1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Can only whites be racists and is Africa no place for whites?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Squonk, Oct 5, 2019.

?

Can only whites be racists and oppressors? Are whites out of place in Africa?

  1. Only white people can be racists and opressors

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Not only white people can be racists and opressors

    23 vote(s)
    71.9%
  3. Africa is no place for whites - they should all leave

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Africa is a place for its inhabitants regardless their skin colour

    24 vote(s)
    75.0%
  5. The structure of land and capital ownership should fit racial, ethnic, religious ratio of populace

    3 vote(s)
    9.4%
  6. The structure of land, capital ownership doesn't have to fit racial, ethnic, religious ratio

    15 vote(s)
    46.9%
  7. No action should be taken regarding the land ownership in South Africa

    4 vote(s)
    12.5%
  8. A non-state organisation should be established for buying land and distributing it among black popul

    1 vote(s)
    3.1%
  9. The state should confiscate the land and distribute it among black people with full compensation

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. The state should cofiscate the land and distribute it among black people with partial compensation

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. The state should confiscate the land and distribute it among black people without compensations

    2 vote(s)
    6.3%
  12. The state should confiscate the land and make its ownership according to racial ratio - full compens

    3 vote(s)
    9.4%
  13. The state should confiscate the land and distribute it according to the racial ratio - partial compe

    1 vote(s)
    3.1%
  14. The state should confiscate the land and distribute it according to the racial ratio - no compensati

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. I like frogs.

    15 vote(s)
    46.9%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,604
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    The British built exactly as much of a nation as was required for maximum resource and value extraction.
     
    hobbsyoyo, Cloud_Strife and MaryKB like this.
  2. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    4,918
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Not really they didn't strip India.

    Unlike other empires that acted like strip mines the British one was more about taxing trade.

    Dutch and Spanish were a lot more exploitive. Plunder type economy's.

    India was the crown jewel, once they left the empire folded as most of the empire was taken to keep India safe.

    Suez canal, Cape Town, Aden/Yemen, misadventures in Afghanistan were because of India.
     
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    24,991
    True. They certainly weren't rosy to India, at the same time it was less bad than most African colonies + most in western hemisphere. I think India's (relatively) better treatment was a combination of distance, population/strength of Indian territories, and that India's value wasn't as concentrated in extraction of a particular resource. Countries with the latter in particular have had some of the more brutal dictatorships in modern times.
     
  4. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,945
    Would you say justice, equity, opportunity, prosperity (on mean per capita), and any sort of government participation and rights of any meaningful form are better in the Republic of India, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and People's Republic of Bangladesh (the post-Raj nations and governments which wouldn't exist without the previous British presence), or the Mughal and Maratha Empires (the main, largest, and most powerful Indian nations upon the beginning of the entrenchment of British power)? Please consider carefully before answering.
     
  5. MaryKB

    MaryKB Vice Princess Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    1,761
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    United States
    What point are you hoping to make?
     
    Cloud_Strife likes this.
  6. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,683
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    "The British Empire was good"

    these people are genocidal fascist clowns, British rule in India killed millions through deliberately-engineered and purposely-exacerbated famines. Anyone who thinks Stalin was a horrible murderer but British rule in India was "ultimately good for Indians" is probably a racist
     
    Cloud_Strife and MaryKB like this.
  7. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,945
    If you think it's a blatant, shameless justification of imperialism, it's not. It's moreso to point out the human history is very complex, and it's not just made up of "good events" to celebrate and cherish, and "bad events," to condemn, scour, and demand redress for, and that something that is bad and negative, and even unjustified, horrific and atrocious, even, can lead to a mixed bag of good and bad in it's wake, with the bad not always outweighing the good, that would not otherwise be there - and the alternative may have very likely been worse at the end had the tragedy not occurred, and the same in reverse for many good events. And, yes, I now realize this reads like a @Farm Boy post, but bear with me here.
     
  8. GoodEnoughForMe

    GoodEnoughForMe n.m.s.s.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    new alhambra
  9. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,604
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    You sound like an apologist for empire, that you believe the subjugated should be grateful to be exploited.

    Your question makes the unsaid assumption that an India or Indias that formed out of an uncolonized subcontinent would not have been better. This is of course unprovable by any reasonable standard, but you offer a few railways as compensation for $45 trillion extracted and India falling from perhaps as much as 20% of global trade to 5% over the course of its colonial period.

    This is a slander upon Farmboy who I do not doubt the compassion of.
     
