Is colonization inherently atrocious ?

[Romanophile]

This forum has given me the impression that colonization is a crime against humanity. Whilst I do not deny that many colonisations had terrible consequences, I fail to see how these are inherent flaws in colonization. If so, why is colonisation necessarily destructive ?

[Blake's Baby]

what sort of colonisation are you talking about? Invading and conquering another country and installing people from your country as the ruling elite, is that what you mean?

[Rusty Shackleford]

though the term 'crime against humanity' is amorphous and taken up by liberals reactionaries and so on, yes it is criminal.


so why is it bad? why does the left oppose colonization?





speaking broadly, the left is for national self-determination and anti-colonialism because colonialism is against the interests of colonized peoples. it robs them of their labor and the products of their labor. the resources of a colonized territory do not benefit the people of the colonized territory, it is used for the benefit of the colonizer.

the 'civilizing' aspect promoted by colonizers and interventionists may develop industry, infrastructure, and a proletariat(assuming it is an agrarian, unindustrialized land) is on a shaky basis. the infrastructure and industry is used for the production and export of those goods. railways in africa for example were set up to reach ports for export from mining, logging, farming, and industrial centers. not for local consumption and distribution. the industry that is developed usually is for the refining of raw materials and not for the manufacture of goods. so, there will be steel mills but no metal works, there will be cotton fields, but no textile mills, there will be logging camps but no production for consumable wood products, oil wells but no refineries to produce gasoline or rubber products. on the inverse there could be shoe production, shirt production, and so on but no textile mills and agriculture to support it. there could be computer plants or car part machine shops but no steel mills, computer parts industry, or ore mines for silicon and iron. it is set up so that the colonized territory is dependent on the colonizer for access to goods and raw materials. it prevents the development of a proper 'home grown' industry if there was such a thing as national independence or a workers revolution.

as for the proletariat, sure it exists as a proletariat, the products of their labor are robbed from them and they have no right to enforce control over it (though this is true in all capitalist societies).

this isnt complete, and all that. but i guess its a start.

[Romanophile]

what sort of colonisation are you talking about? Invading and conquering another country and installing people from your country as the ruling elite, is that what you mean?

I thought that that was imperialism. Obviously that can’t be peaceful colonisation. The Colonisation of The New World is what I had in mind.

[Rusty Shackleford]

old school colonizatization like in the 1600-1800s is dead.

today it is neo-liberalism which is the new, kinder, gentler form of colonization. it removes the obvious face of the neo-colonizer and replaces it with, though not bad, a discontent with the national comprador bourgeoisie.

not to mention the ethnic strife that is devised by colonizers and neo-liberals.

[l'Enfermé]

The colonisation of the Americas involved the near-complete annihilation of American natives. We're talking about the genocide of tens of millions. How is that not destructive?

[Romanophile]

The colonisation of the Americas involved the near-complete annihilation of American natives. We're talking about the genocide of tens of millions. How is that not destructive?

I know that, but I do not know for certain if every colonization was destructive. Would not it have been hypothetically possible to peacefully colonise the Americas ?

[Aurora]

Tricky question, all sorts of horrendous and repulsive processes like enclosure, slavery and colonisation had their place in developing production, the world market, the world division of labour and consequently a proletariat capable of leading the socialist revolution. In this sense they were progressive.
This process has been largely completed, the primitive accumulation of capital, the dispossession of the peasants from their land still occurs but through the more peaceful means of bankruptcy rather than by the bayonet.
The objective conditions for socialism exist today and capitalism fetters production, the only way forward is through socialist revolution.

edit:

Would not it have been hypothetically possible to peacefully colonise the Americas ?
No, it was impossible to parcel the land and give it away or sell it to people without expelling those who lived on it and required it to live.

[homegrown terror]

there is really nowhere left on the earth (besides possibly the uninhabitable regions, such as the gobi desert, antarctica and siberia) that could be "peacefully" colonised. peaceful colonisation requires the immigrant people to not eliminate or subjugate the native population.

[Romanophile]

Why couldn’t they have adopted the native population ?

[l'Enfermé]

How would you colonise the Americas without displacing the Americans, though? You can't "adopt" the native population, they are not children...

Colonisation is a terrible fucking idea, unless you are colonising a place where nobody lives. In that case, yes, it wouldn't be destructive.

[Geiseric]

To the OP the natives never want to work as slaves which is their natural right. So the colonizers need to force the natives to work for them (mexico) or die so farms can be made (U.S.)

[Romanophile]

How would you colonise the Americas without displacing the Americans, though?
I can see your point. If a purchaser wants a land for hisself, but the natives want it for theirselves, then yes, conflict is inevitable. But surely sharing lands, however optimistic that may have been, would still be possible, no ?


