Colonize/Decolonize

[Richard III]

This new thread is to provide a forum for discussion and comparison of the colonial administrations of various powers, and their respective decolonial processes. Not simply western powers, mind you, given that Japan, China, India, the Muslim powers To a certain degree, if you think about it, "indigenous population" might as well be redefined as "population that did not have an empire over someone else."

More to start discussion than to state my actual opinion, what do y'all think of the notion - bandied about by many anglo-revisionist, pro-imperial historians of late - that Britain is better remembered and its colonies in better shape than that of other colonial powers because it "ruled over" rather than "simply ruled" most of its colonial possessions?

Or, to take another angle, hinted at in the OT debates, and remarked upon in books like Frederick Forsythe's "The Dogs of War," what was a better approach to decolonization for the long term stability of the decolonized country?

1. A fully independent, negotiated, rapid move to power granted by the colonial power?

2. What Forsythe describes (in a complimentary way!) as the French technique, whereinthe supposed "mother country" helped the "colonial protege win the first vital election and then signed a mutual defence treaty to ensure that a company of white paratroopers kept the pro-western president in power in perpetuity..."

3. Or, armed revolution to expel the colonial power?

4. Gradual independence over a long period, starting with "home rule" or "responsible government," as in Canada or New Zealand?

5. No independence at all?


All important questions for those of us who will be playing Paradox Games' "Victoria" after Nov. 18th.

 

[Evie]

Personally, from the "best way to decolonize" aspect, I'd go (from your list :

4 - Definitely the best way, as it allows preparation to be made for the move to independance, and to set up viable structure without rushing headlong into things, and it also runs around the armed revolution in which these structures are set up without consent of the metropol. Armed conflict being as well all know generally a bad thing for the infrastructures of the battlefield regions.

1 - Falling that, it would be best to still avoid war, even if the move to independance is hurried and the nation has to start from scratch as an independant country, or with only very limited structures.

5/3 - It entirely depend. In the case of a canada/NZ-type colony (in regard to England), remaining a colony might be preferable to the ravages of a civil war. In the case of a Vietnam/Korea type colony (in regard to France and Japan), the civil war and forceful expulsion would be preferable to the political oppression and denial of basic rights enforced by the colonial power (not to mention economic exploitation). However civil wars tend to lead to military junta or other non-democratic (read : Communist) group taking power, which really doesn't help long term stability

2-That's essentially the same as 5, only the puppet leader is from an assorted ethny and called a president instead of of being from the motherland and called a governor. Really the worst type - if you're going to stay in control, don't bother with pretenses of independance.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

The theory that the British "ruled over" than "simply ruled" rings a bell. However was that a good approach, as seen from a Machiavellian perspetive? Maybe not. the French I believe had an entirely different approach to colonization. Unlike the British who ruled over, but left local custums and tribal organisations somewhat intact, the French saw their misson as truly 'civilizing' and therefore constructed a whole new society from the bottom and up. That is why undoubtedly the Francophone African countires are more French in character than the Anglophone are British in charachter. Also the French perhaps did not approach it from the perspective of 'The White Man's Burden', but saw their mission as an universalist civilizing one, not unlike the American one today. I also think that this why there is a marked difference between former British colonies in Sub-Saharan Africa, which are marred by opposition, nationalism and corruption (Zimbabwe, Kenya) and those of the French which are somehow more easygoing and peaceful towards their masters (except for the occasional civil war of course, but then civil wars in Africa have always been proxy wars.)

 

[Evie]

The French more or less saw their mission as "Civilize the economic ressources". Vietnam under the French was a joke (remember the opium war in China? Opium was a state monopol in Indochina. And it's consumption still forbidden. Hence they addicted you to the opium, forced you to buy it from the state, had the police arrest you for smoking the opium, and likely confiscated most of it.

Not fun at all. I have somewhere numbers as to how many government-operated alcohool brewery (also a monopol, and one in which they added lots of water) where founded under the french regime - I don'T know if that's your definition of bringing civilization, but drugging and drunking the population doesn't sounds like mine.

As for schools, they were built (and the french language imposed), but more so as to have some reading workers for any needful factory, and most of the population was by and large left illiterate.

 

[gael]

The British tried to rule Ireland and sought to extingish anything that was Irish. Langauge/customs/religion/names.
Even the people at at one point- 'To hell or connaught'
We were seen as completly inferior, only one notch up on their evolutionary scale from the Africans. Anglo saxons were at the top of course.

What colonies are you talking about?

India was split and came pretty close to a nuclear war lately.
We still have problems here.
Palistine is hardly a bed of roses.
Iraq is a nice spot in the summer etc etc.

The only ones that came out of it shining were the ones were the indigionous people we practically wiped out and the land was colonised by british settlers.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

To Oda Nobunaga.

I am not trying to make excuses with regards to French colonialism, neither am I in need of passing moral judgment on it.
Howver the things you mentioned about state owned drugs and alcohol factories seems to me to be a fairly effective way of running a colony. Better than free market capatalism certainly - in that time and under those circumstances - with those particular aims the French had at the time. Presumably world dominance.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by gael
What colonies are you talking about?

India was split and came pretty close to a nuclear war lately.
We still have problems here.
Palistine is hardly a bed of roses.
Iraq is a nice spot in the summer etc etc.

The only ones that came out of it shining were the ones were the indigionous people we practically wiped out and the land was colonised by british settlers.

Malaysia and Singapore are doing fairly well, despite going by the no. 1 route.

Sure we have some problems, but nothing as serious in most other ex-colonies, comparatively.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No independence at all, or dominion status, depending on the circumstances of the country. Many are complete basket cases who were abandoned too early.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Well - something isn't clear for me here ...

