13 ms·

I am also a Nigerian (from a different ethnicity from the author, which does influence my perspective). I've seen this discussion about "the good sides of colon

I am also a Nigerian (from a different ethnicity from the author, which does influence my perspective). I've seen this discussion about "the good sides of colonialism" over and over again, and I've come to the conclusion that people keep tiptoeing around a simple truth: colonisation was wholly unnecessary, and that is what makes it unethical no matter how much good one tries to link to it. As a less morally fraught example, consider the reaction you would have if it was exposed that your browser was secretly sending your passwords in plaintext to some third-party service to check if they were secure enough. It doesn't matter that helping users avoid weak passwords is a noble goal and genuine objective; sharing users' passwords like that is completely unnecessary and thus indefensible. The question then becomes: was there a better way to achieve the "good" of the colonial era - technological progress, etc - without colonisation itself? And the answer is yes, absolutely 100% yes. Colonisation was a betrayal, not the start of Europe's history with Africa and Asia. To give an example close to home, the Portuguese and later the English had a fairly balanced mercantile relationship with the Benin Kingdom (part of modern-day Nigeria) for centuries before the British colonial expeditions of the very late 19th century. You can even tell from the words of earlier visitors/tourists like Olfert Dapper that there was a respect for the people, their way of life and accomplishments (the Edo people were quite good at architecture, for instance). The Benin Kingdom could very well have continued its natural technological, economic and social progression with the support of non-violent foreign partnerships and trade while retaining its sovereignty, but for the greed of the British. In fact, colonisation has most likely hampered its development, not accelerated it. Japan for example avoided colonisation entirely and has quite clearly caught up to and surpassed its near and distant neighbours that got that dubious "help". Or consider how quickly Hawaii modernised even before it lost its sovereignty to the United States.

bantunes 6y ago
I recently heard about Benin and the British "punitive expedition" that looted the country in a Vox video, of all things, about the world's largest open crime scene - the British Museum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTxiRWrvp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTxiRWrvp8
Latty 6y ago
I think this is a very good way to frame it. I really dislike the "silver lining" narrative that seems to be common, because—as you say—it doesn't matter, the core thing is still indefensible. I'm British, and my education (up to GCSE History as it existed in 2007, I didn't take History at AS-level or above) just completely glossed over colonialism entirely. There was no “anti-colonialist message” because there was no message on colonialism at all. I feel that the desire is more to sweep it under the rug, and while it is better than glorifying the past, I think it encourages people to this kind of mindset, as if it was that bad, surely they'd know more? (Parallels to Americans finding out about the Tulsa race massacre recently).
- JabavuAdams 6y ago
  The lack of coverage of colonialism in the British curriculum is really surprising to me.
  - steve_adams_86 6y ago
    It was much the same in western Canada 15 years ago for me. Learning the truth after school was genuinely difficult; it didn’t seem real at first. Even the colonization of western Canada had somehow been portrayed to me as positive all my life. The First Nations here were subjected to overt genocide and then protracted, relentless cultural erosion in the form of systemic racism, resource/opportunity control, and the notorious residential school system. Somehow I made it into my late teens before finding out what really happened. My kids are having a better experience, but I’ll have to wait until grade 7 or 8 to see how deep our education system is willing to dig into the atrocities that happened here. So far, at least, the school has been very positive and engaged in learning about and experiencing local First Nations culture. It’s an improvement.
  - Joker_vD 6y ago
    I for one think that turning Tower into a British Colonialism's Crimes Museum and making the UK repent (and repay! All your City banks are belong to us) for the crimes of their distant ancestors for the next century or so is a fascinating idea, but that'd require, ah, quite a vigorous persuasion, so to speak. i propose we start by drafting a "Comprehensive International Plan of Action" ("Comintern" for short) and invite the UNSC to join it. P.S. There's a grain of joke in every joke.
Legogris 6y ago
Is it fair to say that * the colonization was a huge net negative and violation of the population at the time * the colonization arguably could be a net positive for current and future generations * the latter does not justify the former ?
- Latty 6y ago
  > the colonization arguably could be a net positive for current and future generations I think this is a misleading statement anyway, because it requires a comparison point. If it was to "no interaction at all with the colonial powers", then maybe? If it was to "free trade with the colonial powers", almost certainly not. Even in the first case I say maybe, because who knows what their society would have looked like. It may have advanced more slowly, but maybe that would have left them with more natural resources, more culture in tact, different advancements that benefited them in different ways. The trade-off there is very unclear and just saying it would be a "net positive" is a massive leap to me.
- Emma_Goldman 6y ago
  Keep in mind that inter-imperial conflict arguably led to two world wars, and that the first world war produced the Bolshevik Revolution, making the Cold War possible. There are a lot of counter-factuals involved in claims like this. Another problem is that settler colonialism exterminated the populations of the Americas and Australasia. The inter-generational comparison in those cases is primarily between two separate populations: the genocide of natives against the wealth of the ancestors of settlers.
