[Pants-of-dog]

@Verv

The problems caused by colonialism do not magically go away when the colonialism ends. Often, there is a period where conditions actually worsen, and this is for several reasons. One is the lack of international support, and another is the lack of government continuity.

[Verv]

@Verv

The problems caused by colonialism do not magically go away when the colonialism ends. Often, there is a period where conditions actually worsen, and this is for several reasons. One is the lack of international support, and another is the lack of government continuity.

OK, so take a look at Haiti...

And take a look at Hong Kong and Singapore...

Why does Haiti still have problems, but Hong Kong & Singapore do not. How come Hong Kong even had become a prosperous place while a colony.

Of course, it's hard to compare these places 1:1. It's almost as if their former statuses as colonies are not that relevant of factors for their prosperity or lack of prosperity.

[Pants-of-dog]

OK, so take a look at Haiti...

And take a look at Hong Kong and Singapore...

Why does Haiti still have problems, but Hong Kong & Singapore do not. How come Hong Kong even had become a prosperous place while a colony.

Of course, it's hard to compare these places 1:1. It's almost as if their former statuses as colonies are not that relevant of factors for their prosperity or lack of prosperity.

Were Hong Kong and Singapore made to pay millions of dollars when they set themselves fee and killed their slave masters?

[Verv]

Were Hong Kong and Singapore made to pay millions of dollars when they set themselves fee and killed their slave masters?

Aw, so you are saying that the debt that Haiti paid off to France from 1825 to 1947, which some peopel estimate as having been worth around $21 billion.... is what resulted in poverty for Haiti to this day, yes? [1]

I think if we were to begin to count the foreign aid given to Haiti in the last 100 years, the number would not be insignificant. For instance, it is estimated that $13 billion was given in aid by the US alone since 2010 [2]. Canada, between 2006 and 2011, gave $520 million to Haiti. By the end of December 2007, during a political crisis in Haiti, the international community had already pledged $840 million in aid. [3].

I am sure we can go back further and find other instances of aid to Haiti. But it's actually hard to find anything since there is really a staggering amount of information on the failed aid being given to Haiti now -- literally billions & billions, and then lots of articles about how this has all be a failure.

At some point, though, I think it comes to the fact that Haiti is in a geographically disadvantageous location, has poorly utilized what poor resources it has, and is generally in a hopeless situation, right. No doubt, Puerto Rico could expect to live much better than Haiti.

... The legacy of "colonialism" in Hong Kong, Singapore, Haiti, India, Colombia, etc. are all going to be incredibly different.

Colonialism does not have a consistent, measurable impact on socieites.

Other factors are far more relevant to the success and failure of a society.



[1] Forbes editorial
[2] Foreign aid to Haiti (Wikipeida)
[3] Foreign Affairs

[Tainari88]

@Verv

The problems caused by colonialism do not magically go away when the colonialism ends. Often, there is a period where conditions actually worsen, and this is for several reasons. One is the lack of international support, and another is the lack of government continuity.

Americans often fail to study their own American Revolutionary history. There were many sellout pro British in the Revolutionary war of the USA. And the years after the war there were repeated attempts to get back the colonies by force. The poverty and the problems for the USA at that period between 1776-1830's was very difficult and part of the reason why importing African slaves was so attractive. They were in debt to banks. Many slaveowners were heavily in debt to banks. The British and others used debt service to control the New World colonies.

The people defending the USA's colonialism are foolish. Colonialism sucks because the imperial powers want to live off of the colonies and not give them rights to their own resources, their own labor and their own communities. Total control and sucking off their production is what Empires do. Otherwise why bother with the colonization in the first place?

[Pants-of-dog]

Aw, so you are saying that the debt that Haiti paid off to France from 1825 to 1947, which some peopel estimate as having been worth around $21 billion.... is what resulted in poverty for Haiti to this day, yes? [1]

It is not the only reason.

It is simply the most egregious example of colonialism that Haiti dealt with and that other countries may not have. Colonialism in East Asia was qualitatively different from colonialism in the Caribbean.

