Europe and Africa

[amadeus]

but u guys did managed to elect this right ?

If you're comparing George Bush to Comrade Bob, you're getting a rolleyes. You've still got time to repent.

Will india be better if not for the colonisation ?? Look at japan now which is one of the Asia countries not colonize by the European, by 1900s they are able to defeat Russia and in 1940s, even be able to invade China and others.

Japan was backwards in that respect until they invited Western technology and ideas into their country. Japan and the other East Asian countries also had a head start, as they weren't as technologically and socially backward as the African kingdoms were.

 

[amadeus]

Take a look back on the aparthied history: the ANC was committed to non-violence in the spirit of M Ghandi until: protests (even non-violent ones) were outlawed (1953)

Non-violent protests were not outlawed in 1953, nor were they outlawed before or after. The Suppression of Communism Act only outlawed organizations that were radically pro-communist. The ANC very well could have supported liberal democratic principles, but they decided to ally with the Communist Party and endorse hard-core Stalinists like Joe Slovo.

156 members of the leadership of the ANC were arrested for treason based on thier public support for full rights for all south africans in the treason (1953)

You left out that they were acquitted.

and Rivonia (1963) trials,

The Rivonia trial was held because members of the ANC, SACP, and fellow travelers were planning acts of terrorism. The MK was founded in 1961 and headquartered in... where else? Rivonia.

and non-violent protests against laws requiring blakcs to carry identification cards ended up with the Sharpville massacre, leaving 69 dead.

Sharpeville represented South Africa as much as Kent State represents the U.S.

Hell, the ANC was still banned in 1985, with even suspected sympathizers being routinely arrested and held without trial.

Considering the ANC carried out so many acts of terrorism, it was entirely justifiable that they'd hold them without trial. The Church St. bombing in Pretoria, the bombings of the Wimpy Bar, the bombings of shopping malls in Natal, throwing grenades into the houses of black school administrators, putting landmines on highways...the list goes on and on.

White I certainly can't defend everything the ANC did once it decided to drop its non-violence ethic, I can't certainly appreciate why it decided to go that route. When you're sitting in prison with your enemy holding all the cards, giving up the only power you hold for your (likely temporary) freedom seems like a pretty raw deal.

At least now you can admit that Mandela is no saint, certainly not to the people that he killed.

The fact that you consider thier skin colour at all when deciding if they have the right to vote tells me that that isn't right.

I consider their cultural background. If they're assimilated into Western society or not is the key.

 

[Winner]

Will india be better if not for the colonisation ?? Look at japan now which is one of the Asia countries not colonize by the European, by 1900s they are able to defeat Russia and in 1940s, even be able to invade China and others.

Well, in fact, Japan has been "colonized" by the US. They occupied the country after it lost the WW2, they introduced Western democracy and capitalism, and then they left. And of course, as rmsharpe said, they've accepted the Western ways decades before.

So i will not agreed that colonization is beneficial to the host country.

It is if the colonized country is totally backward and the colonizers are technologically and socially advanced. And of course only when the colonizers are benevolent.

 

[Ramius75]

If you're comparing George Bush to Comrade Bob, you're getting a rolleyes. You've still got time to repent.

Well, the fact is that under the leadership of GWB, the image of USA + its influence oversea is greatly reduced until its becoming a sort of laughing stock all around the world now.

And that is im kind in my comment now. Ask any Muslim around the world and u will find the support of them for the USA range from despise to pure hatred to kill on sight.

I will not really classified him as a great leader.. no no.

Japan was backwards in that respect until they invited Western technology and ideas into their country. Japan and the other East Asian countries also had a head start, as they weren't as technologically and socially backward as the African kingdoms were.

Thats true, but they can import the western technology without been colonize and hence, all the country policy was determined from the Prime minister and emperor with the parliment.

Before the meiji revolution. Japan was as backward as any countries in Africa, slightly better with a centralised Gov. So there is no saying that Africa might not have do the same if they have the oppurtunity, will they be as good ?

Will they produced an enlightened leader ?

@winner - no, i was referring to the Japan in the early 1900s where they could defeat an Russian army, invade China in 1930s and then attacked USA on 1941, and defeated British with a more superior army in 1942 in Singapore.
There were no American "colonization" then before.

The so called "benevolent colonizers" are there to take over the country for themselves, but not to make the piece of land any better for the indegenious population. So why is it any good then ? Is Australia a better place for the Aborigini ? Is USA a better place for the Native Indian ? Or New Zealand, South Africa, Brazil, Peru and many others ?? many of the native civilizations are wipe out forever.