  - tgflynn 6y ago
    > Keep in mind that inter-imperial conflict arguably led to two world wars I'm not an historian but my impression is that WWI was primarily the result of intra-European conflicts between the great powers with any colonial issues being little more than a sideshow. WWII in Europe then seems to have been a nearly inevitable consequence of unresolved issues from the prior war. The only aspect of the two wars that does look a great deal like a war between competing colonial empires was the Pacific Theater of the Second World War.
jtbayly 6y ago
Japan didn’t avoid colonization entirely. It attempted to get some action on the colonizer side.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  That was the whole linchpin behind Japanese expansionism. Japanese government realized that they are behind in development both technological and economical. Those were the colonized countries. So to avoid being colonized, they did all in their power to become colonizers themselves. The irony is that out of all colonized countries the Japanese colonies were the one that net benefited from colonization. At the cost of brutal oppression and atrocities, but Japanese considered those their 'land' and instead focusing purely on extraction of wealth (europen model) they were developing infrastructure. All in all, the whole 'colonization was not so bad' is whitewashing of history. And we should stop putting positive light on it. Just because one slave owner was 'good' it doesn't make slavery justified.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    > The irony is that out of all colonized countries the Japanese colonies were the one that net benefited from colonization. This is a completely inaccurate representation of the various Japanese colonial projects. While some historians might refer to what became Taiwan in these terms, very few would say the same of Korea or the territories in China the Japanese occupied. In fact, the viciousness and extractive nature of the Japanese colonial projects are what justified to many the corollary anti-colonial violence that eventually escalated into civil war in the Korean peninsula. For example,An Jung-geun, who assassinated the Japanese colonial administrator Ito Hirobumi, is still considered a national hero in both the north and the south.
  - DamnYuppie 6y ago
    I don't disagree that colonization was not a good thing. Yet in all of human history we have struggled against one another for dominion of land and resources. How is colonization really any different then all the other wars/conquests done before? Or is simply that it was done on such a scale that sets it apart or is it the relative nearness of it historically that brings it more to relevance for people?
recuter 6y ago
What Have The Romans ever done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ Colonisation was wholly inevitable. Japan, as per your example, had a big freak out when Perry forced them open - realised that "dutch studies" were a matter of national security - and modernised at absolute breakneck pace as they happened to have had all the social structures already in place to accomplish this. And no sooner had they closed the gap that they turned around and became ruthless colonisers themselves. Such was the game for all of human history until the 20th century.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  > Such was the game for all of human history until the 20th century It hasn't stopped, it just stopped being blatant. See Confessions of an Economic Hitman for the US approach, or the Belt & Road Initiative (and all if it's hidden enforcement measures and implications) for a Chinese implementation.
  - recuter 6y ago
    Oh absolutely. And there's no shortage of pretty blatant examples to boot, people just conveniently avoid thinking about it. See East Timor for example. We have yet to fully step out of barbarism and into modernity as a species.
romanoderoma 6y ago
I think this debate is very interesting and must be carried on among people coming from former African colonies. It gives us European more perspectives to look at and improves the level of the discussion that, in my opinion, has no particular value or chances of persisting new ideas if it takes place exclusively on social networks in the form of slogans and memes. I'm Italian, I ideally descend from the African born emperor Septimius Severus, who was born in Leptis Magna the modern Al-Khums in Lybia. I've always been fascinated by the strong bond that the early Roman empire had with northern Africa and Middle East, where all the modern western civilizations were born. They looked at them in respect, when Septimius Severus became emperor the Egyptians were already older to the Romans than Romans are to us today. Septimium Severus became emperor defeating his opponent, an usurper of the empire, Gaius Pescennius Niger. Niger in Latin means black, dark, but also evil and ill-omened, the latter being the ones that described him better. Niger is also the name of the river that gave name to Nigeria, but the meaning is completely different, yet it sounds exactly the same. When I was a kid studying ancient history at school I was always looking for coincidence like this one, I believed they were magic. Africa at the time of Septimius Severus was a very advanced country, in every aspect of life: they had some of the largest cities in the World, they were good sailors, they had prosperous markets, they had the largest library in the entire World and let's not forget the monumental buildings - still unarrived today. Romans were great engineers, they built roads, infrastructures such as bridges and aqueducts, but also thermal baths ran by geothermal energy (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquae_Sulis https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquae_Sulis) But Gaius Pescennius Niger usurped the empire and Septimius Severus had to fight him until Gaius was defeated and then killed. I'm fascinated by Roman history and I read a lot about it, but I cannot look the other way when I think at it on a human level: they were constantly killing each other no matter how many advancement they brought to society, engineering, politics, rule of the law, they killed each other, a lot! What I get from this essay is not that there was a good colonialism but that pre colonialism wasn't that good as well. My father used to read me "Roots: The Saga of an American Family" when I was a little kid and I will never condone what happened and the devastation it caused and that's why I ultimately believe that "debate should always serve the ultimate purpose of helping build ... rather than tearing things apart"
- asa4akj 6y ago
trabant00 6y ago
> simple truth: colonisation was wholly unnecessary, and that is what makes it unethical no matter how much good one tries to link to it 1. Unnecessary. Unnecessary for what? Anything? Cause in that case I do not agree. The rise, expansion and collapse of empires is very necessary for the development and testing of human organizational models. The price for change (not necessarily good) is human life. That's the reality of the entire history of the human race, you can't simply wish it otherwise. 2. Unethical. Morals are highly subjective and debatable, but I do want to mention one thing. Magna Carta originated in evil white Europe and the whole world benefits from it's forceful spread.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  2. Manga Carta is far away from the first example of a democratic policy in a written form :) Will your next point be about British developing the radar and the radio?
