Printable View
I suppose you'd need to clarify who it was good ot bad for. I'd think in general it's good for the coloniser and bad for the colonised. Britain extracted a lot of wealth from it's colonies. Some of them have done ok when they became independed (India has done ok) some have done not so good (Zimbabwe / Rhodesia).
It's just the way of the world as it was, if you had the capability to take or remove a resource from another country you just did it, to hell with the natives.
First a little history...
All the great powers, Egypt, Rome, the Ottoman Turks, Spain, Russians, France, Germany, England, etc...were colonial powers...
the two exceptions have been the US and Greece...
by exceptions I don't mean the conquered Countries were not occupied ( they were )...but by exceptions I mean that even under occupation they were allowed to remain independantly ruled...they retained for the most part their sovereignty...
colonialism was devastating for the Countries that were affected by it...but...in those days it was considered the spoils of war
Countries that were defeated and then NOT colonialized were equally devastated...usually lacking the resources or infrastucture to recover from the loss of a major war...
having said that...Countries that remain occupied but allowed to remain sovereign have had some success at recovery...provided that they are able to use that occupation to their advantage ( eg. Japan, West Germany flourished under occupation )...
so...to answer the question...overall...in respect to ' conquered ' nations...
Colonializm is bad
No-colonialism is bad
Occupation is good ( provided the nations use it to their advantage )
Complete annexation of all nations into one body the best solution ( no passports, no wars, blah, blah, blah... )
Eg ;)
The USA have embraced colonialism forever. When Roosevelt Roughriders invaded Mexico to protect their business "Coca-Cola" it was applauded by the US and is still celibrated. Roosevelt went on to become President.
Along with US colonialism came their invention "Gun Boat diplomacy". It is in the American Physic that this action is their right and often run under a save the world flag. They help people to death!
The CIA intervention into Guatemala to unseat the legitimate government in order to protect "Fruitco" the only money making industry in that Country, which was about to be nationalized.
Then you have Iraq pure colonialism pure and simple and they are still trying to find the moral high ground to do it.
Which brings me to Harper who was going to send my kids out on this adventure. I can never forgive him for that! And, he is capable to starting a new, Canadian colonialism probably in the Mediterrian.
Sorry Eg have to disagree. The US is a colonial power. It started as a colony and even after it won its independance from the British empire it continued to colonise the contenent. Also you have the idea of Manifest Destiny, which is still alive and well, and the colonisation of places like the philipines and hawaii.
BAWLZ!!!!!!
That is British! and don't you Yankee toads try to steal it!!!!!Quote:
Along with US colonialism came their invention "Gun Boat diplomacy"
In 1904, there was a minor dispute between Russia and Japan..........the British had built and trained the Japanese navy.............who resoundingly stuffed the Russian Pacific Fleet........
That left the Ruskies with one option...........send the rotting & decrepit Baltic Fleet.................trouble being, you would have to pass England in the process............so they did..........and our little lads were out there murdering herrings, as usual ;) so the silly Russian buggers shot at them and killed several................naturally, this is England, we do not allow that sort of nonsense..................young men in singlets and shorts started throwing large amounts of coal into boilers................and the GRAND FLEET left Scapa Flow.................
I would guessd that in 1904 the UK was the most powerful naval force on Earth?
They said "sorry"
;)
Then the Japanese sank them as well :D
Colonialism has destroyed far too many cultures across the world and in many cases is the reason for countries moving from a self-sustaining environment, to a trading partner with the greater powers which ultimately put them on the bad end of the trades usually anyways. Not good.
But do the benefits of our "creation" outweigh the costs?
dalek: true but they fled to america becsues holland wouldn't let them oppress others with there fudimentalist views...holland had too much religious freedom for them.
Who in particular have we colonized? And how is it different from Europe or any other country on the planet who evolved past say the year 2000 BC? We being the bad ass mutha USA?
Mexico?
Guam?
The western expansive territories dotted with indigenous humans capable of technology equated to the stone age?
Iraq?
Europe post WW2 reconstruction?
Puerto Rico?
Afghanistan?
How many colonies are in structure today by Europe?