You can't "adopt" the native population, they are not children...
I know that they are not children, but I am not sure how they couldn’t just assimilate into colonial society, or allow colonisers into their own. Unless of course neither society wants the other, but this is hypothetic.


Colonisation is a terrible fucking idea, unless you are colonising a place where nobody lives. In that case, yes, it wouldn't be destructive.
I’m not going to argue against this.

[Decolonize The Left]

I know that, but I do not know for certain if every colonization was destructive. Would not it have been hypothetically possible to peacefully colonise the Americas ?

I think it would be advantageous if you'd consider how this question would sound to an American Indian.

[Romanophile]

I think it would be advantageous if you'd consider how this question would sound to an American Indian.

This is just begging for stereotyping.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is just begging for stereotyping.

No. It isn't. And you totally side-stepped my point.

[Romanophile]

No. It isn't. And you totally side-stepped my point.

It is difficult for me to answer this question without accidentally sounding racist or stupid.

[Decolonize The Left]

It is difficult for me to answer this question without accidentally sounding racist or stupid.

Exactly. So consider what you just said. And then consider what I said. All I said was basically "you should think about what you're saying from the perspective of the other person." It, in a basic sense, answers all your questions.

[Romanophile]

Exactly. So consider what you just said. And then consider what I said. All I said was basically "you should think about what you're saying from the perspective of the other person." It, in a basic sense, answers all your questions.

O.K., well, if I had a nice home to myself, and somebody wanted to take it away from us and vend it (without my consent), I would be pretty pissed, especially if it were the only good home that I know of. If I had respectably powerful allies, I wouldn’t let the home go without a fight. If I am easily overpowered, then it is probably best not to bother, and go elsewhere.

If the vendor just wanted to do some fair and friendly trading, I would not be hostile at all.

I’m not sure if this’s the response that you are looking for.

P.S. : I have a tiny bit of Mohawk ancestry, if that is of interest.

[Decolonize The Left]

O.K., well, if I had a nice home to myself, and somebody wanted to take it away from us and vend it (without my consent), I would be pretty pissed, especially if it were the only good home that I know of. If I had respectably powerful allies, I wouldn’t let the home go without a fight. If I am easily overpowered, then it is probably best not to bother, and go elsewhere.

If the vendor just wanted to do some fair and friendly trading, I would not be hostile at all.

I’m not sure if this’s the response that you are looking for.

P.S. : I have a tiny bit of Mohawk ancestry, if that is of interest.

You're analogy isn't really accurate though, as many American Indian tribes did attempt to peacefully barter and trade with the white man. The truth is that "colonization" involves appropriating one culture for another. Do you really need to ask if that's ok?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I thought that that was imperialism. Obviously that can’t be peaceful colonisation. The Colonisation of The New World is what I had in mind.

Like, where people where enslaved, forcibly relocated, killed off en masse, used as subjects for early experiments in biological warfare, had their children rounded up and taken to "schools" where they were forbidden to practice their culture or speak their language, etc.?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure all of that is inherently atrocious (and, in some ways, ongoing).

[homegrown terror]

O.K., well, if I had a nice home to myself, and somebody wanted to take it away from us and vend it (without my consent), I would be pretty pissed, especially if it were the only good home that I know of. If I had respectably powerful allies, I wouldn’t let the home go without a fight. If I am easily overpowered, then it is probably best not to bother, and go elsewhere.

If the vendor just wanted to do some fair and friendly trading, I would not be hostile at all.

I’m not sure if this’s the response that you are looking for.

P.S. : I have a tiny bit of Mohawk ancestry, if that is of interest.

your ancestry isn't actually of any interest to this discussion unless it's expressed in such a way that you or your family (that you have witnessed in your lifetime) have suffered oppression with said ancestry as the focal point. to me this sounds like a guy grasping at straws to make us feel guilty and admit defeat.

[Aurora]

I remind you guys that this is the learning forum and some of your language seems a tad aggressive, Romanophile like all of us is here to learn. Please try and be respectful.

[Astarte]

When nomadic peoples first settled down at the beginning of the neolithic they usually selected the best lands to settle at - and I suppose when this first began between 11,000 and 8,000 BC it was a rather peaceful event due to human population levels being so low, but the history of "colonization" is actually the history of the forcible taking of those previously settled lands, or at least the political (which always has the potential for war) competing for them. That is, the second set of settlers who come to an area of land are usually drawn into conflict with the first set and seek to displace them as to appropriate the fatter lands the first group naturally claimed.

Even in the case of say ancient Roman legend in regards to Aeneas and King Latinus (Aeneas having arrived from Greece onto the Italian mainland with an exiled army after the Trojan War and King Latinus being a native king of the Latins) cooperation by way of a political marriage-alliance at first was the case, but it eventually broke down into distrust and warfare - the germ Aeneas allegedly brought with him from the Greek world eventually would consume and yoke the native Latins; (hence the 'rape of the Sabine women'), the records of the expansion of Rome is a rather bloody one at that. Even if they are 'legendary histories' the historical process they illustrate appears correct.

