Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Independence certainly worked against us... Our empire fell and we're no longer a super power.

Just thought I'd look at it from a different perspective to the one you're requesting.

Going by your location I assume you refer to the (former) British Empire?

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Going by your location I assume you refer to the (former) British Empire? Naturally.

Going off topic a bit (perhaps a thread should be created for it) but yes i agree "Our empire fell and we're no longer a super power".

Empires come and empires go.

Greek, Persian, Roman, Ottomon, Britain etc

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Going off topic a bit (perhaps a thread should be created for it) but yes i agree "Our empire fell and we're no longer a super power".

Empires come and empires go.

Greek, Persian, Roman, Ottomon, Britain etc Yeah.... Not sure what point you're trying to make here. lookaround

so, your question is why are former colonies in Africa, Central and South East Asia not the fully functioning states they were under colonial rule?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, your question is why are former colonies in Africa, Central and South East Asia not the fully functioning states they were under colonial rule? Easy... No white man keeping them in their place... hmm

Originally posted by inimalist
so, your question is why are former colonies in Africa, Central and South East Asia not the fully functioning states they were under colonial rule?

How well did they really function under colonial rule? Mercantile policies at the very least would have completely screwed them over economically.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh ya, the failure of former colonies is totally because of the lack of white people's influence I see what you did there...

Touche

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Is that your serious opinion or was that sarcasm i can't tell?



So you're saying, they are not 'fully functioning states' because they were under colonial rule? I was being facetious.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How well did they really function under colonial rule? Mercantile policies at the very least would have completely screwed them over economically.

well, they functioned for exactly the purpose they were created for.

Cheap labour, markets for Colonial goods, military power for campaigns in Kenya and the like.

Did the people have any personal freedom? No, certainly not. Did they have local economy? no, not at all. Their cultures were destroyed, their people were butchered.

Like, there were differences, the British tried to rule more detached than other colonial powers (the french triend to force their culture into africa/south asia). Belgum, on the other hand, mercilessly killed people in the congo in such a way that one could say it has actually gotten better (and for people who don't follow the DRC, that is a hefty statement). But ultimately, even in the best cases, they weren't successful states, but rather succeeded as being places for the generation of revinue for the colonial power.

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
So you're saying, they are not 'fully functioning states' because they were under colonial rule?

no, I'm saying they weren't fully functioning states because, for the most part, the states themselves were incompotent, corrupt and failed, supported by colonial military power for the single reason of resourse/labour exploitation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How well did they really function under colonial rule? Mercantile policies at the very least would have completely screwed them over economically.

hmmmm. I see your point (thoery wise) but wasnt this stance in a way 'dropped' by 18th century?

But i get the impression that your suggesting that their economy would be worse off than it is now? One thing about Mercantilism is that it benefited the imperial nation "more so" than the 'colonies'

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
But i get the impression that your suggesting that their economy would be worse off than it is now? One thing about Mercantilism is that it benefited the imperial nation "more so" than the 'colonies'

that is the exact same logic as saying that slavery is better than freedom, because at least in slavery the white person is getting something back, whereas in freedom we all struggle together.

Only through such a perspective could the idea of "no economy whatsoever because everything you produce is owned by a people you will never meet" is better than "struggle to earn your own bread".

Look to nations like Tanzania, Jordan, post war Viet-Nam. Many of them have economies far superior to times of colonialism.

Yes different empires had their own apprach to ruling. Most did bleed them dry. But what do you mean by local economy exacly. Most colonial nations traded with the countries in the empire establishing their own unique trade (take for instance Nigeria's palm oil as a subsequent for slave labour). Some of these countries GDP grew aswell

But you say their cultures were destroyed? really....destroyed?

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Yes different empires had their own apprach to ruling. Most did bleed them dry. But what do you mean by local economy exacly. Most colonial nations traded with the countries in the empire establishing their own unique trade (take for instance Nigeria's palm oil as a subsequent for slave labour).

yes, they traded colonial goods made in colonial factories, taxed by colonial law with the lion's share of the profits leaving the nation

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Some of these countries GDP grew aswell

by definition they did not. They were not independant nations. That india might have had more trade under British rule (I dont know this, but lets assume) means nothing for the Indians, because it was not their market, and all leavers of the economy were controlled by the colonial power.

