3 ms·
As with most historical events the truth lies somewhere between the extreme narratives. Conquests have brought suffering and suppression since the dawn of time,
by jernfrost 10y ago
As with most historical events the truth lies somewhere between the extreme narratives. Conquests have brought suffering and suppression since the dawn of time, but it has also brought new ideas, technologies and development. While Europeans were exploited by the Romans, we also gained a lot of advantages from the Roman empire. Napoleons conquest of Europe also ultimately brought benefits like modern standards for measurement, modern set of laws and administration.
Colonial Africa is no different. It is a mixed bag. It was exploitative but it also brought development, not because European necessarily wanted to help Africans but because getting hold of resources required building ports, roads, railroad etc. They could not exploit agricultural resources without actually building farms and hiring locals. And of course there was always people with different ideas. Some wanted to help Africans and brought modern medicine e.g.
The chief error the western powers did when they left Africa was to not allow for any transition period. They left countries were whites had managed everything and no African had experience or education in managing operations from the top level. They should have given Africans education in white institutions and let them work with the white administration to learn how things were managed.
We see the same disaster in South Africa. Suddenly blacks are put in power but they have no previous experience in having power since they were never given a chance. White rule should not have ended abruptly. There should have been a gradual winding down.
- douche 10y agoThis is self-evidently correct, but is not politically correct... The complete abdication of responsibility of the European colonial powers after WW2 is one of the great tragedies of the 20th century.
- carapace 10y agoIf you find yourself apologizing for conquest, it's fine to just go ahead and stop there. --- To elaborate with less snark: No one is complaining about the good things. It's the violence and exploitation and coercion that are bad. The conquerors don't get "points" for the good stuff that they can redeem against their sins (or crimes if you prefer) to somehow balance the bad stuff out. What a strange idea! If I stab you in the guts and then hand you a free milkshake, does that make it okay?
- lostlogin 10y agoThis is exactly how it is though - now we have a "but he was a bad guy" narrative for the Iraq invasion. That good thing offsets the other stuff a bit right? I don't agree with it, but it's there.
- carapace 10y agoI would ask, "Who's 'we' in that sentence?". If we could survey Iraqis how many would say, "Yes, I hate being invaded and occupied, but at least they got rid of that jerk Saddam."? Keeping in mind that we can't survey the dead... Notwithstanding that awesome scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian": > Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? > PFJ Member: Brought peace? > Reg: Oh, peace? SHUT UP! The basic issue facing everyone is how do we have the good stuff, while giving the bloodshed and trauma the miss?
- lostlogin 10y ago"We" was intended to mean everyone, but probably actually represents and small subset of the western world.I'm in New Zealand and get my news from US and UK papers (and our dross). Edit: the Monty Python sketch would perhaps apply if any of that stuff had been delivered. Are there measures by which Iraq is now better? Saddam has gone, that's good. Anything else?