Colonization and Imperialism

[Deleted]

Definition of Imperialism:

Imperialism is "the creation and maintenance of an equal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

Definition of Colonization:

Colonialism is the building and maintaining of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. Colonialism is a process whereby sovereignty over the colony is claimed by the metropole and social structure, government and economics within the territory of the colony are changed by the colonists. Colonialism is a certain set of unequal relationships, between metropole and colony and between colonists and the indigenous population.

In history many countries have been colonized by other Nations. The one that most interests me would be the time that the British ruled over India, obviously.

How did it affect these countries? Was it all negative or did some positives come out of it too? And why did these countries seem to go downhill after the Colonists left? How has it changed the structure of the world as it is today?

[onlymark]

Bit technical for me, that is. Just to get it clear in my own mind - If you form an empire you are an imperialist, and to do so you colonise other nations. So to be an imperialist you colonise by domination and subordination.
Sounds just like what my forefathers did.

[onlymark]

My knowledge of anywhere but Africa is little and anecdotal, but I'll have a stab at it first.
I can't see any good came of it, or was at the time, for South America. Neither for any countries during WWI or WWII.
India was a bit of an exception in that for some reason they seemed not to react too much when the British came, with few means of forcing the locals to comply. But nevertheless, the British administered India very successfully, and to a certain extent, sympathetically. Especially as many British "went native", more so it seems there than in any other of their empire countries.

There is no doubt that the British pillaged every country they colonised, but I do feel they did it with less of a negative impact than the French and especially the Belgians. I'm not denying there was a negative impact, I'm saying they did it better than others.
The Germans played only a minor part in colonisation and so did, relatively, the Dutch.

As regards India and the legacy of colonisation, funnily enough, I suspect there are many still who see the British as the epitome of sophistication and wish they were British, plus they try and live the life according to British social rules and appearances. So was the impact totally negative? I think not.
As regards the Empire in Africa I think that along with the bad side, there were plenty of good things, but generally to do with infrastructure - railways, schools, hospitals, roads etc.

And why did these countries seem to go downhill after the Colonists left?
If you ask that question of the inhabitants I think you'll hear them say that it hasn't. But I also think that many privately would admit that it has. Even some would wish for a return to colonisation.
I suspect that many Russians wish for a return to power of Stalin when there was what they deem to be a certain 'stability'. From that I think that it is human nature that no matter how bad it seems the colonists were, it's better than the instability and corruption and lack of basic necessities that they have now.

But why did they go downhill? Suddenly being left to fend for themselves after many many years of being told what to do? Out of practice of how to run a country? Power vacuums causing the spoils to go to the strongest? Poor education? Closing of the markets for export that were open before?
I think many reasons, but mainly down to greed, nepotism and selfishness.

[spindrift]

Not forgetting that the Portuguese colonized Goa, India, Brazil, Mozambique....anywhere else?

[Deleted]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Mark.

I don't know too much about the years that the British occupied India, but I can see that not all of it was a negative thing. The railways system and the buildings that are left behind from that era were a step forward I think. Stealing precious stones and other resources from the country were definitely a negative thing.

There's no doubt that the British benefited immensely from being in India in many ways. Their standard of living was much higher then it would have been back in the UK. They didn't leave the country in a good stable state and for years it was 'lost' and only recently has started to find it's feet again. Where would it be today if it had not been colonized? Who knows, it may have advanced at a much quicker rate then it is doing

Closing of the markets for export that were open before?

That was a major factor in it's slow recovery.

[Deleted]

As regards India and the legacy of colonisation, funnily enough, I suspect there are many still who see the British as the epitome of sophistication and wish they were British, plus they try and live the life according to British social rules and appearances. So was the impact totally negative? I think not.

I not sure how many 'wish to be British'. They are just trying to be themselves, after so many years of occupation, who are they anyway? Who should they be? It's still a road of discovery. Do you really believe that it;s a positive thing to be all that is 'British'? I don't think so.

[spindrift]

There is no doubt in my mind that the British occupation/colonization of Ireland for nearly 800 years was a very bad thing for the native Irish who were cast in the role of servants for the English crown. When the British were finally thrown out in 1921 the Irish had to pull themselves up from the quagmire and start to build their nation from scratch. They have succeeded magnificiently.

[onlymark]

Apr 30, 2010 19:49:25 GMT spindrift said:

Not forgetting that the Portuguese colonized Goa, India, Brazil, Mozambique....anywhere else?

Angola.