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
But you say their cultures were destroyed? really....destroyed?

are you serious? how old are you?

Yes which is why im not saying colonial rule is better, as some have progressed some not so much. Im not looking for a wank compettion on what empire was better, who's ideoligy was superior western, eastern etc. Just as to enlightened views on to why some have and some haven't in a nutshell.

destroyed would imply "To ruin completely; spoil: To do away with; put an end to, To subdue or defeat completely; crush. Please Its not my ignorance, it was your choice of words that caused the response. However if looking to the Native Americans or Aborigines i can see your point with the choice of the word when applied to other places.

Why does KMC get all the weirdos?

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
destroyed would imply "To ruin completely; spoil: To do away with; put an end to, To subdue or defeat completely; crush. Please Its not my ignorance, it was your choice of words that caused the response. However if looking to the Native Americans or Aborigines i can see your point with the choice of the word when applied to other places.

yes, destroy

I don't know if you have come accross the term in your studies yet (which is the only reason I asked your age, not as an insult, but more how to approach this ) but, it is used very ironically these days. It is called "white man's burden". implicit to the ideologies of colonialism was the idea that these people needed to be civilized. Various colonial powers went about this to various degrees and in various places, but in Victorian times, the idea that evolution could be applied to nations, and that Europe had the burden of "evolving" these cultures, was one of the primary reasons for colonialism.

Even the best examples, where the British ruled with hands off of local tradition, resulted in the stratifying of society under "colonial black" and "other black" (I'm sure they had much more colourful terms than mine), such as what is seen in Zimbabwe and South Africa. And in the british model, the only reason they didn't try to change the culture more than they did was because they found it to be unprofitable. They still considered the people savages, but were willing to exploit the fact that they owned them.

In cases like the French colonies, it is inarguable. They very specifically wanted to replace the local "savage" culture with that of the French. The British in India also follow this mantra, in many cases outlawing traditional rituals and clothing. The extreme types of Hindu nationalism and Islamic Jihad that exist today are direct consequences of this type of cultural dominance.

EDIT: The story of the Mau Mau in Kenya might help here too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising

William Polk gives it a good treatment in the book "Violent Politics", especially the cultural side (as in, how important to the conflict local culture became)

Who me? i thought this was a forum to discuss topics, i myself after 5 years being on this site im pretty sure when compared to other topics it can't be absurd. Maybe where im from we just have a different mind set and talk about serious things that other's won't, consider pointless or taboo here on this site. But to each thier own.

lol, feel free to discuss

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, destroy

I don't know if you have come accross the term in your studies yet (which is the only reason I asked your age, not as an insult, but more how to approach this ) but, it is used very ironically these days. It is called "white man's burden". implicit to the ideologies of colonialism was the idea that these people needed to be civilized. Various colonial powers went about this to various degrees and in various places, but in Victorian times, the idea that evolution could be applied to nations, and that Europe had the burden of "evolving" these cultures, was one of the primary reasons for colonialism.

Even the best examples, where the British ruled with hands off of local tradition, resulted in the stratifying of society under "colonial black" and "other black" (I'm sure they had much more colourful terms than mine), such as what is seen in Zimbabwe and South Africa. And in the british model, the only reason they didn't try to change the culture more than they did was because they found it to be unprofitable. They still considered the people savages, but were willing to exploit the fact that they owned them.

In cases like the French colonies, it is inarguable. They very specifically wanted to replace the local "savage" culture with that of the French. The British in India also follow this mantra, in many cases outlawing traditional rituals and clothing. The extreme types of Hindu nationalism and Islamic Jihad that exist today are direct consequences of this type of cultural dominance.

This I agree with, Thankyou. Its true most empires thought they were superior than the colonials even though there were more liberal movements towards the end.

wait....

did I just change someone's opinion on the internet?

and just let me again recommend the book "Violent Politics"

if you want to understand insurgency and terrorism, you need this

My view's are mostly formed around the British Empire so my reaction was a knee jerk reaction when you said destroyed when compared to the Japanese Empire or the German Empire which of them funny enough Britian as you said adopted a more "hands off" route.