 

[bloodofages]

Not another blame Europe for Africa's problems. Africa's problems is Africa's alone. They have to pull themselves up, this is not Europe's fault, nor America, Asia, of the Mid East. Should the U.S. blame the British for the civil war? Or for everything that goes wrong? So why blame Europe for what is wrong in Africa?

 

[Winner]

@winner - no, i was referring to the Japan in the early 1900s where they could defeat an Russian army, invade China in 1930s and then attacked USA on 1941, and defeated British with a more superior army in 1942 in Singapore.
There were no American "colonization" then before.

Did I say that?

The so called "benevolent colonizers" are there to take over the country for themselves, but not to make the piece of land any better for the indegenious population.

That's where you're wrong. Europeans tried to educate the natives and provide them with healthcare.

So why is it any good then ? Is Australia a better place for the Aborigini ? Is USA a better place for the Native Indian ? Or New Zealand, South Africa, Brazil, Peru and many others ?? many of the native civilizations are wipe out forever.

Now you approached the point - that's why I said "benevolent colonizers". Europeans/Americans certainly weren't much benevolent in America - they in fact genocided local population and replaced it by Europeans/Americans. The same is true for Australia and, to some extent, the South Africa. But in the rest of Africa and India and many other places, Europeans have never attempted to eradicate the natives and replace them with whites. They just ruled the local population, because the local population was unable to rule itself efficiently.

The native cultures were often very primitive and would have declined anyway. The European rule was in fact more of a blessing for them.

 

[Rambuchan]

But in the rest of Africa and India and many other places, Europeans have never attempted to eradicate the natives and replace them with whites. They just ruled the local population, because the local population was unable to rule itself efficiently.

[..]

The native cultures were often very primitive and would have declined anyway. The European rule was in fact more of a blessing for them.

That was the rhetoric but not the reality (same as the USA employs today really). Open your history books and find out something closer to the truth. Africans and Indians governed themselves just fine (you will notice a down turn in life expectancies in India under British rule for example) and there are plenty of places in the world that rose of their own accord without colonial rule (Persia, China and Japan for example) and their fortunes rose after the burden of such rule.

The problem was, they didn't govern themselves in ways that suited the white colonialists - that's what 'ungovernable' really means. The 'blessings of colonialism' were on the Europeans, who grew wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, not the subjugated, brutalised, worked to the bone, half starved colonised people. It amazes and disappoints me that you simply do not bother to educate yourself about the history of colonialism, whilst consistently coming large with all this racist dross, foolish rhetoric and blatant misinformation.

 

[Winner]

That was the rhetoric but not the reality (same as the USA employs today really). Open your history books and find out something closer to the truth. Africans and Indians governed themselves just fine (you will notice a down turn in life expectancies in India under British rule for example) and there are plenty of places in the world that rose of their own accord without colonial rule (Persia, for example) and their fortunes rose after the burden of such rule.

The problem was, they didn't govern themselves in ways that suited the white colonialists - that's what 'ungovernable' really means. The 'blessings of colonialism' were on the Europeans, who grew wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, not the subjugated, brutalised, worked to the bone, half starved colonised people. It amazes and disappoints me that you simply do not bother to educate yourself about the history of colonialism, whilst consistently coming large with all this racist dross, foolish rhetoric and blatant misinformation.

What else should I expect from you? If you disagree with what I said and have nothing reasonable to add, simply say "No" or "I disagree", it will at least keep the "discussion" civilized.

 

[Rambuchan]

Way to ignore my points Winner. I've added a fair bit and you've ignored it, again. Let me know when you will actually stand up to some of these empty claims you make, then we might have a discussion. At present, I just see you making these sweeping statements and running away or crying blue murder whenever you are tested on them.

edit:

Why not start by considering this, when you say: "Europeans tried to educate the natives and provide them with healthcare"....

"Even some serious critics of Colonial rule grudgingly grant that the British brought modern medicine to India. Yet - all the statistical indicators show that access to modern medicine was severely restricted. A 1938 report by the ILO (International Labor Office) on "Industrial Labor in India" revealed that life expectancy in India was barely 25 years in 1921 (compared to 55 for England) and had actually fallen to 23 in 1931. In his recently published "Late Victorian Holocausts" Mike Davis reports that life expectancy fell by 20% between 1872 and 1921.

edit 2:

Check this list of books for alternative angles on Colonialism in Africa and elsewhere.