[Deleted]

I think the British used the countries they colonized for their own benefit, but left them with no thought of what would become of them once they were gone. A better way would have been to set up the governments and organizations that would be run by the local people, after they leave. But why would they do that? They were being told to get out, so why would they not leave the country in turmoil?

[onlymark]

Where would it be today if it had not been colonized? Who knows, it may have advanced at a much quicker rate then it is doing

Or maybe slower. True enough, who can tell.
One thing I do wonder about though is the split off of Pakistan and if/how/when this would've happened if India had been left alone. I do wonder if it'd never have happened and the country would still all be 'India' with a relative harmony between the religions.

Do you really believe that it's a positive thing to be all that is 'British'? I don't think so.
Given the choice between being all 'British' and all 'Indian' I know which I'd choose. But that's just me. But i was more thinking of an Indian view of the colonisation. If they still want to be British or at least certain aspects/lifestyles of it, then for them it can't all be negative.

Spindrift, I somehow think Ireland is a different kettle of fish. Bit too near, like Wales and Scotland, and more like subduing your neighbour rather than pillaging it for slaves and resources. But what the 'English' did there was appalling, I agree.

[Deleted]

India has the the highest number of Muslim people in the world, other than a Muslim country. So the making of Pakistan, did what exactly? Apart from to create even more conflict. And now they are left fighting over Kashmir..

Given the choice between being all 'British' and all 'Indian' I know which I'd choose. But that's just me.



I can see how you would want to be all that is British. How come you choose not to live there then? I've heard you say many times, how you'd never go back to living in the UK. Just curious..

[spindrift]

Mark - yes, Ireland is a special case. Glad you agree with me

Eireann go brach

[onlymark]

Deyana, I've just modified and clarified a little what I meant there.

Living in Britain is not something I want to do, correct, but I can still be British and not do so. Besides the fact that there were two choices in what I said, being British or being Indian, that's all. Personally if I had a choice of all the nationalities in the world there'd be others I might choose instead, but that's not what we are on about.
The reason I wouldn't live there is..... well there's actually many reasons but in a nutshell, (in no order of importance) weather, government, financial, crime, attitudes, rules/regulations, compensation culture, size, transport, cctv/big brother stuff, weather.... that'll do for now.

(But Mark you said weather twice? ..... I know, I just hate the weather)

[Deleted]

I asked:

Do you really believe that it's a positive thing to be all that is 'British'? I don't think so.

and you answered:

Given the choice between being all 'British' and all 'Indian' I know which I'd choose.

That's not what I was asking. But now you have said it, care to explain why?

[Deleted]

The reason I wouldn't live there is..... well there's actually many reasons but in a nutshell, (in no order of importance) weather, government, financial, crime, attitudes, rules/regulations, compensation culture, size, transport, cctv/big brother stuff, weather.... that'll do for now.


So my point being, and your above comment clarifies, that it's not something everyone would aspire to be.

[spindrift]

I feel that Goa has profited from being occupied for 400 years by the Portuguese...they only left in the 1960s. Being in Goa feels very different to the rest of India. It is certainly less chaotic on the roads and there are no Goan beggars. Any beggars that one comes across seem to come for the season from Maharashtra.

[onlymark]

Deyana, what's with the 'aspire to be' thing? Are you saying it's not true that many Indians aspire to the British way of life? Or are you saying that it's not a good thing to aspire to? And are you saying that 'aspiring' entails living in the UK as well?

Either way, many Indians do and it's a personal thing as to whether anyone feels how high up the ladder you have reached if you are. All I can say about living in the UK is that it does seem thousands, in fact hundreds of thousands, of people of all nationalities fight there way across from wherever to try and get in. I doubt they want to be British, but they want the benefits of living there.
Countless numbers of foreign nationals fight long and hard to arrive in Europe and unfortunately they are not then satisfied with living in France or Spain or Italy etc, they then make their way to the channel ports and try and enter the UK.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's true.
Obviously it's quite a popular country.

[onlymark]

Apr 30, 2010 20:30:54 GMT deyana said:

Given the choice between being all 'British' and all 'Indian' I know which I'd choose.

That's not what I was asking. But now you have said it, care to explain why?

Aren't you leading this somewhat away from your OP?
What would you rather be? Indian or Canadian?

[Deleted]

You are veering off topic now, Mark.

Aspiring to be and thinking all that is British is a 'positive' thing, is very different to trying to get in to a country for financial reasons. And that actually doesn't really apply to Indians at all, more the Eastern Europeans. Indians were asked to come over to the UK decades ago to work, because there was such a shortage of labour at the time. They have worked hard and helped to develop the UK to what it is today.

