Before the left/republican wing wade into me let me state that I think in general colonialism was a bad idea.
But was it all bad?
Given that the modern colonial era lasted for only a very short period, [historically], did it not do some good?
For instance in India was the prohibition on sutee burning and the elimination of the Thuggee cult not of benefit to all humanity.
Leaving aside altogether the literature and art resulting from the mish mash of cultures.
To answer your question: No.
just wondering though, how was getting rid of the thugee cult of benefit to "all humanity"?
I suppose when a technologically advanced nation colonizes a less advanced one, there can be a transfer of technology or learning and the benefit can be educational, but the costs of this are very high when taking the evils of colonialism into account.Originally Posted by cry freedom
"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep." - The Tempest, Act 4, Scene 1
its not the left/republican brigade you need worry about....
you should watch out for the monty python 'what have the romans done for us' group thats headin' this way ...
"goddam it!...when you tell me not to click on something...i have to click it!"............Ard Eoin!...
That's a dated answer.
A good counter-argument would be the former Belgian Congo.
As a matter of fact, numerous African nations were better off under colonialism.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There were short-term/long-term consequences of colonialisation.
In the short-term, there were major benefits for the colonialisers in the form of wealth, hence the rush of European powers to grab what they could, as fast as they could.
Bar a few exceptions (e.g. Hong Kong), over the long-term, it has proven nothing but a disaster on both sides of the divide.
If we are honest about it, sufficiently different cultures simply don't mix that well.
Fine if one side are oppressed and descriminated against, but once equal rights come into the equation the problems surface.
But I suppose what goes around comes around and the greatest irony of course, is that through immigration, the colonialisers are becoming the colonialised.
In fact the GDP of a lot of the colonial master countries went up after they off-loaded their colonies, while the GDP of the colonies fell.
"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep." - The Tempest, Act 4, Scene 1
Well, if it hadn't been nipped in the bud back then you could have them operating all along the South Circular Road.
I'm afraid it seems to be part of what peoples do. Just these days it's more subtle.
As far as I'm concerned it's like wondering if the Lion is bad because it eats the antelope
"We hold that no power, not even the British Parliament, has the right to deprive us of our heritage of British citizenship".
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There were obviously benefits to colonialism for many countries, not least of course the ruling nations themselves who I presume we're including.
It's dangerous though to assume that just because a country collapses afterterwards that they were better off having the colonists remain. Many of the problems in their political structure are a product of the colonial power structure as opposed to being something innate in the people of the country. Conflicts that would have worked themselves out, violently or otherwise, were simply postponed due to the power exerted by the ruling British. Then once they leave it all explodes at once.
Last edited by Sync; 9th September 2010 at 02:17 PM.
If you're the first out the door, that's not called panicking.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote