Colonialism

[Jason]

I was watching the movie "Cry Freedom" and some white South African said, "We built this nation, so that's why we have a right to it." So is that a valid excuse for colonialism?

[Clarion]

Whether or not something is justified depends on which system of moral judgement you cling to. Perceptions of justice change with time, from place to place and by sub-culture. Many will no doubt say "colonialism is always immoral" whereas some utilitarians may find in its favour. Personally, moral judgements being entirely subjective, I tend to avoid them as exercises in futility whenever possible (although, being human, I often find myself lapsing into moral behaviour and moralistic ways of thinking).

So I'll confine myself to objective considerations. The South African in question didn't build South Africa himself, rather white and asian and, later, increasing black workers did.

Perhaps more to the point, it's undeniable that colonialism jump started development in countries like South Africa. If you wish to assign a "good" or "evil" lable to this, knock youself out.

[Crabbensmasher]

A lot of African countries still use colonial era infrastructure, educational systems and healthcare practices. And in the case of Portuguese colonialism, for example, which didn't end completely until 1974, the colonies were more stable and peaceful than most independent African nations at the time.

So yes, colonialism was beneficial in a utilitarian sense I believe. That's because the first world colonial empires were very very rich. They could afford to pump massive amounts of money into the colonies. They could also send educated workers and rich entrepreneurs to these colonies to help out. Unfortunately, once the colonies were given independence, they were kind of left out to dry. Many skilled people left the country, as well as foreign troops keeping the peace. These countries had become dependent on the colonial empires, and didn't have a chance to develop independently. They were just kind of thrust into the position of governing themselves.

Personally, I would completely disagree with the statement
"We built this nation, so that's why we have a right to it.".
It's more like "We built the nation, so we have a responsibility to it."

Take India for example, when the British left in 1947. The situation devolved into complete chaos as soon as they left. They knew that something like that was going to happen, yet they did nothing. There was no preparation done whatsoever. The British owed it to them to help out.

I understand there are a lot of nations who don't want Western aid, but really, at the very least, there's more that 1st world countries could have done to help alleviate poverty hunger, disease, etc after they had left.

[Jason]

A lot of African countries still use colonial era infrastructure, educational systems and healthcare practices. And in the case of Portuguese colonialism, for example, which didn't end completely until 1974, the colonies were more stable and peaceful than most independent African nations at the time.

So yes, colonialism was beneficial in a utilitarian sense I believe. That's because the first world colonial empires were very very rich. They could afford to pump massive amounts of money into the colonies. They could also send educated workers and rich entrepreneurs to these colonies to help out. Unfortunately, once the colonies were given independence, they were kind of left out to dry. Many skilled people left the country, as well as foreign troops keeping the peace. These countries had become dependent on the colonial empires, and didn't have a chance to develop independently. They were just kind of thrust into the position of governing themselves.

Sounds like an interesting argument, but surely there is a darker side. Sure they provided stablility to the colonies, but did the locals REALLY benefit? The goal of Communism is to provide an economic system which truly benefits the people. Of course, though, I can't say all colonial empires were equal. For instance, you could argue the Belgians and the French in Haiti (exception in Haiti would be the mulatto elite) had NO interest in helping locals. On the other hand, the white supremacist regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa did make some effort to help African people. Even in the United States, the US gave education, though low quality, to African Americans from 1865 onward.

[Let's Get Free]

they went in there and robbed the entire nation, they didn't "build" anything.

[Decolonize The Left]

I was watching the movie "Cry Freedom" and some white South African said, "We built this nation, so that's why we have a right to it." So is that a valid excuse for colonialism?

There is no "valid excuse" for walking in, killing a bunch of folks and taking land for yourself.

[Clarion]

they went in there and robbed the entire nation, they didn't "build" anything.

They built factories, railroads, utility infrastructure, roads, cities, clean water supplies, schools. All the benefits of an industrialised nation.

[PigmerikanMao]

They built factories, railroads, utility infrastructure, roads, cities, clean water supplies, schools. All the benefits of an industrialised nation.

True, and they kept those benefits to themselves while they banished the indigenous population to in-contiguous homelands to use as an impoverished cheap labour pool who had no rights to citizenship, healthcare, etc. It was only until there was immense backlash from the indigenous community (starting with Soweto but culminating in 1994) that the colonizers had to make concessions.

