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.
I'm no expert, especially on the histories of colonial Spain, France, Portugal, Belgium.etc, but I've heard it said repeatedly that those nations conquered by the British got the best 'deal'. I was born in Singapore and moved to Australia as a baby and have lived under the shadow of Empire my whole life. Some reasons given include that the British bestowed upon us the English language (moreso in Singapore than say even India), a work ethic, system of government/law and order, and handsome colonial buildings. They did massacre folk, but not to the same extent as the Spaniards, although that's not really true, as can be seen in America and Australia, although a lot of the massacreing in America was post Independence.
I saw a documentary on the Victorian Empire and a Bornean man said that he actually personally felt that British rule was a good thing, and that it was much better than being ruled by the Dutch in Indonesia (for northern Borneo was a sultanate controlled by Britain, later part of Malaysia).
Except that the British were very well known for being extremely white supremacist. They also particularly enjoyed using Divide and Rule Policy to control the native population. They encouraged Indian migrants to Burma and Malaya, discouraged native economic participation and separate people according to their race and religion. In Malaya the Chinese control the cities, the Indian works in plantation and as soldiers, while the Malays remain backward farmer. In British Burma the Indian were given privileges that enables them to become moneylender, gambling and opium entrepreneur, which resulted sentiment by the local Burmese who lost their land to these new class. The legacy lived up to modern day Singapore and Malaysia, which require you to enlist your race. And the Rohingyas, an outcast in Burma. India-Pakistan patrition is also legacy of British divide and rule policy.
In Dutch East Indies it wasn't that different, but atleast it seems that people of different ethnic background and religion can get along. Though this wasn't entirely true for European or Chinese during the revolution era, but atleast the various tribes did get along. In Dutch East Indies European with Native blood can get recognized as European (or if they're not recognized they would become Indonesians) , while in British colonies they were excluded by both the British and Native population.
The education system of Dutch East Indies is superior to that of Malaya pre-WW2, which does not have a university level institution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fellowjoe
Whether a colonial power is benign or not shouldn't be based solely on whether her colonies achieved developed nation status in the postwar period. Other factors that are not related to the colonial power would come into play as well.
Take Malaysia for example. Despite British attempts to construct social and economic infrastructure there, the postwar Malaysian economy failed to achieve the stellar economic growth that Singapore, another British colony, did. Why is that?
The Singaporean government were pragmatic and far-sighted enough to implement policies such as attracting foreign investments and expats, as well as recognizing the significant contributory roles of all races in the economy. Malaysia, on the other hand, is mainly concerned about the predominant rights of the Malays who constitute the majority of the population. Thus, they often neglected the potential of the other races in the economy that could have brought Malaysia to the ranks of the developed nations.
British colonial policies only serve as the fundamental basis for economic growth of its colonies, but the ultimate path of the colonies depends mostly on the policies of the local government.
The same theory applies to South Korea as well. The South Korean government was eager to rebuild the country after it was devastated by the Korean War and Second World War. Some would even allege that South Korea wanted to catch up with and take over Japan in economic power. So the government was open to foreign investments and trade and adopted pragmatic policies that ultimately earned South Korea the reputation of one of the Asian Tigers.
I also did not say that the British were completely benign to all their colonial subjects. But by colonial standards of the 20th century, the British were generally benign relative to their counterparts like the French, Japanese and Russians.
All the industrial establishment of British Malaya are located in Singapore, Malaya is just where the rubber, tin and oil is extracted before being processed in the lion city. Malaysia's success is largely contributed by the oil boom in the 80s, and their currency suffered heavily when oil price dropped.
None of the European power actually establish heavy industry (which is crucial to modern economic success), except for Japan who used Korea and Taiwan as part of their military goal. It was worse in Africa where Europeans don't even consider of introducing existing sophisticated method to extract resources, which could've benefit the native, nor diversify the plantation markets of the various African colonies. Instead African colonies focused on certain cash crops (Ivory Coast's chocolate or Nigeria's oil palm.
I'm no expert, especially on the histories of colonial Spain, France, Portugal, Belgium.etc, but I've heard it said repeatedly that those nations conquered by the British got the best 'deal'. I was born in Singapore and moved to Australia as a baby and have lived under the shadow of Empire my whole life. Some reasons given include that the British bestowed upon us the English language (moreso in Singapore than say even India), a work ethic, system of government/law and order, and handsome colonial buildings. They did massacre folk, but not to the same extent as the Spaniards, although that's not really true, as can be seen in America and Australia, although a lot of the massacreing in America was post Independence.
I saw a documentary on the Victorian Empire and a Bornean man said that he actually personally felt that British rule was a good thing, and that it was much better than being ruled by the Dutch in Indonesia (for northern Borneo was a sultanate controlled by Britain, later part of Malaysia).
Too bad I can't rep this; it is an excellent post. I think the reason is that Britain was a nascent democracy through its colonial period. France began experimenting with democracy in 1789; the first experiment was short-lived and didn't end well. Britain had and still has a tradition of rule of law, and relatively non-corrupt government. Not so the other countries.
This attempts to sidestep the original question, which has to do with the Colonial Powers in the 1700's and early 1800's. Unless your history book is a lot different from mine, "Indian tribes in America" are not considered Colonial Powers.
Sure, humankind has been behaving like that since Cain slew Abel. And, just like Cain, humankind always seems to try and slough it off by saying something like "I'm not my brother's keeper..." or "They did it too ..." or......
Or, in our case, "Don't let 'em off the boat!!!!"
Reading your comment- it just occurred to me- from the prospective of the American Indian...
Do you find that most Indians are vehemently anti- immigrant and anti- refugee today- like for example- concerning re-settling Syrians in the US? Or is there no generalization that applies?
Britain was somewhat less brutal that certain other colonial powers, like the Dutch (which isn't saying much...a throat slitting is less brutal than a decapitation) and somewhat better organized than others, like the French. Between those two things you could make a case that they've left a less damaging legacy in the lands they formerly occupied. As someone whose grandparents emigrated fleeing British colonial tyranny, though...meh. Marginally less malevolent exploitative, violent, racist oppressors are still exploitative, violent, racist oppressors.
Although if we're counting the Russian Empire as a colonial power I'd argue they are a much better candidate for "least bad."
That's a highly disingenuous argument. One that I will address if you really want me to...
Also, it isn't what I was referring to at all.
I have no idea what you meant. Your post made utterly no sense. You wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueTamilTiger
It also includes mass extermination.
And please address "General Smallpox." And don't use the blanket argument; it's rubbish.
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.