I think when leftists condemn colonialism it is mainly in regards to its more modern history which corresponded to the rise of the capitalist epoch, and we tend to forget the process of "colonization" as a whole is usually worthy of condemnation since it is a rather coercive and violent process no matter the historical epoch owing to competitions for tracts of superior quality lands being the main driving focus of colonization althroughout history.

[Romanophile]

You're analogy isn't really accurate though, as many American Indian tribes did attempt to peacefully barter and trade with the white man. The truth is that "colonization" involves appropriating one culture for another. Do you really need to ask if that's ok?

No, destroying cultures is not good. I shall not support anything that destroys culture.


Like, where people where enslaved, forcibly relocated, killed off en masse, used as subjects for early experiments in biological warfare, had their children rounded up and taken to "schools" where they were forbidden to practice their culture or speak their language, etc.?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure all of that is inherently atrocious (and, in some ways, ongoing).

Um…I was not saying that those are not destructive. I was seeking reasoning why destruction is a necessary element in colonization.


your ancestry isn't actually of any interest to this discussion unless it's expressed in such a way that you or your family (that you have witnessed in your lifetime) have suffered oppression with said ancestry as the focal point. to me this sounds like a guy grasping at straws to make us feel guilty and admit defeat.

Erm, no, I’m not trying to use my heritage to my advantage. It’s just a titbit which I thought was relevant to the subject.


This is starting to make me uncomfortable…is it too late to trash this thread ?

[Rurkel]

@Romanophile: the "peaceful colonization" you're alluding to is really just immigration. "Colonization" of inhabited space means a forced change of political control and a creation of a new political elite by the definition of the word. In fact, it may not involve any large-scale immigration, as was the case with most European colonialism in Asia.

[black magick hustla]

idk i think he means in the sense that if u colonized mars or some shit. obviously that could be peaceful. today when people talk about colonialism they generally mean imperialism tho, unless ur talking about scifi or the moon or some shit

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I think we need to draw a distinction between colonization and migration, if this discussion is going to make any sense. I'm sure we can all agree that the movement of people/s is not necessary an inherently violent process, and that there have been historical instances of communities living in relative peace on shared lands; for example, though tied up with the violence of French colonialism, the Acadian and the Mi'kmaq. Of course, the Acadians were subject to a systematic project of mass dispossession and displacement by British colonialism in Le Grand Dérangement, which should, I think, serve as instructive about nature of colonial projects as such.

Why is this? Or, to present the question in a more specific way, "Who colonizes, and why?" The answer has been that systems that require the primitive accumulation of labour and resources in the service of their political (ie class) project. For this reason, it's more inherent than some of the other posts in this thread would, in my opinion imply.

Let's take the example of Mars - who has an interest in settling Mars? No people living in a reciprocal and holistic relationship to their landbase has any interest in going to Mars. Further, it's only the mass expropriation of labour that could possibly allow the building of the means to colonize Mars, since, obviously, it would be a vast labour carried out on a global level (think of all the weird shit you need to build a space ship - who do you think mines it? who puts it together? it's not NASA, that's for sure). And what sort of society would be established on Mars by these people? One that is just and egalitarian? On the contrary, the means of colonizing Mars would inform the political character of that colonization - and it would be far from a liberatory project.

[Let's Get Free]

Of course it is. Colonialism by its very definition and whenever necessary in practice was based on dictatorship, violence, force, coercion, intimidation, oppression, forced taxation, exploitation, brutal reprisals, and daily racial humiliation. In today's terms, every single colonial power is guilty of "crimes against humanity."

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I think the upshot is that while there is nothing about setting up shop on a new piece of land that is inherently awful, but that real historical colonization has always found necessary a) ethnic cleansing, b) vicious exploitation, or, most often, both.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I know that, but I do not know for certain if every colonization was destructive. Would not it have been hypothetically possible to peacefully colonise the Americas ?Colonization generally came in two forms: settler-states and occupy-states. With setter-states it's like it was in North America with a new population being brought in to be used to extract the natural resources and incorporate this new land into the system of the home country. This is done through forced-labor migration like slaves and debtors or through policies encouraging immigration in exchange for free land which was the case with North America at some points, but would also apply to Israel.

The other form is to transplant a ruling caste or just a ruling military order on top of an existing society. British India would be a prime example of this, South Africa was maybe a mix of settler group with a ruling caste.

In either case, the internal class dynamics of a society are forcibly disrupted and it generally doesn't fair well for the native population who are either cast aside and forced out through settlements backed by the Colonizing army, or are oppressed directly by an occupying force also backed by a colonizing army.

[PartiyaKarkerênKurdistan!]

Yes, of course it is atrocious.

It also led to the division of my homeland.