I think if we were to begin to count the foreign aid given to Haiti in the last 100 years, the number would not be insignificant. For instance, it is estimated that $13 billion was given in aid by the US alone since 2010 [2]. Canada, between 2006 and 2011, gave $520 million to Haiti. By the end of December 2007, during a political crisis in Haiti, the international community had already pledged $840 million in aid. [3].

And how much of that actually made it to Haiti? Most foreign aid is subsidies to local private companies that then get a contract to do some work in Haiti. Most of the money stays in the donating country. And often in return for these loans (as many of these are loans), the country has to give up economic control to other countries who then exploit the country.

But it is nice to see someone have so much faith in foreign aid.

I am sure we can go back further and find other instances of aid to Haiti. But it's actually hard to find anything since there is really a staggering amount of information on the failed aid being given to Haiti now -- literally billions & billions, and then lots of articles about how this has all be a failure.

Then it should be easy for you to actually come up with an amount and an argument. As far as I can tell, the argument is that people have given a lot of money to Haiti so colonialism magically never had an impact.

At some point, though, I think it comes to the fact that Haiti is in a geographically disadvantageous location, has poorly utilized what poor resources it has, and is generally in a hopeless situation, right. No doubt, Puerto Rico could expect to live much better than Haiti.

It probably could because of the current global attitude towards newly formed countries as opposed to the international attitude at the time Haiti rebelled.

... The legacy of "colonialism" in Hong Kong, Singapore, Haiti, India, Colombia, etc. are all going to be incredibly different.

Colonialism does not have a consistent, measurable impact on socieites.

Other factors are far more relevant to the success and failure of a society.

Yes and no.

Legacies will be different.

Colonialism has a measurable and consistent negative impact.

Other factors also matter, but are not necessarily more relevant.

[skinster]

OK, so take a look at Haiti...

Also, thread explains some of the history:

[Verv]

Americans often fail to study their own American Revolutionary history. There were many sellout pro British in the Revolutionary war of the USA. And the years after the war there were repeated attempts to get back the colonies by force. The poverty and the problems for the USA at that period between 1776-1830's was very difficult and part of the reason why importing African slaves was so attractive. They were in debt to banks. Many slaveowners were heavily in debt to banks. The British and others used debt service to control the New World colonies.

Sounds interesting.

Slaves are more or less like equipment in a factory, right: plenty of businesses have to invest too much in their equipment and turn very little profit even though they initially thought that they would.

I think it is still quite normal for farmers to live on the edge. There are years of bunker crops, and years of inclement weather.

I am not an expert on what it was like then, but I believe that a lot of the poverty that existed was likely not so different of a description than the poverty you would have found in the Old World, hence the desire people had to keep coming.

The people defending the USA's colonialism are foolish. Colonialism sucks because the imperial powers want to live off of the colonies and not give them rights to their own resources, their own labor and their own communities. Total control and sucking off their production is what Empires do. Otherwise why bother with the colonization in the first place?

I had once heard that colonialism was an error -- more like a semi-error. European powers ended up investing loads & loads of resources into their colonies only to get very tenuous benefits that could disappear quickly. The silver trade definitely benefited Spain in the beginning, right, but then it started to dry up and the obligations that Spain then had to its colonies were also very significant.

It caused everyone to want to become colonists as well, because it was very vital to keep bringing in more resources for the state when that is what the Spanish & Portuguese are doing.

To some degree, these added resources did give the Western European powers an edge, but they eventually became very clunky & unmanageable.

We are talking very big picture history, though. It's hard to come to conclusions.

My point is, though, is that nobody had the entire picture of what colonialism can mean. The initial boons of taxes and resources were undeniable, but the upkeep and the drain they could pose on nations were things a lot of people didn't consider.

There's also the question of ungrateful natives.

And it's hardest of all to argue about that because they paint it out like the pre-European world was some paradise that they could retreat into but it is really a dubious claim because glorifying illiterate barbarians is really a White Thing, right. It's a naive and silly position.

I am not sure how well I responded but your comments led me to those comments. I do not think of it as a competition.

[Verv]

@skinster, that guy Alex is claiming that the US is trying to destabilize Haiti to control it from the outside.

Why would the US be interested in doing that? What does Haiti really have that we cannot get through trade with them while they are stable and reliable?

I am not super familiar with the situation in Haiti right now, so explain like I'm five or something.