Did you disscus only the "clasical" period of colonisation and mainly outside the Europe or ... ( as Gael suggest ) will debate also the "red colonialism" of the USSR for eg. ?

Regards

 

[Akbar]

Originally posted by Richard III
This new thread is to provide a forum for discussion and comparison of the colonial administrations of various powers, and their respective decolonial processes. Not simply western powers, mind you, given that Japan, China, India, the Muslim powers To a certain degree, if you think about it, "indigenous population" might as well be redefined as "population that did not have an empire over someone else."

More to start discussion than to state my actual opinion, what do y'all think of the notion - bandied about by many anglo-revisionist, pro-imperial historians of late - that Britain is better remembered and its colonies in better shape than that of other colonial powers because it "ruled over" rather than "simply ruled" most of its colonial possessions?

Or, to take another angle, hinted at in the OT debates, and remarked upon in books like Frederick Forsythe's "The Dogs of War," what was a better approach to decolonization for the long term stability of the decolonized country?

1. A fully independent, negotiated, rapid move to power granted by the colonial power?

2. What Forsythe describes (in a complimentary way!) as the French technique, whereinthe supposed "mother country" helped the "colonial protege win the first vital election and then signed a mutual defence treaty to ensure that a company of white paratroopers kept the pro-western president in power in perpetuity..."

3. Or, armed revolution to expel the colonial power?

4. Gradual independence over a long period, starting with "home rule" or "responsible government," as in Canada or New Zealand?

5. No independence at all?


All important questions for those of us who will be playing Paradox Games' "Victoria" after Nov. 18th.

I really like Forsythe's books , but the less said about his politics the better (this isn't helped by the fact that The Dogs of War is his worst book.)
Anyway on topic, my country went through options 1 and 3 both caused innumerable problems I dont see being solved anytime soon. So, because I don't like any of the choices, I wil go for option 6, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN COLONISED IN THE FIRST PLACE !!!!!!!! While I am ranting, bring back the Mughal Empire ! We want to be the ones doing the colonising for a change.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Option 6 is not applicable. Please call again. Beep.

 

[Akbar]

Well I guess that the convict isle wouldn't have been created with option 6 . So I pick option 7 i.e certain countries ( Like Australia ) are colonised and the convicts shipped there are used for slave labour, while others aren't.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by gael
What colonies are you talking about?

Well, as I made clear in the beginning, first, the "ruled over" bit is a theory, and not necessarily one I support. I think alot depends on the where and when. But I will leave it at that for the moment, since the thread is taking an interesting turn ; I arrived expecting it to be empty.

As for when I meant, I meant whenever. If you think about it, pretty much the entire planet has been colonized at one point or another; this isn't about "classical imperialism" but imperialism in general. Hell, bring on the Romans if you want to discuss them. I actually think their model is worth arguing about, especially in the middle republic...


And edit - PS, Akbar, don't be silly. The Dogs of War is brilliant! Love all of that stuff about the merchant banking in London and Switzerland.

Maybe he's crazy now, but have you read his non-fiction from the '60s and '70s, e.g. The Biafra Story?

 

[Akbar]

Originally posted by Richard III


Well, as I made clear in the beginning, first, the "ruled over" bit is a theory, and not necessarily one I support. I think alot depends on the where and when. But I will leave it at that for the moment, since the thread is taking an interesting turn ; I arrived expecting it to be empty.

As for when I meant, I meant whenever. If you think about it, pretty much the entire planet has been colonized at one point or another; this isn't about "classical imperialism" but imperialism in general. Hell, bring on the Romans if you want to discuss them. I actually think their model is worth arguing about, especially in the middle republic...


And edit - PS, Akbar, don't be silly. The Dogs of War is brilliant! Love all of that stuff about the merchant banking in London and Switzerland.

Maybe he's crazy now, but have you read his non-fiction from the '60s and '70s, e.g. The Biafra Story?

I stand by my statement that the Dogs of War is terrible. I am not really a fan of non-fiction or the short story format and haven't read The Biafra Story. Altough the rest of his fiction is all good.

 

[allhailIndia]

I think the situation differs from case to case and depends largely on what the colonizer got from the occupation and what the natives thought of them and what the natives "really" thought of them.
In India, Independence would have come much earlier but for the Second World War, and the spectre of Pakistan too would not have come up. That said the quality of rulers in both countries also has mattered as to how they have fared since Independence. Suffice to say that adhering to democratic princples and maintaining a rule of law have carried us far as compared to our military dick...I mean dictator-turned "President" ruled neighbour.

However, in the 50's and 60's several African and Asian colonies were given Independence without a thought as to how they would function in the world and what sort of institutions they would have to create for themselves. This is where the Forsythe idea of "decolonization" comes in. In India, since the 20's Indians were coming into the govt. and army in a big way, so that when the British left in '47, things settles down rather quickly and we got down to business.

 

[Arvln]

I wish that Inodonesia was a British colony rather than Dutch

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Arvln
I wish that Inodonesia was a British colony rather than Dutch

Almost. During the Napoleonic Wars, British forces occupied Java to prevent the French fr using it. Stamford Raffles (founder of Singapore in 1819), who was in charge, called for complete takeover of the Dutch territories.

However, after the war, the British returned the territories to the Dutch and in 1824, made a pact with the Dutch to divide the Malay archipelago betw Dutch and British spheres of influence, an issue which Malay-speaking 'culturalists' in both countries still bring up fr time to time today, though not very vocally.

 

[Richard III]

Holy frick, I started this thread in October, and it's STILL on the boards?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Someone dragged it out...

 

[allhailIndia]

I don't even remember making my post on it

Anyway, I stand by my statement that there is no omnibus way to "decolonize". It has to be looked at situation by situation, both of the colonizing country and the colonized.