Those Indians who live in the UK, and many have were born there, as were their parents and maybe even grandparents, are as British as anyone else (apart from their skin tone). They are not aspiring to be anything but themselves. Do you see what I mean?

I assume you are talking about the Indians who live in India and talk (and maybe try to act) like the upper class of colonial British person? Well, like I said, after so many years of colonization that is something that is almost inbred in them. Again I ask, who are they really? And more importantly, who would they have been if not for that British influence for so many years? They are the product of what they personally have grown up with and to be. That is all.

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2010 21:00:25 GMT onlyMark said:

Apr 30, 2010 20:30:54 GMT deyana said:

Indian or Canadian?

I'm an Indo-Canadian. And that's what I like to be.

[onlymark]

You think I'm leading it away? You were the one asking the questions to take it away originally.
Indo-Canadian? That's a non answer.

And if you re-read what I said about living in the UK I mentioned people of all nationalities, not just Indians. Plus I sought clarification from you when I said And are you saying that 'aspiring' entails living in the UK as well?
Plus originally I mentioned Indians in India aspiring, obviously not Indians in the UK, so I don't understand why you brought it up.

Aspiring to be and thinking all that is British is a 'positive' thing, is very different to trying to get in to a country for financial reasons. And that actually doesn't really apply to Indians at all,
Doesn't it?

[Deleted]

Indo-Canadian? That's a non answer

Um..no it isn't. It's a definition just like 'Afro-American' is in the US.

Plus originally I mentioned Indians in India aspiring, obviously not Indians in the UK, so I don't understand why you brought it up.


Because you asked: I sought clarification from you when I said And are you saying that 'aspiring' entails living in the UK as well?



And that actually doesn't really apply to Indians at all,
Doesn't it?

Not it doesn't. Not nowadays. try reading the whole sentence. The rest of it is:

And that actually doesn't really apply to Indians at all, more the Eastern Europeans. Indians were asked to come over to the UK decades ago to work, because there was such a shortage of labour at the time. They have worked hard and helped to develop the UK to what it is today.

I suggest we get back to the topic of the OP.

If you want to talk about Indians/other foreigners getting into the UK for whatever reasons, I suggest you make a separate thread about it.

Or maybe a more interesting thread would be 'why are so many British leaving the UK to live overseas'

[Deleted]

The French see their own experience of colonization as having been far less negative than the British system. They educated and trained an administrative elite in each country and left an infrastructure of schools which is for the most part still in place. Thousands of Africans were brought to France to attend the same universities as the French.

The British have a reputation of having voluntarily left the indigenous populations at a lower level of development.

[onlymark]

The point was that Indians DO want to come to the UK for financial reasons, and it is that that applies to them. Not that they are queuing up in Calais trying to jump on a truck.

You say, "I suggest we get back to the topic of the OP" as though you just thought of that when I've already said at number 17, "Aren't you leading this somewhat away from your OP?"
And you ask that if I want to talk about foreigners getting into the UK I make a separate thread about it. I didn't want to, I wanted to talk about colonization, and yet you lead the thread away and then tell me to make a new thread.
You're very frustrating when you seem to forget what's been said or try and twist it round.

Kerouac, interesting. Funnily enough that exactly the opposite of how the British see it.
I think the truth may be somewhere in between.

[bjd]

I have an extremely interesting book about post-colonial Africa that I bought last year. It rather backs up onlyMark's idea of what the British or French left behind. Contrary to Kerouac's idea, the French left very few capable administrators and formed practically nobody to take over. And when in about 1960 de Gaulle offered to create a Francophone group of countries, the only one that didn't want to join (was it Guinea? I'll have to look it up) was basically blackballed by the French. When they pulled out, they took everything away, including the lightbulbs and doorknobs in the buildings.

Of course, the writer is British, but I agree that the truth lies somewhere in between.

[onlymark]

The truth may lie somewhere in between but I suspect it's closer to the British were nice and French were nasty end of the scale

[Deleted]

In any case, this year is the 50th anniversary of independence of just about all of the French African colonies. I think the UK gets to go through that in the coming months or year or two as well... swearing undying brotherhood with its former colonies and all that bullshit.

[bjd]

Yeah -- with the nasty end of the scale occupied by the Belgians.

[onlymark]

African countries in order of independence -

[Deleted]

That's an excellent map. Too bad about the Western Sahara.