5 ms·
Colonialism can be blamed for so much though. Long lasting and brutal effects on not just a geographic or economic area, but the emotional toll on the given peo
by FussyZeus 7y ago
Colonialism can be blamed for so much though. Long lasting and brutal effects on not just a geographic or economic area, but the emotional toll on the given people as well.
I don't mean this personally against you, but people who tend to talk this way often don't understand the sheer magnitude of what colonialism wrought upon the world. And I understand why; it's downplayed in the history taught in the developed world, and generally only brought up where it resulted in more or less "okay" situations once it had more or less passed, like the founding of America. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Britain was perhaps the most prolific, but it was far from the only nation doing this shit.
Belgium skull-fucked the Congo for nearly a century, and did pretty much every horrific thing they could think of: mass executions, cut off limbs when the people couldn't pay their taxes, bought "land rights" from the locals for gemstones not even remotely worth enough, murdered probably millions of men, women, and children. IIRC the last time I read about this, by the time they were done almost 2 in 3 Congolese people were dead or crippled beyond the ability to work. Those left had no leadership qualities or training, since leadership was always Belgian and they fucked off home. They didn't know how to do pretty much anything other than grunt labor, and suddenly when Belgium left, had to figure out how to assemble a Government.
The kind of damage that does is incalculable. Not just the economic damage, not just the ecological damage from the mining and farming, not just the emotional toll left on the populace, etc. This sends shockwaves through history that will likely take centuries if not a millennium to fully dissipate. And then of course after Belgium left, giving the country back to it's populace, they started funding various tribes sitting on the natural resources they wanted, to start civil wars that would then last EVEN LONGER STILL, doing EVEN MORE DAMAGE.
And this is what just one nation did to one other nation. Colonialism as a whole was a bunch of nations ripping up a sizable partition of the entire planet's worth of places and people, the effects of which, mainly cultural loss/damage, and the incredible wealth enjoyed by developed nations remain to this day and show no signs of slowing down, save for finally the topic of national reparations being on the table.
Edit: And of course colonialist problems or ones that look a damn lot like colonialism continue to this day, from the ship-breaking beaches where workers are paid pennies a day to scrap ships from the developed world, sold to those firms because it's cheaper that disposing of them in an ecologically friendly way, to the exports of trash electronics to various nations where they demolish their environment to scrape out a meager living. People will look at these things and say "well why can't they just have eco regulation and proper laws, and just say no?" and the answer is that a shit job beats starvation, but the fact that those are their only options is itself a relic of colonialism.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago"Colonialism can be blamed for so much though." True but one thing they can't be blamed for is the lack of infrastructure before they got there. Knowing that, they can't be blamed for the lack of infrastructure built after they left. Colonialism then is the same as corporatism today - there is a very large amount of value extraction, which good or bad, still exists. One can say that the cruelty has diminished somewhat, but perhaps that's because the wealth to be gained has only increased? Oddly though, this cruelty often means that the regions affected by it have better roads, cleaner water, at least traces of medicine, and on the whole better transit. Not always, to be sure.
- FussyZeus 7y agoSo the brutality experienced by the Congo is okay because they left roads afterwards? That's a hell of a viewpoint.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoCompare it to the deadliness of the preexisting tribes and it's an obvious improvement. Obviously no match for the reasonable sensitivity of society of today. Feel free to believe the common lie that every indigenous was a graceful peaceful person that wouldn't hurt a fly. Hard to come up with a greater untruth than that.
- FussyZeus 7y agoI didn't say anything like that, nor do I believe it. But to say that the savages had it coming because they didn't invent the guns first is classic "the victor writes the history books" stuff and really indicative of how little you've left your personal bubble in life. "Might Makes Right" is an appealing philosophy, until you're on the wrong end of it.
- not_a_cop75 7y agoNobody says the savages had it coming, but whenever you have the equivalent of a government or society of serial killers, human decency has certainly a right to tear that structure down. Being "indigenous" is not a get out of jail free card. If it were so, the germans would never have been prosecuted for war crimes. If you believe that "home grown" totalitarianism or serial killing is okay as long as it's "home grown", I can't help but feel bad for your awkwardly backwards "nationalistic" views. This is not to say that all indigenous are serial killers, but some regions are well known for such behavior among their indigenous. Edit: I don't believe in racism. Only genetics and statistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...