[Verv]

It is not the only reason.

It is simply the most egregious example of colonialism that Haiti dealt with and that other countries may not have. Colonialism in East Asia was qualitatively different from colonialism in the Caribbean.

And then there is even the "colonialism" that theoretically still exists in Washington or Manitoba, right, and then there could be the "neo-colonialism" of China in Nigeria, right?

It sounds like a very complex topic.

"Colonialism" is like "war."

Every war is different. Some wars do resemble one another and may be more or less similar, but, generally speaking, to evaluate a war, one must be an expert in that specific war. It is not enough to talk about 'wars' generally.

So, perhaps, the position of being 'anti-colonial' can be tricky sometimes. The topic is just so broad.

And how much of that actually made it to Haiti? Most foreign aid is subsidies to local private companies that then get a contract to do some work in Haiti. Most of the money stays in the donating country. And often in return for these loans (as many of these are loans), the country has to give up economic control to other countries who then exploit the country.

But it is nice to see someone have so much faith in foreign aid.

Those are interesting claims about the money staying mostly in the subsidizing country. I would love some juicy quotations about that.

Do you have any?

I have long said that aid can sometimes be ineffective and a racket, and it can often undercut the local industries.

Then it should be easy for you to actually come up with an amount and an argument. As far as I can tell, the argument is that people have given a lot of money to Haiti so colonialism magically never had an impact.

So what is the lasting impact?

At some point, the impact must be thought of as having gone away, right?

I understand how your dad may have beaten you up while drunk 5 or 6 times as a boy and it had a very negative impact on you. Perhaps it caused a few meltdowns in your twenties and you acted like a jerk a few times. Maybe you even got an arrest or two from those terrible days where you were out of control....

But at some point you can be a well-adjusted 30-year-old with a few hang-ups, or you can be a 30-year-old covered in prison tattoos and with a rap sheet down to his prison tattoos.

Personal responsibility has to kick in.

When does Haiti start taking responsibility for Haiti? Obviously, I am not saying individual Haitians should be thought of as less for the state of their country. I am just saying that, at some point, the culture and the society has to be held accountable for the circumstnaces that it regularly faces.

Eventually the culture of alcoholism & NASCAR in the trailer park has to be thought a bad thing, right. When do we get to criticize Haiti's trailer park.

It probably could because of the current global attitude towards newly formed countries as opposed to the international attitude at the time Haiti rebelled.



Yes and no.

Legacies will be different.

Colonialism has a measurable and consistent negative impact.

Other factors also matter, but are not necessarily more relevant.

Here's a thought:

Sometimes the positives of colonialism are really lost.

We just take it for granted that you can have access to modern medicine in Saigon or Bombay or Mozambique, and that these nations have a concept of human rights and participate in a very rich global economy...

But we can meticulously count every engative that happened 80 years ago, and that is all that is relevant today.

[Pants-of-dog]

And then there is even the "colonialism" that theoretically still exists in Washington or Manitoba, right, and then there could be the "neo-colonialism" of China in Nigeria, right?

It sounds like a very complex topic.

"Colonialism" is like "war."

Every war is different. Some wars do resemble one another and may be more or less similar, but, generally speaking, to evaluate a war, one must be an expert in that specific war. It is not enough to talk about 'wars' generally.

So, perhaps, the position of being 'anti-colonial' can be tricky sometimes. The topic is just so broad.

No, it is not that broad.

China is not engaged in colonialism at all. And Canada’s colonialism in Manitoba has had predictable and negative impacts.

Those are interesting claims about the money staying mostly in the subsidizing country. I would love some juicy quotations about that.

Do you have any?

I have long said that aid can sometimes be ineffective and a racket, and it can often undercut the local industries.

I put in as much effort to find evidence as you.

So what is the lasting impact?

At some point, the impact must be thought of as having gone away, right?

I understand how your dad may have beaten you up while drunk 5 or 6 times as a boy and it had a very negative impact on you. Perhaps it caused a few meltdowns in your twenties and you acted like a jerk a few times. Maybe you even got an arrest or two from those terrible days where you were out of control....

But at some point you can be a well-adjusted 30-year-old with a few hang-ups, or you can be a 30-year-old covered in prison tattoos and with a rap sheet down to his prison tattoos.