 

[Che Guava]

Non-violent protests were not outlawed in 1953, nor were they outlawed before or after. The Suppression of Communism Act only outlawed organizations that were radically pro-communist. The ANC very well could have supported liberal democratic principles, but they decided to ally with the Communist Party and endorse hard-core Stalinists like Joe Slovo.

Support liberal democratic principals in a country where they were denied the right to vote? The Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act (also passed in 1953) made it illegal to protest in support for the repeal of ANY law in S Africa, including aparthied laws, and the Suppression of Communism Act, made ANY protest of state policy illegal so whoever they were supporting was really a moot point since they couldn't protest thier lack of representation or rights.

You left out that they were acquitted.

Yes, after being held for 6 years, IIRC.

The Rivonia trial was held because members of the ANC, SACP, and fellow travelers were planning acts of terrorism. The MK was founded in 1961 and headquartered in... where else? Rivonia.

Nevermind that the fact that the trial was roudnly condemned by the UN and the international comunity as a gross miscarriage of justice...

Sharpeville represented South Africa as much as Kent State represents the U.S.

I can assure you it represented A LOT to the black africans living in fear of the white government at the time. And 4 dead and 9 wounded vs 69 dead and 180 wounded in Sharpton? How can you even compare them?

Considering the ANC carried out so many acts of terrorism, it was entirely justifiable that they'd hold them without trial. The Church St. bombing in Pretoria, the bombings of the Wimpy Bar, the bombings of shopping malls in Natal, throwing grenades into the houses of black school administrators, putting landmines on highways...the list goes on and on.

Then why not just charge them if they had so much evidence of evil deeds?

At least now you can admit that Mandela is no saint, certainly not to the people that he killed.

Nor is Botha, and certainly not to the majority of the country he presided over.

I consider their cultural background. If they're assimilated into Western society or not is the key.

Aaah. So only those that have properly assimilated into western society are worthy enough to have representation (even if they don't happen to be living in the 'west'). You'll have to pardon my use of the ....

 

[Brighteye]

Africans and Indians governed themselves just fine (you will notice a down turn in life expectancies in India under British rule for example)

The problem was, they didn't govern themselves in ways that suited the white colonialists - that's what 'ungovernable' really means. The 'blessings of colonialism' were on the Europeans, who grew wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, not the subjugated, brutalised, worked to the bone, half starved colonised people. It amazes and disappoints me that you simply do not bother to educate yourself about the history of colonialism, whilst consistently coming large with all this racist dross, foolish rhetoric and blatant misinformation.

This is dross, rhetoric and deliberately misleading. A drop in life expectancy within a period of rule does not show the effect of that rule: it probably shows effects that occurred within that rule.
What was the life expectancy before the British came to India?
If you call being ruled over by millionnaire maharajas 'just fine' that's acceptable, but to claim that this was a huge contrast with the British rule is ridiculous. The Indian princes absorbed far more of the money than the British, leaving their populations at least as poor.
The Indians were not generally subjugated or worked to the bone. Nor were most of them deliberately half-starved (if any at all). It is true that for much of colonial rule the British regarded themselves as superior, and beatings and 'brutalisation' took place for simple things like getting in someone's way.
It's not really much different from the princes' ways of punishing a crime by bagging anyone who was nearby. At least with the British you could avoid that sort of injustice by avoiding the white people.

 

[Mathilda]

Moderator Action: Winner warned for trolling. (Trolling in this case= posting general negative sweeping statements about groups of people without backing them up in any way)
Rambuchan warned for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MamboJoel]

We had a big debate in France earlier this year about a law on the historical program for students that included a definition of colonization that had "a positive role".

The left wing parties (and some center and center right elements) protested very strongly and the law didn't pass. The main argument was that it's not the legislator's job to write history, it's the historian job's. Pretty obvious.

But as you might now, lately the lower chamber voted a law forbiding the denial of the armenian genocide. It's pretty controversial and the Turkish government replied strongly. But most of the supporters of this law are the same that were against the law about colonization. Where is the consistency of their argument on history ?
Should History be written by historians at the beginning of the year but by politicians at the end of the year ?

Sorry, that was some kind of a franco-french digression...

 

[silver 2039]

Nor were most of them deliberately half-starved (if any at all).

So I suppose the tens of millions that died in the famines which resulted from the British forcing the farmers to switch to cash crops is all false then?

 

[Brighteye]

I've heard it called incompetence, not deliberate.

 

[Rambuchan]

This is dross, rhetoric and deliberately misleading. A drop in life expectancy within a period of rule does not show the effect of that rule: it probably shows effects that occurred within that rule.