Hmmm it seems we've gone off topic though. i think one of the main reasons why these independent states havn't explored what they could reach can be routed to in its most simplest form though not the main or sole reason is overt power struggles, constant coups which all lead to other things that slide the nation sideways.

I myself am what Britain calls Black British (African) lol just felt like saying. But im not just taking a back seat view on this and commenting

Inimalist has already pretty much covered itl, but I'd like to add:

Most former asian colonies are doing much better than under foreign rule and the main reason the situation has become so dire in Africa is endless civil stryfe that is a direct consequence of colonial rule: the deliberate instigation of conflicts between different ethnicities and the creation of artificial borders and States that did not take the local territorial organization into consideration. Not to mention all the poverty that was left behind as their labour and raw materials were bled dry and their cultures were supressed, including their original economic and political organizations.



Unbelievable. "The West" showed them law, order, morals and governance? The slave traders, thiefs, rapists and butchers who destroyed and disfigured their original laws, order, morals, and governance? Those people should have learned from their masters how to behave themselves like proper (white) people by now? lol

And now they've reverted backwards instead? You mean to the "primitive and unsavory" state those kind europeans found them in? Shame on them!

They didn't revert to anything, Africa was much better off before the colnial powers invaded it, exploited it and then left in chaos and it will never go back to its original condition.

Originally posted by inimalist
wait....

did I just change someone's opinion on the internet?

this has always been my opinon, maybe not the degree to yours I just didnt get the appropiate chance to voice it. Come to think of it im not sure how im coming across in this thread. But in all honesty i'm just asking on members views on current situations on relatvely new independent states, economic wise, politcally wise and if being independent has caused more problems as in that, not becuase they are no longer govenerd by their so called "masters" but more so to WHERE DID IT GO WRONG AND WHY

well they certainly didnt give them pokemon cards back then.

What i meant to say was that they taught them western principles of law,order, morals and governance, adminsitration etc which today they are applying. Maybe the way i structured it was in error and for that I apologise. But they did regardless if Africa was as you put it
Originally posted by 753
"primitive and unsavory"


backwards no, not as in back to how they was. I dont mean it that sense

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
My view's are mostly formed around the British Empire so my reaction was a knee jerk reaction when you said destroyed when compared to the Japanese Empire or the German Empire which of them funny enough Britian as you said adopted a more "hands off" route.

fair enough

I'd say the british had a more "realpolitik" approach to collonialism, in some cases, which gave more autonomy to various peoples. But you have to remember, it was the british who promised the Arabs a palestinian state prior to 1940, for their assistance against Hitler and other colonial issues.

Certainly, you don't see, at least on the same scale, the abuses of Congo perpetrated by the British, but I think we are now just grading who is more evil than the other.

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
Hmmm it seems we've gone off topic though. i think one of the main reasons why these independent states havn't explored what they could reach can be routed to in its most simplest form though not the main or sole reason is overt power struggles, constant coups which all lead to other things that slide the nation sideways.

if your point is that many former colonies have squandered the opportunity presented by independance, I would agree. Many of these post-colonial rulers themselves became despots and sold their nations out to corporate powers in ways that only existed in colonial wet dreams. In fact, most of these nations developed themselves on the corporate/western model, and set themselves up for such exploitation. This would be a great place for discussion, but the answer does not lie in anything that colonialism offered. Even in the cases where you can argue that nations fared better under colonial rule than they do now (Nigeria, for instance ), the solution is not, "well, lets revert to colonial rule".

If we are talking about options for further development of the continent, re-establishing European rule is a bad idea.

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
I myself am what Britain calls Black British (African) lol just felt like saying. But im not just taking a back seat view on this and commenting

no, and I totally hear that. Its actually why I asked your age. These are very important questions to ask and be involved with, but it has to be more than the knee jerk you were describing before. I totally understand though, I am a total Canadian nationalist, and when someone who isn't a canadian decides to comment on Quebec or our natives, I get much the same.

