Any Positive Case of Colonialism?

[Richard Nixon]

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).

India wouldn't have industrialized at all if Britain hadn't colonized it. Perhaps if British capitalists had invested in it and have a Meiji-like situation but then sati and thuggees wouldn't have been suppressed-bushido survived in Japan after industrialization.

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.

First of all I don't care about why something happens as long as the result is good. Secondly France didn't collaborate with Japan-Vichy did but not Free France. The US was afraid Ho Chih MInh would take over Vietnam and make it Communist-which did happen. Same with the Greek commie rebels too. Also Greeks were divided on this and if the Soviets unwillingly took over East Europe why shouldn't US also? As for the USSR, I'm not going to defend them. In Germany Nazis no longer were a threat and most of these Nazis were as you've said middlemen so you would have had to basically purge the bureaucracy to get rid of them-communists were so the choice was pretty obvious. FDR wished to accept Jewish refugees however US isolationist opinion wouldn't allow it-especially Congress.

[Jimmie Higgins]

India wouldn't have industrialized at all if Britain hadn't colonized it.

That's just silly - we can't know this - maybe India would have invented gold farts if Portugal had colonized it!

First of all I don't care about why something happens as long as the result is good.

Good for who? I don't think people in Vietnam or Algeria thought it was good that the US and UK tried to reinstate France as the colonial power in these areas.

Secondly France didn't collaborate with Japan-Vichy did but not Free France. The US was afraid Ho Chih MInh would take over Vietnam and make it Communist-which did happen.

Yeah, so the same soldiers of Imperialism are one day "good" but then if their own country is taken over and now these same soldiers are Vichy, that's bad? Right there that should show you how unaccountable Imperialist rulers are to the people who live in the oppressed countries.

The US was right that Ho Chih Minh would have taken over - in fact they cancelled the elections that were supposed to take place and determine the fate of all of Vietnam because they knew that the population would vote for Ho Chih Minh. So "progress" from colonial masters is only as good as long as it works in the interests of those masters.

As for the USSR, I'm not going to defend them.

That seems very selective.

[Demogorgon]

India wouldn't have industrialized at all if Britain hadn't colonized it.

Given British rule retarded development, that is just absurd. The purpose of the British Empire (technically India was legally distinct from the Empire but it worked in the same manner) was to give Britain control of trade with a large number of places for the benefit of the British economy. It suited Britain to have certain extremely under-developed countries to exploit and India was used for that purpose.

[9]

@ Richard Nixon:
What has "good" or "bad" got to do with history? Unless your understanding of 'history' is based on theological concepts such as karma and "good versus evil", your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. Accurate writings of history should operate in accordance with the principles of science, and thus be concerned with the most consequential and measurable events without consideration for the perceived "morality" or "immorality" of the actions of any particular nation-state. Any "historian" who determines his or her content based on the degree of perceived "morality" (whatever that even means) of the events detailed is necessarily manipulating the content, and is therefore writing well within in the realm of fiction. Ethnocentrism and the application of theological constructs are not compatible with factual historical analyses. If you find historical events to be "negative", perhaps instead of blaming the historian, you could take a more constructive approach and investigate why history seems predominantly "negative" and then begin to consider alternatives for the future so past mistakes will not be repeated.

[ComradeOm]

India wouldn't have industrialized at all if Britain hadn't colonized it

Hmmm? While there's no evidence that India was about to embark on 'industrial takeoff', a healthy proto-industrial base did exist under the Mughal Empire and represented 25% of world industrial output in 1750 (Clingingsmith et al, 2005). What followed was over a century of deindustrialisation as India was relegated to the position of serving the needs of the growing British Empire and industry increasingly gave way to agricultural commodity production

[BobKKKindle$]

Hmmm?

Indeed. According to Mike Davis, between 1872 and 1921, life expectancy in India fell by 20%, and per capita income did not grow at all from the British arrival in 1757 to their departure in 1947 - in fact there was a drop of around 50% in the latter half of the nineteenth century. According to Vivek Chibber, the most reliable estimates show that the total deaths from the famine during the period 1876-1878 were in the range of 6-8 million, whilst the two famines in 1896-1897 and 1899-1900 resulted in a total of 17-20 million deaths. This means that in the quarter century marking the pinnacle of colonial governance famine deaths reached around a million each year, with many of these deaths being directly related to the British presence in India, due to the failure of the administration to permit the use of domestic food output for relief instead of export, as well as the distorting effects of imperialism on the structure of the agricultural sector.

