Colonialism: It's Side-effects and Consequences - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1025133
A friend and I had an interesting debate last week about whether countries should give support to ex-colonies who are now in a terrible state (hunger, AIDS, etcetera). My friend thought we should, but I said we shouldn't. One of the reasons for me to say that was because I don't really believe those countries got in such a terrible state because of us while my friend believe colonialism had a majorly negative impact on those countries.

Of course, I'm not questioning whether colonialism, this form of exploitation, because I think it was exploitation, was a bad thing. But for instance, I've read that England had done some good things to India to improve civilization over there. Of course there was the oppression which was bluntly put, shameless. But then, in the end, can we say that India's poverty today has anything to do with colonialism happened back then?

From everything I've looked up I've found only assumptions that colonialism did have a lasting negative impact on these ex-colonies, but there doesn't seem to be anyone out there suggesting those countries were to be poor either way. That's why I came to PoFo for this perhaps touchy subject. :D

But you can see the problem here. So the main question is:
Is there any evidence colonialism had a lasting negative impact on the countries they've colonized in the past?
By useless
#1025196
The Antiist wrote:But for instance, I've read that England had done some good things to India to improve civilization over there.


And what was that improvement like?
How would you like it, if some Indians come to England and kill there some 30 or 40 million people?
How would you rate it, if Congolese take revenge and try to even up the score your neighbour Belgium had started in Congo? Do you think any of your neighbours down in Belgium would survive that?

So, tell me once again, what that the positive side-effects of mass-murder, slavery and exploitation are?
And how you even dare to call that "civilization"? To bring civilization to India only one could tell, who has no idea of India.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#1025582
I think it depends. "Colonialism" is a charged word, psychologically, the impact was negative. Generally speaking, it instilled an enormous inferiority complex into the colonized which most 3rd world countries have yet to fully overcome (their elites anyway).

That said, even without explicit colonialism, if all you had was simply a powerful West, then you'd still have 3rd world countries looking to the West for guidance, their rulers sending their children to Western schools, and generally copying their mores and customs. Material prosperity and military superiority speak for themselves, rule or no rule. The few countries who have escaped colonization (Thailand, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Japan) have either ended up not so different from former colonized countries or (exceptionally) succesfully copied or surpassed the West.

Materially-speaking, the impact of colonialism was diverse. Generally it was the best in the British empire (India of course being the outstanding example, all 3rd world countries with any sort of stable democracy are all former British colonies). British colonialism created in some instances (usually if rule was long enough) educated middle-class and moderate elites.

We can contrast that with, say, the French in Vietnam/Algeria, or the Portuguese in Mozambique/Angola, where the total refusal of decolonization led to extremist authoritarians to claim power brutal war. The worst were probably the Belgians, genocidal profit seeking during the first 25 years and then a regime of enforced ignorance of the Congolese so that they would never be capable of independence.

Your friend's humanitarianism is quaint, it reminds of the White Man's Burden, again he makes the destiny of colored peoples contingent on the morality of the White man.
User avatar
By The Antiist
#1026161
The answer you gave was more complicated and yet more clear than I suspect the truth would be. But it makes sense.

But indeed I thought my friends' sense of morale was kind of twisted. Although I suspect you've kind of misunderstood him. What he suggested was that we (let's say 'ex-imperialists') should be obligated to give financial support to get those ex-colonized 'back on their feet'. He didn't meant we could re-colonize those countries. ;)

useless wrote:And what was that improvement like?
How would you like it, if some Indians come to England and kill there some 30 or 40 million people?
How would you rate it, if Congolese take revenge and try to even up the score your neighbour Belgium had started in Congo? Do you think any of your neighbours down in Belgium would survive that?

So, tell me once again, what that the positive side-effects of mass-murder, slavery and exploitation are?
And how you even dare to call that "civilization"? To bring civilization to India only one could tell, who has no idea of India.

Well, I didn't really want to bring it up, but since you've gave me the opportunity I can't resist the inner satanic force inside of me to confess that I indeed do approve of colonialism and genocide. Congratulations on your discovery, Mr. Watson. Case closed.
By useless
#1026264
Antiist wrote:Well, I didn't really want to bring it up, but since you've gave me the opportunity I can't resist the inner satanic force inside of me to confess that I indeed do approve of colonialism and genocide. Congratulations on your discovery, Mr. Watson. Case closed.