The fact that this infrastructure was built on occupied land has no relevancy when it was never intended for use by the indigenous people. Did the white settlers build it? Some.. usually they actually only oversaw construction while the Africans built infrastructure (housing developments, roads, quarries, etc.), but that being said, it's not like the post-Apartheid government has been deporting whites from South Africa. Their "right" to their nation is not being infringed upon unless they're talking about how they don't have the "right" to economically prop themselves up at the benefit of racist laws and policies.

[Crabbensmasher]

Yes, in the vast majority of cases, Colonialism can be summed up as first world countries exploiting third world countries. They did make gains in security,technology, infrastructure and quality of life, but that was only done to benefit the colonial empire, however indirect it may seem.

Interestingly though, I heard awhile ago that the legacy of Ian Smith and Rhodesia still has some popularity in Zimbabwe. I'd be interested in hearing the story behind that

[Let's Get Free]

They built factories, railroads, utility infrastructure, roads, cities, clean water supplies, schools. All the benefits of an industrialised nation.

That the Africans have no access to. South Africa is possibly the most unequal society in the world- a direct legacy of colonial domination. The black majority still faces a life of poverty and toil- if they can even get work; while the largely white elite enjoy a life more familiar to the suburbs of Atlanta or Los Angeles, in a country in which over half the citizens live below the poverty line without access to basic services.

[Clarion]

Do you have a point?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Whether or not something is justified depends on which system of moral judgement you cling to.

I cling to the anarchist system of morality, where any action that limits the liberty of another is bad. If you use this one, things get much easier.

They built factories, railroads, utility infrastructure, roads, cities, clean water supplies, schools. All the benefits of an industrialised nation.

No, they used the local workers to build those. Just because they came in with the technology does not mean they should be rulers of those who use it.

[Clarion]

I cling to the anarchist system of morality, where any action that limits the liberty of another is bad. If you use this one, things get much easier.

A small child runs out into the road in front of an approacing lorry. I stop him. Am I evil?

An woman collapses in the street appearing to suffer some kind of heart failure, do I just walk on by. I have infringed nobody's liberty, am I a good person? Was my acton wrong?

Somebody does something that deprives some people of liberty but prevents some people from deprive others of liberty in an even greater way. Good? Evil? A bit more complicated than all that?

No doubt you'll offer refinements and additional clauses to the original principle for every scenario I throw out. But suddenly this morality thing because alot less "easy," in addition to being far from self-evident. And wit every absurdity you remove by way of tweaking this simplistic morality you will add at least as many contradictions.

No, they used the local workers to build those. Just because they came in with the technology does not mean they should be rulers of those who use it.

Actually, not so much. Throughout most of the history of colonialism in South Africa the black population was kept out, confined to their designated territories and weren't used on a large scale as a source of labour until the 20th century. Before that it was white and asian workers who did the heavy lifting.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

A small child runs out into the road in front of an approacing lorry. I stop him. Am I evil?

An woman collapses in the street appearing to suffer some kind of heart failure, do I just walk on by. I have infringed nobody's liberty, am I a good person? Was my acton wrong?

No doubt you'll offer refinements and additional clauses to the original principle for every scenario I throw out. But suddenly this morality thing because alot less "easy," in addition to being far from self-evident. And wit every absurdity you remove by way of tweaking this simplistic morality you will add at least as many contradictions.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have much liberty if they were fucking dead. Stop being pedantic for the sake of it. It doesn't make you look more intelligent. A better argument would have been to question whether his 'morality' had any basis in the material socio-economic situation.

Actually, not so much. Throughout most of the history of colonialism in South Africa the black population was kept out, confined to their designated territories and weren't used on a large scale as a source of labour until the 20th century. Before that it was white and asian workers who did the heavy lifting.

I'm not sure what that's got to do with justifying colonialism. So they didn't initially exploit the indiginous population for their labour. Instead they just drove them off their land and then exploited the labour of another people who had been subjected to colonialism. And then, later, they realised that there was this handy black population already there who had been driven off their original farming/grazing territories that might be awfully handy to send down these mines they'd just discovered. Fuck that.

[Clarion]

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have much liberty if they were fucking dead. Stop being pedantic for the sake of it. It doesn't make you look more intelligent.

I'm not being pedantic, I'm pointing out absurdities in his simplistic moral statement.