M. Davis, Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World, Verso 2002
V. Chibber, The Good Empire: Should we pick up where the British left off?, Boston Review, February/March, 2005

Such modernization, huh.

Please people, put your copies of Niall Ferguson away. Even that favourite example of crypto-racists - the abolition of Sati - was actually driven by efforts from the indigenous population. There is no such thing as progressive imperialism.

[Richard Nixon]

@ Richard Nixon:
What has "good" or "bad" got to do with history? Unless your understanding of 'history' is based on theological concepts such as karma and "good versus evil", your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. Accurate writings of history should operate in accordance with the principles of science, and thus be concerned with the most consequential and measurable events without consideration for the perceived "morality" or "immorality" of the actions of any particular nation-state. Any "historian" who determines his or her content based on the degree of perceived "morality" (whatever that even means) of the events detailed is necessarily manipulating the content, and is therefore writing well within in the realm of fiction. Ethnocentrism and the application of theological constructs are not compatible with factual historical analyses. If you find historical events to be "negative", perhaps instead of blaming the historian, you could take a more constructive approach and investigate why history seems predominantly "negative" and then begin to consider alternatives for the future so past mistakes will not be repeated.

By a "good" result I mean one positive to more people then it the negative effect.

Indeed. According to Mike Davis, between 1872 and 1921, life expectancy in India fell by 20%, and per capita income did not grow at all from the British arrival in 1757 to their departure in 1947 - in fact there was a drop of around 50% in the latter half of the nineteenth century. According to Vivek Chibber, the most reliable estimates show that the total deaths from the famine during the period 1876-1878 were in the range of 6-8 million, whilst the two famines in 1896-1897 and 1899-1900 resulted in a total of 17-20 million deaths. This means that in the quarter century marking the pinnacle of colonial governance famine deaths reached around a million each year, with many of these deaths being directly related to the British presence in India, due to the failure of the administration to permit the use of domestic food output for relief instead of export, as well as the distorting effects of imperialism on the structure of the agricultural sector.

M. Davis, Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World, Verso 2002
V. Chibber, The Good Empire: Should we pick up where the British left off?, Boston Review, February/March, 2005

Such modernization, huh.

Please people, put your copies of Niall Ferguson away. Even that favourite example of crypto-racists - the abolition of Sati - was actually driven by efforts from the indigenous population. There is no such thing as progressive imperialism.

For those who said India would have industrialized on their own, I would like to say the following. China didn't industrialize until after a century of suffering under European and Jap imperialism, why would India, far more divided and unstable then China be any different also. Also unfortunately many Indian nationalists most notably Gandhi was against industrialization and modernization.

[RGacky3]

For those who said India would have industrialized on their own, I would like to say the following. China didn't industrialize until after a century of suffering under European and Jap imperialism, why would India, far more divided and unstable then China be any different also. Also unfortunately many Indian nationalists most notably Gandhi was against industrialization and modernization.

Your example of china just shows that imperialism does'nt have anything to do with industrialization.

Nor does industrialization make imperialism positive at all.

The thing is, essencially, your just a racist, that somehow believes that european cultures are superior no matter what.

To tell you the truth, as was said before by me, your justification, would justify Norway, Canada, Bolivia, and so on, to invade the united states.

But that would be unnacceptable to you whereas the reverse would be because your irrational and (maybe racist is'nt the word) an extreme chauvanist, with double standards.

[Kukulofori]

What about the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia?

[Richard Nixon]

What about the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia?

Yes, that's a very good example. Although I'm sure the Vietnamese Communists would call it "revolutionary liberation".

[brigadista]

"good result " for who?

[Richard Nixon]

"good result " for who?

Good result for the natives or should we say victims of the colonization.

[9]

Good result for the natives or should we say victims of the colonization.

Aaand... this is where I unsubscribe to this thread.

[ComradeMan]

You cannot evaluate historical actions in terms of good and bad and monolithic power blocks etc, the reasons why and when things happen are interwoven in a historical matrix that is far too sophisticated and "random" to break down into yes-no arguments. For every historical event there was one behind it and so on.

As for the subject of colonialism- it's a moot point. Whereas in the past the glories of colonialism were extolled and the unpalatable truths brushed away, in today's world we seem to see the opposite and the former oppressed seem just as reluctant to accept their own unpalatable truths. As one put it, the lies of the victors against the lies of the vanquished. Taking a polarised view of good and bad is unproductive and in my opinion is not a sign of progress in historiography.