You just have no idea of history. Seems not like a kind of civilization. But indeed, your Dutch with your Golden Age filled with the money of the slave trade.

Colonialsm transformed the different societies under colonial rule in a political, social, demographical, economical and psychological way.
To the most, it was everywhere mass-murder, slavery, exploitation, drain of goods and destroyal of economic relations, education and vocations.

Colonialism did not indeed end with the decolonizations, but lasted even longer in the cold war until now with the row for ressourcces.
The interesting thing in Africa is, countries which lack ressources (Mali, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Benin, Namibia) have a higher rank of democracy than others have (Nigeria, Sudan, Equatorial-Guinea, Cameroon, Rwanda, Uganda). Only the exception of Botswana with diamonds (monopoly of De Beers) is remarkable as it is with the Ivory Coast and Ethiopia.
All conflicts in Africa had been driven by the cold war like all the overthrowels of governments (Mali, Ghana, Zambia, Angola, Rwanda, Congo, ...) or are even the heritage of the indirect rule (Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan).

One point of the colonial system is quite different from any other kind of expansion and conquest. The subdued were refused to join the winners. If we contrast that with the Mongol Khans, the Chinese, the Romans, the Caliphs or the Ottomans, who all granted the subdued to enter the ranks, under colonial rule and colonial racism, that was not possible: no intermarriage, no access to the military apart from auxiliaries or as mercenaries, little access to political spheres (confined to indirect rule), but then with limited power due to restrictions and at least little acception of different religions and habits (the language as we can see today was not that big problem).
Every system will break down and has broken down, when the elite is getting more self-centred and ignorant (like the Romans with the Goths, the Ottomans, the Abbassids, the Fatimids, and so on).

DumbTeen wrote:Materially-speaking, the impact of colonialism was diverse. Generally it was the best in the British empire (India of course being the outstanding example, all 3rd world countries with any sort of stable democracy are all former British colonies). British colonialism created in some instances (usually if rule was long enough) educated middle-class and moderate elites.


That's not correct. As well as all colonial rule, the English system excluded the elites and the middle class. For that, resistance by cultural groups (religious groups, writers, journalists, publishers) spread across the countries.

Democracy does not only depend on the colonial rule, but for most on the influence of foreign powers during the cold war and the later influence to get the hands on resources. Of course, there are some exceptions due to racism and discrimination like it is Israel, Rwanda, South-Africa, Sudan and Pakistan.
Civil society was crushed mostly by military rule like it was in pretty all former colonies and non-colonies due to the only global war we have ever seen, the cold war. In India and Malaysia, there was never any kind of military rule, and for that much lesser problems and more stability, because there was never a regime ruling for years or even decades with the only goal to take enough money to Zurich and to spread corruption and nepotism.

If we only look at the example India, you have called outstanding, we see the English system at work:
~ direct rule and indirect rule with limited power side by side
~ the drive to spread hatred under communities (very good achievement with Hindu and Muslims, but also very good "results" in Sri Lanka, Israel, Cyprus, Nigeria or Sudan)
~ the complet transformation of the Indian economy to the needs of the English economy (salt and textile monopolies)
~ the drain of money to England
~ the monopolization of industries and trade routes
~ the destroyal of the education and academic system
~ by all this the destruction of the regional trade, industries (e.g. iron-ore processing) and craftsmanship
~ at the end the decline of the middle class
~ and not to forget the lasting effect on the demography as it was like with the mass-starvations in Bengal and on the Dekkan
Last edited by useless on 05 Nov 2006 13:48, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1026340
The most successfull former colonies IMO tend to be the ones that were set up for actual colonization with law and order based like that of the colonizing power's home nation - long term stasbility.

Resoure exploitation colonies were organized for very different reasons, and thus they had very different organization structures - slash and burn.




However, Id also like to point out local/native people's history. India had stable empires and kingdoms that organized the people for centuries, the British largely moved in and took over and then supported the existing structure - with a couple add-ons here and there giving the British final say.
Modern India and Pakistan are a success because of their own history of "stable" civilizations.




Oddly, Id call Jamaica and Guianna better examples of former colonies who have come out well.

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]