Colonialism: Good or Bad

Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legitimize or promote this system, especially the belief that the mores of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized.

Advocates of colonialism argue that colonial rule benefits the colonized by developing the economic and political infrastructure necessary for modernization and democracy. They point to such former colonies as the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of post-colonial success. These nations do not, however, represent the normal course of colonialism in that they are either settler societies, or tradepost cities.

Dependency theorists such as Andre Gunder Frank, on the other hand, argue that colonialism actually leads to the net transfer of wealth from the colonized to the colonizer, and inhibits successful economic development.

Critics of colonialism such as Frantz Fanon and Aime Cesaire argue that colonialism does political, psychological, and moral damage to the colonized as well.

More critically, Indian writer and political activist Arundhati Roy said that debating the pros and cons of colonialism/imperialism "is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape".

Critics of the alleged abuses of economic and political advantages accruing to developed nations via globalised capitalism have referred to them as neocolonialism, and see them as a continuation of the domination and exploitation of ex-colonial countries, merely utilizing different means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Good or bad?

I say bad!

Yeah, this goes in Cosmos.
Any mods here?

;)

Well i voted bad. I would have to say as a broad overall statement i don't like colonialism, but there are cases when i could see this benefiting the colonized.

@tt!tud3
Of all your examples of succesfull colonies None of them were successfull for the original inhabitants. Ask the americain indians if they think colonisation was good for them?
Ireland is about the only countries in europe that has a negative demographic trend over the last 150 years. In 1800 the population of Ireland was 8.5 million today north and south combine it is about 5.5 mil.
Yeah rapier57 you are right this does fit in Cosmos. :)

Colonialism is irrelevant, it happened and has gone................it is history. Even the concept of economic colonialism is very much overrated as World Trade is mostly in private hands (apart from weapons).

What is of interest is the legacy of colonialism. Major points being:

PRO:

1. Political and administrative infrastructure.
2. Physical infrastructure (transport, healthcare, schools, airports, seaports)
3. You get to speak English :)

CONTRA:

1. Grouping different peoples together causes civil wars etc.
2. Monocultural "plantation" agriculture causes vulnerability to market fluctuations.
3. Unnatural economy that was a satellite of the colonial power's (Even Northern Ireland and East Germany demonstrate this problem as both were heavily dependent on the armaments industry ;) )
4. Infrastucture designed to meet the needs of the colonisers, not the colonised.
5. You get to take liberties with the English Language :(

Well just a few ideas to be going on with

If there were a happy medium, where the larger, more progressive civilization could leverage their power, economy and technology to assist the smaller, poorer and less developed country to the benefit of both entities ...

'Course, that would have to assume that the larger country isn't motivated by greed, plain and simple.

Phrases that strike terror into the hearts of reservation inhabitants throughout the US:

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."
"You can live here as long as the grass grows and the streams flow."
"I'm an expert in this area and I know what's good for you."

Also let's not forget, that most colonisation happened as a result of something other then settlers running off to that golden rainbow.

North America's first colonisation funny enough just hit the silver screen, it was a disaster, wasn't until the pilgrims escaping England that North America started to be settled and it was mostly those running away from their old countries due to persecution or starvation....

Australia/New Zealand were mostly colonised in the beginning by convicts,(and retired military types who were offered land for services rendered) not people looking for a nice place to settle down...

India, was because of economics and the trade routes for most things going east and west

Caribbean, mostly ex-pirates (Capt'n Morgan) who when they became official "privateers" went clean and settled in the islands, also for the sugar as it was the main export along with tobacco...(and slaves)....

Most of the places in Africa, were due to economic reasons as well....Gold/Diamonds/Ivory/Oil

Also it was a race between Spanish/Porteguese/English/Dutch/German/French to control the varied sea routes and trade between other countries, that really set the tone for settlement and colonisation, whoever controlled these trade routes would reap the rewards, one of the main reasons they were always at war with one another....

http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/mercanti.html

Colonialism and imperialism were tied to the economic theory
called mercantilism. In a nutshell, mercantilism taught that all
trade is inherently exploitation, and, other things being equal,
it is better for you to exploit them than for them to
exploit you.

Adam Smith and capitalism displaced mercantilism with the
idea that free trade benefits both participants.
It also became apparent that maintaining an empire is
more expensive than it is worth.
:cool:

dalek: While I agree with you on colonialism please stop spreading the lies abotu the pilgrams. They where fleeing holland because there was not enough oppreshion for their taste.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
dalek: While I agree with you on colonialism please stop spreading the lies abotu the pilgrams. They where fleeing holland because there was not enough oppreshion for their taste.

---

Say what??? Holland......methinks they were fleeing England first.....

Quote:

---

Pilgrims
The Pilgrims were English Separatists who founded (1620) Plymouth Colony in New England. In the first years of the 17th century, small numbers of English Puritans broke away from the Church of England because they felt that it had not completed the work of the Reformation. They committed themselves to a life based on the Bible. Most of these Separatists were farmers, poorly educated and without social or political standing. One of the Separatist congregations was led by William Brewster and the Rev. Richard Clifton in the village of Scrooby in Nottinghamshire. The Scrooby group emigrated to Amsterdam in 1608 to escape harassment and religious persecution. The next year they moved to Leiden, where, enjoying full religious freedom, they remained for almost 12 years. In 1617, discouraged by economic difficulties, the pervasive Dutch influence on their children, and their inability to secure civil err autonomy, the congregation voted to emigrate to America. Through the Brewster family's friendship with Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company, the congregation secured two patents authorizing them to settle in the northern part of the company's jurisdiction. Unable to finance the costs of the emigration with their own meager resources, they negotiated a financial agreement with Thomas Weston, a prominent London iron merchant. Fewer than half of the group's members elected to leave Leiden. A small ship, the Speedwell, carried them to Southampton, England, where they were to join another group of Separatists and pick up a second ship. After some delays and disputes, the voyagers regrouped at Plymouth aboard the 180-ton Mayflower. It began its historic voyage on Sept. 16, 1620, with about 102 passengers--fewer than half of them from Leiden. After a 65-day journey, the Pilgrims sighted Cape Cod on November 19. Unable to reach the land they had contracted for, they anchored (November 21) at the site of Provincetown. Because they had no legal right to settle in the region, they drew up the Mayflower Compact, creating their own government. The settlers soon discovered Plymouth Harbor, on the western side of Cape Cod Bay and made their historic landing on December 21; the main body of settlers followed on December 26. The term Pilgrim was first used by William Bradford to describe the Leiden Separatists who were leaving Holland. The Mayflower's passengers were first described as the Pilgrim Fathers in 1799.

---

err...what part of this is a lie......so they went east to Holland for 12 years, (still fleeing) they then decided to flee Holland, it's the same group of people who made it to America, and it was the English who called themselves Pilgrims...see above...

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!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Along with US colonialism came their invention "Gun Boat diplomacy"

---

That is British! and don't you Yankee toads try to steal it!!!!!

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?