A better argument would have been to question whether his 'morality' had any basis in the material socio-economic situation.

He started from the abstract notion of liberty so that would have been completly unnecessary, of course it doesn't.

I'm not sure what that's got to do with justifying colonialism. So they didn't initially exploit the indiginous population for their labour. Instead they just drove them off their land and then exploited the labour of another people who had been subjected to colonialism. And then, later, they realised that there was this handy black population already there who had been driven off their original farming/grazing territories that might be awfully handy to send down these mines they'd just discovered. Fuck that.

I'm not trying to justify colonialism. I was refuting the claim that white workers hadn't built anything and that it was all black workers.

Before that I was refuting the claim that colonialism hadn't resulted in the industrialisation of the country ("we built this country").

I completly rejected the notion of passing moral judgement on it either way.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

My view is that colonialists 'build' the country only in the most superficial sense (the infrastructure etc). The social contructs are the ones that matter; access to the infrastructure on all levels, freedom of expression, freedom from restrictions of movement, access to an education etc.
The arguement put forward in the movie by the Chief of Police is a sickening one; Look, 'we' built some wonderful structures for some of you to sometimes visit and a few of you to clean and maintain for a pittance, what are you complaining about?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

They built factories, railroads, utility infrastructure, roads, cities, clean water supplies, schools. All the benefits of an industrialised nation.

However, the colonial railroad system was mainly made up of rail lines running from the interior of the continent to the coasts, with few lines connecting between cities, reflecting the fact that colonial infrastructure was built in order to plunder Africa's natural resources. Cities certainly predate colonialism, so it is wrong to say the colonial powers built them. And colonial education systems were used to effect genocide, child abduction, and alienation. Many indigenous children died in colonial schools, such as the Indian Residential Schools, for example. So these schools were very much the opposite of "benefits", unless you cling to the Euro justification of colonialism as a "civilizing mission" and native peoples as savage barbarians who needed civilized Europeans to "jump start development."

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You seem to be conflating "overseeing" with "building", in the process erasing the class stratification between settlers and colonized, and within Settler societies themselves. Similarly, positing the industrialization of a country as though it is both uniform and class-neutral is an awful simplification.

[Jason]

True, and they kept those benefits to themselves while they banished the indigenous population to in-contiguous homelands to use as an impoverished cheap labour pool who had no rights to citizenship, healthcare, etc. It was only until there was immense backlash from the indigenous community (starting with Soweto but culminating in 1994) that the colonizers had to make concessions.

The fact that this infrastructure was built on occupied land has no relevancy when it was never intended for use by the indigenous people. Did the white settlers build it? Some.. usually they actually only oversaw construction while the Africans built infrastructure (housing developments, roads, quarries, etc.), but that being said, it's not like the post-Apartheid government has been deporting whites from South Africa. Their "right" to their nation is not being infringed upon unless they're talking about how they don't have the "right" to economically prop themselves up at the benefit of racist laws and policies.

They did give them some things. True, as they say on racist sites, blacks in SA had a better standard of living and stability than in other African states (and also blacks from other parts of Africa would flock to SA for work).

However, that's beside the point. One could use the same argument above to justify exploitation of the English working class in Marx's day. Sure blacks in SA had it better just as slaves in the US probably had it better than folks back in Africa. Well, someone else can probably explain what I'm getting at.

[PigmerikanMao]

They did give the blacks some things. True, as they say on racist sites, blacks in SA had a better standard of living and stability than in other African states (and also blacks from other parts of Africa would flock to SA for work).

However, that's beside the point. One could use the same argument above to justify exploitation of the English working class in Marx's day. Sure blacks in SA had it better just as slaves in the US probably had it better than folks back in Africa. Well, someone else can probably explain what I'm getting at.

I see what you're getting at. I met a man from Ghana once the said the slaves taken away to the US back in the 1800's were lucky because their ancestors had a much better standard of living. Whether this is true about the time of slavery is highly debatable (I don't think there was any improvement myself) but this being said, other African areas were also subject to western domination, so comparing living standards of the sphere of influence of one imperial power to another doesn't really do much except for argue that maybe things weren't as terrible under the British as they were, say, under the Belgians or Portugese. The fact of the matter is that colonialism as a whole proved to be to the detriment of the African people, regardless of which state operated where.

Also, again, it makes your argument sound more pluralistic if you don't refer to Africans as "the blacks."