Any Positive Case of Colonialism?

[Richard Nixon]

Has there been in your opinion any positive case of colonialism. Before you immediatly say: NO!!!!, please note my example.

In India under British rule the following effects happened. 1) The practice of Sati was destroyed and Sir Charles James Napier is said to have said:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.[37]

2) The thugee cults which murdered people in the name of sacrificing to Kali was suppressed, and 3) Parliamentry democracy was introduced to India.

I'm not saying colonialism is always good or even good in general. What I am saying is that not everything is black and white and dismissed as "evil" or "immoral".

[mikelepore]

Something that's generally bad may include a few good effects, as in the well-known observation, "Hitler made the trains run on time." With a little imagination we might be able to think of ways to achieve the good effects without the predominance of the bad effects.

[Demogorgon]

Given that Sati still goes on today despite considerable efforts to stamp it out, it would be a tad inaccurate to say that British rule got rid of it.

[Richard Nixon]

Something that's generally bad may include a few good effects, as in the well-known observation, "Hitler made the trains run on time." With a little imagination we might be able to think of ways to achieve the good effects without the predominance of the bad effects.

That's an urban myth and originally attributed to Mussolini not Hitler. And how could the above happened without violating India's national soveraignties?

Given that Sati still goes on today despite considerable efforts to stamp it out, it would be a tad inaccurate to say that British rule got rid of it.

Well it's was mostly suppressed although isolated cases happen here and there-it's pretty rare these days.

[New Tet]

"Good/Bad" questions in matters of history are misleading, I think.

History is what it was and no amount of moral judgment can change it.

What we can do, is to draw from it practical lesson that help us, as we make history, avoid repeating the things we consider to have retarded or thwarted the forward progress of civilization.

[Richard Nixon]

"Good/Bad" questions in matters of history are misleading, I think.

History is what it was and no amount of moral judgment can change it.

What we can do, is to draw from it practical lesson that help us, as we make history, avoid repeating the things we consider to have retarded or thwarted the forward progress of civilization.

I agree with you however many leftist historians most notably Howard Zinn seem to do nothing but rant about the bad things of history.

[RGacky3]

I agree with you however many leftist historians most notably Howard Zinn seem to do nothing but rant about the bad things of history.

How many more historians simply ignore the. Howard Zinn does'nt need to talk about the slight positive things that have happens (which many historians simply ignore the causes), because they are repeated ad nauzeum, while ignoring the vast horrors that capitalism and statism has caused.

[RGacky3]

That's an urban myth and originally attributed to Mussolini not Hitler. And how could the above happened without violating India's national soveraignties?

Maybe Norway should invade the United States in order to put in a humane health care system.

Maybe Bolivia should invade the United States to inpliment a more functioning democracy.

Maybe Canada should invade the united states to stop international agression.

Maybe England should have invaded the United States to stop slavery.

Maybe the Brazil should have invaded the United States to stop racist policies.

There were positive sides to many horrible things, it does'nt justify anything. Whats your point. Hitler saved the German economy. The USSR raised living standards in much of eastern europe, it does'nt justify it.

[New Tet]

I agree with you however many leftist historians most notably Howard Zinn seem to do nothing but rant about the bad things of history.

Maybe you should cite Zinn where he supposedly does "nothing but rant about the bad things in history". That should be easy since he does nothin else, right?

[Richard Nixon]

Maybe you should cite Zinn where he supposedly does "nothing but rant about the bad things in history". That should be easy since he does nothin else, right?

Hyperbole, yes. But still his history sure isn't objective. After all all mainstream history accounts these days discuss slavery, internment of Japanese-Americans, and so on.

[Kukulofori]

People cling to anything they can cling to as defiance against being told not to do it by a foreign power, so in terms of ending that it's actually counterproductive.

I guess you could make an argument that Portugal managed to defend its posessions' borders fairly well from worse imperialists like the Spanish.

After all all mainstream history accounts these days discuss slavery, internment of Japanese-Americans, and so on.

Badly.

[Demogorgon]

Hyperbole, yes. But still his history sure isn't objective. After all all mainstream history accounts these days discuss slavery, internment of Japanese-Americans, and so on.

Name a single objective historian.

At any rate Zinn is a good historian because he brings up subjects others avoid or only cover briefly. I don't see why you object to this. Do you think the purpose of history is simply to glorify America?

Going back to your original post though and the perceived benefits of colonialism and your example of India, I think you should learn a bit more about the subject. India is hardly an example to help your case, when you consider the reality of what happened there. For one thing it was divided into provinces directly controlled by Britain and States ruled by native monarchs with Britain merely controlling foreign affairs and matters concerning British citizens in the states so you can hardly say much was done to get rid of backwards practices when you realise that Britain maintained highly reactionary Indian rulers in much of India with the specific hope that they would continue such practices in order to keep their populations from becoming advanced enough to rebel.

[Richard Nixon]

As I've said mainstream historical texts even openly conservative ones like The History of the American People or America, The Last Best Hope mention slavery, internment of Japanese-Americans, the massacre of Indians, and other evil parts of American history. The only thing different from the above-mentioned books and Zinn's is that the former does not talk only about the bad things America has done. Also Zinn seems to lack a sense of realpolitik in America's government policy. Most of the historians of the old days recognized that politicians were sometime deceitful, lying, or bad, but that's part of life.

[scarletghoul]

The vast majority of the history reported in Zinn's book is either ignored in mainstream accounts, misrepresented, or downplayed.