This is largely stuff that you wouldn't learn until later years of university, if then, so no worries. Keep questioning everything.

and seriously, read violent politics... LOL

Originally posted by 753
Inimalist has already pretty much covered itl, but I'd like to add:

the "i" is not capitalized: inimalist. Yes, this includes at the beginning of sentences and paragraphs, as the "i" is the second letter of the word. The "M" is simply decadant.

Originally posted by HigH ScholaR
but more so to WHERE DID IT GO WRONG AND WHY

I think 753 covered it. These nations had thousands of years of culture and history that colonialism destroyed. Whether or not the present is better than colonialism is sort of moot, because it will never revert back to pre-colonialism.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

I'd say the british had a more "realpolitik" approach to collonialism, in some cases, which gave more autonomy to various peoples. But you have to remember, it was the british who promised the Arabs a palestinian state prior to 1940, for their assistance against Hitler and other colonial issues.

Certainly, you don't see, at least on the same scale, the abuses of Congo perpetrated by the British, but I think we are now just grading who is more evil than the other.



if your point is that many former colonies have squandered the opportunity presented by independance, I would agree. Many of these post-colonial rulers themselves became despots and sold their nations out to corporate powers in ways that only existed in colonial wet dreams. In fact, most of these nations developed themselves on the corporate/western model, and set themselves up for such exploitation. This would be a great place for discussion, but the answer does not lie in anything that colonialism offered. Even in the cases where you can argue that nations fared better under colonial rule than they do now (Nigeria, for instance ), the solution is not, "well, lets revert to colonial rule".

If we are talking about options for further development of the continent, re-establishing European rule is a bad idea.



no, and I totally hear that. Its actually why I asked your age. These are very important questions to ask and be involved with, but it has to be more than the knee jerk you were describing before. I totally understand though, I am a total Canadian nationalist, and when someone who isn't a canadian decides to comment on Quebec or our natives, I get much the same.

This is largely stuff that you wouldn't learn until later years of university, if then, so no worries. Keep questioning everything.

and seriously, read violent politics... LOL



the "i" is not capitalized: inimalist. Yes, this includes at the beginning of sentences and paragraphs, as the "i" is the second letter of the word. The "M" is simply decadant.



I think 753 covered it. These nations had thousands of years of culture and history that colonialism destroyed. Whether or not the present is better than colonialism is sort of moot, because it will never revert back to pre-colonialism.

inimalist you totally understand where im coming from, and what i was trying to get at in this thread. Yes i myself too thought it would be a great place for discussion. Perhaps i should re read 753 post

"if your point is that many former colonies have squandered the opportunity presented by independance" that was what i was asking lol

but yeah its not about re establishing colonial rule that wasnt even on the agenda.

well, look at Mugabe in Zimbabwe. He is able to hold power, even though the economy is the worst in the world and he tortures political opponents, simply because any opposition faces the accusation of being a "white" sympathizer.

Mugabe's legacy as an anti-colonial fighter has destroyed the nation.

Yeah thats a prime example of what i meant by when i said taking the country "backwards". Expelling the white famers then burning some of their fields wasn't really a good idea (source of the countries argriculture).

So whats your thoughts if you take a look at sierra leone and the british intervention in the civil war? To be fair getting involved this way can end up really bad in some cases. It could be argued that sierra leone is under some form of neo colonialism. Just a rough http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8754659.stm

I don't know enough about Sierra Leone unfortunatly (I'm on my way out to buy some new shoes, I'll give it the Wiki treatment when I get back) but I'd argue that the colonial model no longer applies.

See, in colonialism, at least they wanted the people to benefit from the European way of life. I don't mean this in a good way, but at least the French or British wanted to reform these people.

In the modern corporate model, the purpose is to keep the individual people as weak as possible so that they cannot rise againt the corporations who exploit their wealth. In many cases, the local governments have agreed to things that colonial powers would have never asked for, simply for the wealth that comes from such arangements. Western powers turn a blind eye, because they get cheap uranium or diamonds or gold, but the exploitation and abuse of citizens who speak out is terrible. I have a friend who was doing her masters work on stuff going on in DRC who had to essentially retreat back to the Ivory Coast in fear of her life. People who oppose the mining corporations there dissapear all the time, and from what I can gather, she saw more destruction of life than any single person can stand...

shit, im going to hit her with a facebook message right now... moral support and all