Actually it does show the effectiveness of that rule, or more precisely, the level of neglect and absence of policies to contain the effects of famine. Such phenomena did happen fairly regularly in India's history (it's got a high rural element to its economy and always has done) but....you should compare the policies of the British against those that pre-colonial leaders such as Sher Shah Suri had in such events [*1], and you'll find that you, sir, are quite mistaken. A look at Parliamentary records from the 1880s, and also in the early 20th century, shows evidence of British parliamentarians pretty much crapping their pants over what to do about famine. They simply didn't have any response policies in place, unlike many Indians rulers who had a tradition of such policies. This was made all the worse by what I speak about in the next paragraphs...

What was the life expectancy before the British came to India?

You mean, what was the life expectancy 400 years previous? I think you know why I won't bother answering that one. You could find much the same with British life expectancies over the same period.

If you call being ruled over by millionnaire maharajas 'just fine' that's acceptable, but to claim that this was a huge contrast with the British rule is ridiculous. The Indian princes absorbed far more of the money than the British, leaving their populations at least as poor.

In a word, bollocks. Once again, if you went and had a look at the policies enacted by pre-colonial rulers (such as Akbar [*2]) then you will see that there was unprejudiced access to government positions - unlike under British rule, which saw a veritable ceiling (issuing from racist policies) being placed upon Indians to work in their own country.

The Indians were not generally subjugated or worked to the bone. Nor were most of them deliberately half-starved (if any at all). It is true that for much of colonial rule the British regarded themselves as superior, and beatings and 'brutalisation' took place for simple things like getting in someone's way.

I'm sorry brighteye, but to someone who has spent much time reading up and writing on all these matters, your post comes across as somewhat ignorant. Again, look to policies the Brits enacted around "indentured labour" (who do you think built India's railways? The Brits? Don't make me laugh!) and find that what you have posted is quite erroneous, or at least highly economical with the truth. And you say I've posted rhetoric!

To bring it back onto topic for the thread title, look to British policies in Africa to find both slave labour and also indentured labour for black Africans. Once again, do you think the white man got his hands dirty building the east African railway?! That goes a bit further than "regarding themselves as superior". Not only did they regard themselves as superior, they legislated, fired guns, established sweatshops and enacted taxation policies which made their opinion real.

It's not really much different from the princes' ways of punishing a crime by bagging anyone who was nearby. At least with the British you could avoid that sort of injustice by avoiding the white people.

Sorry, I'm not getting what you're saying here. Please re-phrase.

---

[*1 & *2] Look to this article posted in History Forum by Allhailindia for a snappy bite that will save you reading many other texts that say much the same (which are probably kept from you / neglected in Oxford to preserve your supremist bias).

 

[Brighteye]

As I understood it, Indian princes took a great deal of money, lived in wealth and still had poor subjects.
The British took a lot of produce, but it wasn't all stolen straight from the needy poor: it was taking the place of the previous rulers.
The British introduced a legal system in which crimes and punishment were related. Again, I understand that where this could not immediately be accomplished, it was previously the custom to deliver a punishment anyway.

Similarly, I wonder how all those wonderful Indian buildings were built. Are you telling me that the Indian rulers never resorted to a bit of forced labour? It doesn't make it right, but it'd be nice to be sure of the baseline to which we're comparing things: our standards, or the alternatives at the time.

My patchy knowledge of colonialisation ends in about 1860, but lack of policies about starvation, and 'British parliamentarians pretty much crapping their pants over what to do about famine' sounds more like incompetence than malice.

 

[GinandTonic]

Man, I thought this white-mans-burden crap died with Kipling. Colonization was not a necessary condition for westernisation. That previous rulers were, in some cases worse, does not mean the colonials were right. Outside of a few cases the colonisers were not boogymen, nor were they the salvation army.

 

[Winner]

Moderator Action: Winner warned for trolling. (Trolling in this case= posting general negative sweeping statements about groups of people without backing them up in any way)
Rambuchan warned for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I don't get it - what exactly are these "sweeping statments"?

I said, that the colonized societies were technologically and socially inferior to the Europeans. It's logical - if they were advanced, they wouldn't be colonized in the first place. If this is trolling, then I don't see why, because it is kinda obvious.

If the trolling is something else I said, I'd like to know what it is exactly, thank you

 

[Mathilda]

Moderator Action: Winner. Public discussion for moderator actions is not allowed. You can ask these questions in a pm.
I've just looked at the amount of warnings you have accumulated and it seems you could do with some time off from posting to give you a good chance to read the rules. Five days.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889