    MaryKB likes this.
  10. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,945
    I am compassionate. Very much so. You just don't like that I won't agree with you're flawed and uninformed point of view on this thread, and then demonize me as tantamount to a sociopathic Fascist. That IS slander, and that's exactly what you seem to be doing. ESPECIALLY as you just don't seem to understand - or refuse to - what I'm actually saying, and you're responses to be are completely unrealistic, and even baiting, looking them back over.
     
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,683
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    • Infracted for trolling
    Uh yeah hi that's actually me doing that thanks

    Moderator Action: Stop trolling other members. --LM
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 9, 2019 at 7:31 PM
    MaryKB likes this.
  12. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    24,991
    Are we talking height of Mughal empire or what was left of it when Britain showed up? India's situation at the time was the reason conquest of the subcontinent was even possible. Though it's interesting you bring up Mughals, because they were foreign invaders also, the remnants of the Iranian Timurid empire. Some of the same patterns you imply with Britain match pretty closely.

    Even before Mughals, India often had sultanate minorities ruling massive Hindu majorities, with differing degrees of care.

    I don't know a great deal about modern India's real situation since I haven't been there or experienced it. I would imagine standard of living is better now than in the early 1900's. Less so for its smaller neighbors.

    Though I'd hesitate to make objective evaluations of "justice", "equity", and "opportunity" because defining these terms has been questionable even within the bounds of the US.

    ~~~

    This discussion aside, the notion that India was always unified is itself asinine. Lots of conquest/"colonizing" there even > 1000 years ago. Good luck drawing a line where "land was originally X people's" there, even if Britain never put ships in the water.

    Historical conquerors are not nice, but it does seem arbitrary to claim Britain significantly worse than comparatively local populations that did the same things.

    And let's not play pretend here. India was not "colonized" like USA or most of this hemisphere. Its pattern is more consistent with "conquered". Is that better? Not really, though they did get to skip disease wiping out much of their population so in that sense sure.

    Trade% in India was going to fall no matter what. Colonies in western hemisphere got more populated and the world as a whole became less dependent on the silk road. I would argue the improvement of naval craft and the awful opium wars to be large contributors to that also. Much fewer Chinese goods passing through India rather than shipped.

    "India for Indians" is a gross oversimplification. That place is massive and the populations there are different from each other. The basic concept of India doesn't happen without SOMEONE pulling a Britain on them, local or otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019 at 4:02 PM
  13. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,945
    By the way that you and @Cloud_Strife use the words all the time, constantly, so for a ridiculous number of people, I highly doubt either of you have ever met a real, died-in-the-wool Fascist or Nazi. Just like I doubt Glenn Beck or Joe McCarthy ever met a real Communist. The abuse and overuse of words where they're utterly inappropriate is another of the main point deterioration of modern debate and discourse.
     
    Zardnaar and TheMeInTeam like this.
  14. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,683
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Fine, you're not a fascist you're just a guy who justifies mass murder on the internet
     
    hobbsyoyo, MaryKB and Cloud_Strife like this.
  15. Cloud_Strife

    Cloud_Strife Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2018
    Messages:
    1,354
    Location:
    Midgar
    Are you okay?
     
    Gorbles and MaryKB like this.
  16. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,945
    Quote a post of mine where I unquivacably, blatantly, and obviously do so, please?

    Sometimes I would think to ask you the same question.
     
    TheMeInTeam likes this.
  17. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,604
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    I think nazis are overused in the excusing of guys who are not nazis. Let me finish - I think people who are half as bad as the nazis are getting compared favourably to nazis, whereas actually the lower end of acceptability would be about 10%. Maybe less.
     
  18. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    24,991
    "Anybody I disagree with is a Nazi or partial Nazi and we don't tolerate those, so I don't have to tolerate or event interact with argumentative positions with which I don't agree".

    Seems to be the message, and it's not a very useful message. Not for constraining anticipation to reality, and not for actually talking about anything useful.
     
  19. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,683
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The qualifying adjectives show you're smart enough to couch your words in plausible deniability, which makes fulfilling this request a waste of time.

    The British inflicted even worse suffering on the population than previous conquerors and dynasties. They broke up the traditional systems of village assistance that had ensured most people got fed most of the time. And they used the same drill as in Ireland and Egypt, forcing the production of cash crops for export ("free trade" doncha know) rather than food to feed starving people.
     
    Cloud_Strife and MaryKB like this.
  20. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,604
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    Naw I'm saying the British Empire was bad m8
     
    Cloud_Strife and MaryKB like this.

Share This Page