There are people who still celebrate Columbus Day. Thats a good indication of how lacking common views of american history are

[Richard Nixon]

The vast majority of the history reported in Zinn's book is either ignored in mainstream accounts, misrepresented, or downplayed.

There are people who still celebrate Columbus Day. Thats a good indication of how lacking common views of american history are

Columbus himself did not want to genocide Indians. Most Indians died not from death by Conquistadors' swords but by germs accidentally (although sometimes intentionally like the smallpox blankets). Besides Columbus marked an epochal event in world history and we should commemorate that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

India went from being a feudal region that was relatively powerful and in hundreds of years of British rule, the counties economy did not grow despite the introduction of new modes of production and so on. This is because the wealth of India was used to enrich capitalists and the empire. While no one knows what the Indian GDP would have been hundreds of years ago, it is clear that India was fairly developed as a feudal region and was known for its wealth - by the time if Independence, India was known for abject poverty.

http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/10/stor...1002301000.htm

There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6 per cent in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3 per cent at that time, to as low as 3.8 per cent in 1952.
Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Most of the historians of the old days recognized that politicians were sometime deceitful, lying, or bad, but that's part of life.

Sure, but who are they lying for and for what ends? Lying to hide an sexual affair is not the same as G. W. or Tony Blair lying to forcibly occupy a couple of nations. Tammany hall nepotism is different than congress meeting with insurance and health care industry buddies and figuring out how to scuttle any talk of universal heath care or card-check.

Zinn didn't talk about realpolitik because he is not interested in the needs and concerns of the ruling class - he was interested in explaining how their needs effected native people, farmers, freemen, immigrants, dissidents, and the working class.

[scarletghoul]

Columbus himself did not want to genocide Indians. Most Indians died not from death by Conquistadors' swords but by germs accidentally (although sometimes intentionally like the smallpox blankets). Besides Columbus marked an epochal event in world history and we should commemorate that.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

[Richard Nixon]

India went from being a feudal region that was relatively powerful and in hundreds of years of British rule, the counties economy did not grow despite the introduction of new modes of production and so on. This is because the wealth of India was used to enrich capitalists and the empire. While no one knows what the Indian GDP would have been hundreds of years ago, it is clear that India was fairly developed as a feudal region and was known for its wealth - by the time if Independence, India was known for abject poverty.

http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/10/stor...1002301000.htm

That may possibly been 1) due to the above reasons but also 2) because India did not have an industrial revolution. Obviously with Britain leading the way in the Industrial Revolution it's economy boomed.

Sure, but who are they lying for and for what ends? Lying to hide an sexual affair is not the same as G. W. or Tony Blair lying to forcibly occupy a couple of nations. Tammany hall nepotism is different than congress meeting with insurance and health care industry buddies and figuring out how to scuttle any talk of universal heath care or card-check.

Zinn didn't talk about realpolitik because he is not interested in the needs and concerns of the ruling class - he was interested in explaining how their needs effected native people, farmers, freemen, immigrants, dissidents, and the working class.

For instance FDR had to manuver with Japan to get into war against them especially by provoking them with sanctions and embargos. Otherwise the American public would not have wanted war. Thus Roosevelt while I don't think knew directly of the Pearl Harbour attacks (otherwise he'd have mounted a Naval defence) but he probably expected Japan to attack. Fortunately the US intervened and crushed the Japanese Empire and liberated East Asia. (I'm Korean-American BTW so I will be biased for FDR and the US and against the Japs)

[Jimmie Higgins]

That may possibly been 1) due to the above reasons but also 2) because India did not have an industrial revolution. Obviously with Britain leading the way in the Industrial Revolution it's economy boomed.

India never had the chance to develop its own native industrial mechanisms because of British imperialism. Japan, seeing how China had been divided up among imperial powers was able to use its feudal system to create an industrial revolution - China had to kick out imperial forces before it's ruling class could industrialize.

Imperial powers can bring "advancements" in technology and industry, but it is done to meet the needs of the Imperial rulers, not even the local bourgeois. So Imperial powers tend to build infrastructure - but not because workers need a road or local business people need a bridge or a dam, but because the Imperialists need a road for supplies to a fort, or a new dock for taking wealth out of the country and back to the imperial center - or a pipeline to control fuel (natural gas in Russia's case, oil in the case of the US).

For instance FDR had to manuver with Japan to get into war against them especially by provoking them with sanctions and embargos. Otherwise the American public would not have wanted war. Thus Roosevelt while I don't think knew directly of the Pearl Harbour attacks (otherwise he'd have mounted a Naval defence) but he probably expected Japan to attack. Fortunately the US intervened and crushed the Japanese Empire and liberated East Asia. (I'm Korean-American BTW so I will be biased for FDR and the US and against the Japs)

Again, what is the end goal and interests of the forces involved? If the US were interested in true liberation - why would they hand Vietnam back over to the French when the French had collaborated with Japan? Why would the UK government attack the forces that defeated the NAZIs in Greece so they could re-instate an unpopular King that had done nothing to stop the NAZIs? Why would the USSR crush worker uprisings in Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe after WWII if they were supposedly liberating them and bringing "socialism"? Why would the US have given power back to NAZI middlemen in Germany rather than let the Antifas have a say in the new government? Why would the US have turned away refugees fleeing the holocaust before the US declared war?

These powers are fighting over different ways they want to organize and control the world - this is not a positive even though they always claim to drop bombs to liberate women from the Taliban, or save Europe from "German and Austrian militarism" or liberate Cubans and Filipinos from Spanish imperialism.