Personal responsibility has to kick in.

When does Haiti start taking responsibility for Haiti? Obviously, I am not saying individual Haitians should be thought of as less for the state of their country. I am just saying that, at some point, the culture and the society has to be held accountable for the circumstnaces that it regularly faces.

Eventually the culture of alcoholism & NASCAR in the trailer park has to be thought a bad thing, right. When do we get to criticize Haiti's trailer park.

Instead of bringing up moralistic irrelevancies like “personal responsibility”, you should provide evidence for your claim that colonialism is beneficial.

Please do so now.

Here's a thought:

Sometimes the positives of colonialism are really lost.

We just take it for granted that you can have access to modern medicine in Saigon or Bombay or Mozambique, and that these nations have a concept of human rights and participate in a very rich global economy...

But we can meticulously count every engative that happened 80 years ago, and that is all that is relevant today.

Instead of bringing up fantasies like “beneficial colonialism”, you should provide evidence for your claim that colonialism is beneficial.

Please do so now.

[Tainari88]

@Pants-of-dog said:

Instead of bringing up moralistic irrelevancies like “personal responsibility”, you should provide evidence for your claim that colonialism is beneficial.

Please do so now.

That is the problem with the self responsibility argument. It doesn't apply to imperialists. They don't have to take responsibility for destroying other societies and making life hard for other people. Just destroy and let them try to rebuild.

Yes, @Verv go and find evidence that says that a long colonization results in good and wonderful benefits for the colonized nation. I want higher standards of living and better living conditions that the EMPIRE dwellers and Imperialists nations. I want to see how the imperialistic nations give so much good things as to be suffering themselves when the colonizing is done.

Bring on the evidence @Verv . Where is the overwhelming evidence that colonizing other nations is beneficial to the colonized?

You are going to realize that the Empires don't do a damn thing unless there is something in it for them as well or they need to occupy that land for themselves when they had no land rights due to that not being their nation.

Get the evidence saying that and demonstrating that the colonized got more out of it than the colonizer. I am waiting...it will be the discovery of the 21st century.

[Rancid]

Pretty sure all 3 nations are feared in different ways and in different parts of the world.

Close thread. Done and done.

I win.

[skinster]

Why would the US be interested in doing that?

Maybe read the history and present of what your government does around the world.

Here's some background tho.

[Verv]

@skinster, sure, I deserve that kind of response, I guess.

No problem can't be cured by some heavy reading.

Pretty sure all 3 nations are feared in different ways and in different parts of the world.

Close thread. Done and done.

I win.

The answer is the right one but people will say it's a cop out because it somehow doesn't fulfill what everyone wants to say about it.

That's how you know you have the correct, bias-free answer, though. Nobody is satisfied.

[Verv]

Yes, @Verv go and find evidence that says that a long colonization results in good and wonderful benefits for the colonized nation. I want higher standards of living and better living conditions that the EMPIRE dwellers and Imperialists nations. I want to see how the imperialistic nations give so much good things as to be suffering themselves when the colonizing is done.

Bring on the evidence @Verv . Where is the overwhelming evidence that colonizing other nations is beneficial to the colonized?

You are going to realize that the Empires don't do a damn thing unless there is something in it for them as well or they need to occupy that land for themselves when they had no land rights due to that not being their nation.

Get the evidence saying that and demonstrating that the colonized got more out of it than the colonizer. I am waiting...it will be the discovery of the 21st century.

Is Mexico today dominated by a death-cult that sacrifices tens of thousands of people a year to Huitzilopochtli?

No, and that is a pretty big plus.

Every argument would basically boil down to some version of you now have modern medicine, literacy, access to univeristies, a concept of human rights, and access to the Holy Communion.

I am sure, though, there is some argument along the lines of [i]we could've gotten that without all of this colonialism, but this involves living & operating in a world where humans aren't humans but are rather pure altruists who are interested in trading Penicillin for beads.

Fun thing: that is eventually what happened.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is Mexico today dominated by a death-cult that sacrifices tens of thousands of people a year to Huitzilopochtli?

No, and that is a pretty big plus.

Considering how many Indians were forcibly converted or burned at the stake by Christians, this is not necessarily an improvement even if you could support those numbers with evidence.

