods. All of them used force and brutality and its a matter of percentages. The only measure which we can look at today is what legacy they left which survived them.
By this measure, the British generally come out ahead. This does not mean that before they were benine and kind, just that they controlled in different ways. As you say, if you wish to compare particulars, then you do that but with so many different factors, the one that can be measured now is the post colonial legacy.
Not to discount any of the "British Kudos" recently expressed, my (Mississippi) Choctaw colleagues have done rather well for themselves-- two extremely profitable casinos and a very-successful company called "Choctaw Enterprises." I'm not saying the Brits had absolutely nothing to do with these successes, but they havn't been in an authoritative capacity in Mississippi since around 1814 or so.
Nations, people groups, empires, tribes have been invading, conquering, subjugating, slaughtering, enslaving for all of recorded history. Indian tribes in America attacked, slaughtered, massacred other Indian tribes routinely. Same in Latin America. It is a worldwide phenomena. Trying to put lipstick and a tutu on any particular pig does not alter the ugliness of the pig. The victor typically writes the after action report. I doubt we really know and understand the brutality of the events. The moral of the historical story writ large is DO NOT BE ON THE LOSING SIDE EVER.
Nations, people groups, empires, tribes have been invading, conquering, subjugating, slaughtering, enslaving for all of recorded history. Indian tribes in America attacked, slaughtered, massacred other Indian tribes routinely. Same in Latin America. It is a worldwide phenomena. Trying to put lipstick and a tutu on any particular pig does not alter the ugliness of the pig. The victor typically writes the after action report. I doubt we really know and understand the brutality of the events. The moral of the historical story writ large is DO NOT BE ON THE LOSING SIDE EVER.
Exactly how I feel. Every tribe has been slaughtered and slaughtered other tribes. Win or become extinct, that is all of our histories.
Having said the above, the Brits left an incredible success trail including the USA, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and others that have become extremely successful compared to the world scale. I think the biggest factor is the Common Law, the Rule of Law, and controls on corruption.
Colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to some of the places that were colonized. Look at Rhodesia versus Zimbabwe. There might have been oppression in Rhodesia, but there was also food and no billion percent inflation rate.
Colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to some of the places that were colonized. Look at Rhodesia versus Zimbabwe. There might have been oppression in Rhodesia, but there was also food and no billion percent inflation rate.
Yes, yes of course you spend a few hundred years excluding an indigenous population from the benefits of education, self-rule and participation in economic development, while at the same time stealing their land and natural resources and then sitting back and wondering why their country is such a mess. A truly bizarre way of thinking for people who claim that freedom is the root of economic and political development. Of course the same people never seem to speculate just how much better off Zimbabweans and other former "under developed" countries would have been if their wonderful benefactors had never been their in the first place.
Exactly how I feel. Every tribe has been slaughtered and slaughtered other tribes. Win or become extinct, that is all of our histories.
Having said the above, the Brits left an incredible success trail including the USA, Australia, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and others that have become extremely successful compared to the world scale. I think the biggest factor is the Common Law, the Rule of Law, and controls on corruption.
The Brits were painting their bodies when the Romans showed up. When the Romans departed then some hundreds of years later, the Normans showed up (Battle of Hastings) and Britain began to become the "successful" nation we came to know. The Normans brought a better culture to include laws, craftsmen. better social organization. Short summary on a complex period of history to be sure.
Left to their own devices, the Brits would still be painting their bodies although today we might call that tattooing.
I for one have never desired to wear a hair shirt over historical events whether wars, massacres, slavery or whatever. It is the human condition to be at one anothers throats whether over some rocks (Japan and China), form of governing (Cuba) or Jews and Arabs. You will not change the human mindset to control others, to control their lives and destinies if possible. It goes on now in our own society and body politic. Humans are arrogant enough to believe their way is the only way. We see that played out in the US capital daily.
I disagree.....slaves in the Usa were treated worse than in Latin countries,esp Brazil.
The Spanish and Protuguese were encouraged to have children with slaves,and as result their mixed children were accepted. in the Usa,that didn't happen.
Hard to say though. I do think,and maybe 90% of people would agree with me,is that Belgium was the worst,so bad in fact even Britain had to step in. I'm thinking of the Congo,where if you didn't work hard enough,they amputated your limbs.
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.
