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.
You know, maybe what the original poster should do is tell us which of the great colonial powers from the past have remained great powerful nations today.
You know, maybe what the original poster should do is tell us which of the great colonial powers from the past have remained great powerful nations today.
Case closed.
The OP hasn't posted since January 2017 so I'll take a stab. Britain is, by virtue of its hand-in-glove alliance with the U.S., Canada, Australia and other countries that speak its language and share its heritage of good government a major world power. Further background is in Colonialism v. Immigration v. National Borders v. Compassion - What's the Solution?
I would argue that almost all the African countries, the Middle Eastern countries except Israel, and Asian countries excluding Singapore and arguably India were better off under colonial rule. Except of course for the ruling class in each of these countries.
I would argue that almost all the African countries, the Middle Eastern countries except Israel, and Asian countries excluding Singapore and arguably India were better off under colonial rule. Except of course for the ruling class in each of these countries.
That last sentence is a bit of a bender. Except..excluding..? Except for the rulers? Anyway..
I don't know Singapore's history. If it was always an critica trading and shipping location. What it's laws and customs were like. If it was always stable, prosperous, and had good government. But today, it bears a lasting English influence. How it would be if it didn't, I don't know.
Same for India. Pre-East India Company it was torn by conflict. Muslims terrorized Hindus. Banditry was rife. Its caste system controlled all human life.
England brought order and tranquility. I read that England was mostly a disinterested ruler. It left the Indians to themselves for the most part. The strangling of travelers, burning of widows on the husbands' pyres, and burial of live lepers were the only customs prohibited.
Not without costs certainly. The Brahmins resented English road building because they became likely to encounter Untouchables on them, for one. But I can't imagine a modern India without the Raj preceding it.
Israel is a unique case. Many nations conquered or colonized it. Western colonization was the latest and briefest chapter in its long history. The Ottomans and Saracen occupations were certainly longer, though not materially influential.
Middle Eastern and African countries are returning to their native cultures in all their profusion, splendor, and squalor.
That last sentence is a bit of a bender. Except..excluding..? Except for the rulers? Anyway..
Sorry. What I meant was that there are not many places which are better off under "independent", i.e. tribalist rule than under colonialism. They exist but are quite rare. I perhaps should have added Ireland to the mix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
I don't know Singapore's history. If it was always an critical trading and shipping location. What it's laws and customs were like. If it was always stable, prosperous, and had good government. But today, it bears a lasting English influence. How it would be if it didn't, I don't know.
It was originally part of the Malagasy Republic/Malaysia. In 1964 Singapore was invited not so nicely to leave. I have a National Geographic article which I read as a nine-year old in 1966 which detailed the "exclaving" of Singapore and I'll send it to anyone who DM's me an email address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
Same for India. Pre-East India Company it was torn by conflict. Muslims terrorized Hindus. Banditry was rife. Its caste system controlled all human life.
England brought order and tranquility. I read that England was mostly a disinterested ruler. It left the Indians to themselves for the most part. The strangling of travelers, burning of widows on the husbands' pyres, and burial of live lepers were the only customs prohibited.
Not without costs certainly. The Brahmins resented English road building because they became likely to encounter Untouchables on them, for one. But I can't imagine a modern India without the Raj preceding it.
I wasn't totally aware of this but it rings a bell. It wasn't great between 1947 and the 1990's, when more enlightened and more democratic government began.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
Israel is a unique case. Many nations conquered or colonized it. Western colonization was the latest and briefest chapter in its long history. The Ottomans and Saracen occupations were certainly longer, though not materially influential.
Quite true. The Jews were never totally absent from the Middle East. Basically the local Arab population didn't do much on the territory beyond subsistence farming and grazing. The injection of outside Jewish capital changed all that. That occurred when it became clear that Diaspora living was not viable and going downhill fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
Middle Eastern and African countries are returning to their native cultures in all their profusion, splendor, and squalor.
Sorry. What I meant was that there are not many places which are better off under "independent", i.e. tribalist rule than under colonialism. They exist but are quite rare. I perhaps should have added Ireland to the mix.
It was originally part of the Malagasy Republic/Malaysia. In 1964 Singapore was invited not so nicely to leave. I have a National Geographic article which I read as a nine-year old in 1966 which detailed the "exclaving" of Singapore and I'll send it to anyone who DM's me an email address.
OK. But what was Singapore before England got there? Malaysia is a post-colonial country. What was it before and what was Singapore in relation to it? I believe Sumatra was its own country way back, but I'm not motivated enough to look into it.
Singapore in the 19th and 20th centuries was important because it controlled the Malay Straits. England considered it the Gibraltar of the East. That's because of trade. Was it always so important? Did China control it?
It's been sad, and continues to be sad, to see one ex-African colony after another follow the same path to decrepitude. South Africa is following Rhodesia, which followed the Congo, which followed Nigeria. All back to the same pit of poverty. Like reverse development.
It's hard to imagine them being worse off under their former overseers. Not that there weren't cruelty and exploitation. There were. But there was progress, too. Now there're still cruelty and exploitation, but there also regression.
OK. But what was Singapore before England got there? Malaysia is a post-colonial country. What was it before and what was Singapore in relation to it? I believe Sumatra was its own country way back, but I'm not motivated enough to look into it.
Singapore in the 19th and 20th centuries was important because it controlled the Malay Straits. England considered it the Gibraltar of the East. That's because of trade. Was it always so important? Did China control it?
I'm not motivated enough to look into it, but I presume it was a fishing village of some sort. Probably the way Manhattan wasn't anything too different from other Native American villages. As it evolved into a trading center the Chinese arrived, much like the Jews arrived at similar destinations in the Western hemisphere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troyfan
It's been sad, and continues to be sad, to see one ex-African colony after another follow the same path to decrepitude. South Africa is following Rhodesia, which followed the Congo, which followed Nigeria. All back to the same pit of poverty. Like reverse development.
It's hard to imagine them being worse off under their former overseers. Not that there weren't cruelty and exploitation. There were. But there was progress, too. Now there's still cruelty and exploitation, but there also regression.
No question about that. One of the problems is that most of these countries never really gelled. They were a collection of tribes that spilled across colonial borders.
You know, maybe what the original poster should do is tell us which of the great colonial powers from the past have remained great powerful nations today.
Case closed.
The US is a colonial power. The US maintained colonies in China from 1846 to 1902 and then again from 1918-1938, plus it's colonies in colonies in the Philippines and Puerto.
The US still colonizes. It doesn't use people, rather it uses multi-national corporations and non-government organizations, plus its military.
...so you're saying poor countries should be colonies of "the world community"?
Why? So we can **** them up some more?
Colonialism is why they're so ****ed up. You realize colonization was not good for these nations, ever? It was slavery, stripping the colonies of resources.
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.