Every argument would basically boil down to some version of you now have modern medicine,

Smallpox killed millions of indigenous people in the Americas, and many indigenous groups have limited access to medicine to this day.

literacy,

...which the Aztecs already had.

access to universities

Indigenous people in the Americas rarely have access now, let alone in the last 500 years since colonialism started.

a concept of human rights,

....like the mutual obligation systems of the Cree, or the laws of the Iroquois confederacy?

and access to the Holy Communion.

I am sure, though, there is some argument along the lines of we could've gotten that without all of this colonialism, but this involves living & operating in a world where humans aren't humans but are rather pure altruists who are interested in trading Penicillin for beads.

Fun thing: that is eventually what happened.

Yes, it is very possible to get these things without colonialism.

Most of these things are not from (for example) England, and yet the English enjoy all of these things without having to have been subject to colonialism.

[Verv]

How many natives do you think were burned at the stake by Christians?

How many of those natives were involved in the mass murder of their own people and others, sometimes in ritualized ceremonies? And how many of them practiced cannibalism?

I am sure there were grave injustices, because these things always have a way of occurring, right, but I would like to see some numbers for a side-by-side.

You've made some assertions -- I look forward to their substantiation.

Most of these things are not from (for example) England, and yet the English enjoy all of these things without having to have been subject to colonialism.

Are you saying that some English people were not the victims of colonialism? So, a black person of Nigerian descent who is English is not a victim of colonialism, right?

I think you've made a great point: there just aren't many living people at all who have been victimized by colonialism, and the burdens of colonialism are not inherited. I am sure that some people would like to debate you on this, though.

[JohnRawls]

How many natives do you think were burned at the stake by Christians?

How many of those natives were involved in the mass murder of their own people and others, sometimes in ritualized ceremonies? And how many of them practiced cannibalism?

I am sure there were grave injustices, because these things always have a way of occurring, right, but I would like to see some numbers for a side-by-side.

You've made some assertions -- I look forward to their substantiation.



Are you saying that some English people were not the victims of colonialism? So, a black person of Nigerian descent who is English is not a victim of colonialism, right?

I think you've made a great point: there just aren't many living people at all who have been victimized by colonialism, and the burdens of colonialism are not inherited. I am sure that some people would like to debate you on this, though.

To be honest here European exploration and massive damage to the people of all America's was inevitable one way or the other. The problem that happened was that as soon as the first Europeans reached America, they also brought the microbes and viruses from the old world.

As one of my friends tried to explaine to me: basically Europe and Asia and Africa suffered through numerous plagues, diseases, viruses mostly related to our lifestyles.(domestic animals like pigs,chickens etc.) The domesticated animals bring disease and mutate it easily. In the old world there was more than 50 "dangerous" domestic animals who made the old world more resilient to disease of different sorts. In North and South America there were only 5 widely used domestic animals only one of which was dangerous in the same regard(llama)

So diseases that killed 1 out of 100 people in Spain killed 54 out of 58 people in Aztek villages. So the population of the Aztek empire went down from 25 million to just 2 million in 30-50 years for example without Cortez or anybody else waging a biological campaign of annihilation. ( People didn't know how microbes and viruses work untill late 19th century and early/mid 20th century respectively)

[Pants-of-dog]

How many natives do you think were burned at the stake by Christians?

How many of those natives were involved in the mass murder of their own people and others, sometimes in ritualized ceremonies? And how many of them practiced cannibalism?

I am sure there were grave injustices, because these things always have a way of occurring, right, but I would like to see some numbers for a side-by-side.

You've made some assertions -- I look forward to their substantiation.

Let us start with your evidence for the number of Aztec sacrifices.

Are you saying that some English people were not the victims of colonialism? So, a black person of Nigerian descent who is English is not a victim of colonialism, right?

Yes, I am saying that SOME people in E gland have never suffered the negative impacts of colonialism. That does not mean that your hypothetical Nigerian immigrant has not.

I think you've made a great point: there just aren't many living people at all who have been victimized by colonialism, and the burdens of colonialism are not inherited. I am sure that some people would like to debate you on this, though.

If you think I said that, you have deeply misunderstood.