I tend to take the view that people are people and very often the so-called oppressed would have been no damn different had the boot been on the other foot- with a few notable exceptions being the hunter-gatherer societies around the world, and even they- it may be said, were not unknown to have tribal wars and conflicts.

Inasmuch as Europeans were guilty of slavery, so too were the African chiefs and tribes who sold their fellow Africans at the slave forts, so much for some ideas of African brotherhood etc. Very often the Europeans and the Arabs cleverly manipulated longstanding ethnic and religious conflict to play one group off against the other, Caesars divide et imperat.... It does also irritate me how these unpalatable truths are now often left out by the revisionists in their more mainstream work. One example would be this one, everyone knows about how the "evil" British imperialists conquered New Zealand and the Maoris may be seen as the victims of the oppressor etc until you find out about the Moriori Islanders

Moriori are the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands (Rekohu in Moriori, Wharekauri in Māori), east of the New Zealand archipelago in the Pacific Ocean. These people lived by a code of non-violence and passive resistance, which led to their near-extinction at the hands of Māori invaders. The term Moriori has also been used for hypothesised pre-Māori settlers of New Zealand, linguistically and genetically different from the Māori.

The British who oppressed the Zulu Empire, for whatever selfish motives they had, were indeed conquering and oppressing the Zulu people who in their great Mfecane had been responsible for massive tribal upheavals and the deaths of one million Africans, one of the reasons the Boers maintained that they had moved into an empty and depopulated land.

THIS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ACTS OF ANY ONE GROUP NOR IS IT AN ATTEMPT AT APOLOGETICS, BUT IT IS AN ATTACK ON CERTAIN REVISIONIST STANCES TOO!

People are people- the problem is not who is doing it but rather why it happens in the first place-

Greed
Arrogance
Materialism
Racism/Tribalism/Exclusivism
Money
etc-

As for Cold War conflicts, well you have the clash of two great forms of Imperialism, US Capitalist imperialism and Soviet Imperialism and everyone else was just a pawn in Washington and Moscow's game of chess.

This is the problem with nation-states!!!!
Self-determination yes, nation-states no!

[Pyotr Tchaikovsky]

I tend to take the view that people are people and very often the so-called oppressed would have been no damn different had the boot been on the other foot-

Good point. It's like two bad guys fighting over a piece of land. The bad guy who wins is the oppressor, and the bad guy who loses is the oppressed. But is there much difference between them insofar as motive is concerned? Only the outcome of the fight makes them 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' respectively. Else, there isn't much to choose from.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE]

Good for who? I don't think people in Vietnam or Algeria thought it was good that the US and UK tried to reinstate France as the colonial power in these areas.

Considering that a million people fled Vietnam screamng for thir lives after the vctors of "anti-colonialism" won, it is safe to say the Vietnamese would have been in better shape under ""colonialism."

The US was right that Ho Chih Minh would have taken over - in fact they cancelled the elections that were supposed to take place and determine the fate of all of Vietnam because they knew that the population would vote for Ho Chih Minh. So "progress" from colonial masters is only as good as long as it works in the interests of those masters.

In the case of Vietnam, there is little doubt that the end of "colonialism" was a catostpohic disaste,

Indeed this is true for true for all of Africa as well.

[dar8888]

[QUOTE=Green Dragon;1634980]

Considering that a million people fled Vietnam screamng for thir lives after the vctors of "anti-colonialism" won, it is safe to say the Vietnamese would have been in better shape under ""colonialism."

In the case of Vietnam, there is little doubt that the end of "colonialism" was a catostpohic disaste,

Indeed this is true for true for all of Africa as well.

People fled the Colonies when the British lost, would the U.S. have been better under Colonial rule? In any Revolution, people that support the former government will flee. Why do you think the Shah died outside Iran?

[Richard Nixon]

[QUOTE=dar8888;1644901]

People fled the Colonies when the British lost, would the U.S. have been better under Colonial rule? In any Revolution, people that support the former government will flee. Why do you think the Shah died outside Iran?

It wasn't just the officials of the former government that fled it was a mass migration not just of the former government's supporters but the masses also (ie Boat People).

[9K116]

What about the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia?

They just ended regime of Pol Pot, and did not colonise Cambodia.