  - trabant00 6y ago
    Magna Carta has nothing to do with democracy. And what are those previos examples?
    - jandrese 6y ago
      The Magna Carta is all about decentralizing power, which is the foundation of Democracy.
- baddox 6y ago
  > The rise, expansion and collapse of empires is very necessary for the development and testing of human organizational models. Which attributes are being tested, other than the ability of a society to expand and conquer or destroy other societies?
  - trabant00 6y ago
    It's evolution of human societies really. And like all evolution it's not moral, nor has any higher purpose. Different models compete with each other, the capacity to survive, expand and evolve is what is being tested. Preying is part of life. People forget we are animals. Sure, we try to impose some rules on the preying, but who can enforce them but the strongest? I am not trying to deny our need for liberty and safety. But you have to think about those in the real context of constant conflict. At any time you should look around and chose to support one predator over another, because there are real differences that will impact your needs. And many people from that time and place in the original article chose the white wolves. Edit to address you question more directly: empires need to provide some things to the ones who are being ruled, otherwise you can't keep order. Lack of order means lack of efficiency, which affects army, which affects their ability to control and expand the empire. So there is a constant quest for balance between taking resources and giving back things. New empires pop up that do it better and they kill everything around until they fall themselves. Evolution.
rbecker 6y ago
> Colonisation was a betrayal No, it was simply conquest. For example, the Umayyads did not betray Hispania when they invaded, because they never had any allegiance to Hispania in the first place.
- solaceb 6y ago
  I feel as though "conquest" is a rather neutral term, despite obviously communicating that some violence took place. Whereas "betrayal" feels to me like it carries a much heavier negative connotation and emphasis on the brutality of the affair. I would therefore term it a betrayal, and for me that is to say the colonizers betrayed Africans but also broader humanity -- their own humanity.
  - Veen 6y ago
    I’m curious if you consider “betrayal” the appropriate term for all conquests, or just Western conquests. Did the Seljuk Turks betray the Byzantines when they conquered Anatolia? Or had Romans previously betrayed the Seclucids, who had previously betrayed the various other people who occupied the area. These same patterns of repeated conquest and colonization have been repeated throughout human history from the very earliest days, including within Africa. The British were themselves the product of multiple waves of conquest and colonization from the Paleolithic through the Iberian migrations, the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans up until 1066 and beyond. It’s a constant of human behavior and historical development, so I’m not sure betrayal is really the right way to the think about it.
    - filleduchaos 6y ago
      > I’m curious if you consider “betrayal” the appropriate term for all conquests, or just Western conquests. I would consider any conquest that involved the breaking of a centuries-long cordial relationship to be a betrayal, yes. What exactly is your point? > Did the Seljuk Turks betray the Byzantines when they conquered Anatolia? Or had Romans previously betrayed the Seclucids, who had previously betrayed the various other people who occupied the area > The British were themselves the product of multiple waves of conquest and colonization from the Paleolithic through the Iberian migrations, the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans up until 1066 and beyond. No offence to you personally, but this particular brand of intellectual dishonesty - discussing the British empire as though it is far-flung history and not very recent indeed - is quite annoying. The conquests you bring up were a thousand years ago, two thousand in the case of the Roman-Seleucid war. On the other hand the expedition that subjugated the Benin Kingdom was in 1897, and it (as part of the country now called Nigeria) did not gain its independence from Britain until 1960. My father was born under colonial rule, for crying out loud, and I'm not even thirty yet. People don't make a habit of jumping into discussions of the German invasion of France in WW2 with anecdotes on Charlemagne's conquest of Bavaria - why on earth do they think it's okay to do when talking about the colonial era?
dotancohen 6y ago
The European colonialism would not have happened had there not been resources - human and mineral - to exploit. They would not have brought their technology over in exchange for a smile and a hug. Without something to exploit their would have been no reason for the Europeans to have anything to do with Africa or the New World. Your comparison with passwords is apt. In fact, it was less than a decade ago that I would sniff wifi and collect all kinds of passwords. In fact, it was so easy that a browser extension was created specifically to sniff other wifi users' Facebook passwords. That browser extension was the straw that broke the camel: since then there has been a huge push towards HTTPS. Where does this fit into your analogy? Weakness invites exploitation, exploitation catalyses the push towards improvement. We see it everywhere: car safety, environmental regulations, Arab spring, gay rights. Yes, the colonialism _was_ necessary to get to the standard of living now seen in major African cities. As a Jew, I'll tell you that the Holocaust was a necessary step towards a modern, independent Jewish state. That does _not_ excuse colonialism, the Holocaust, password sniffing, toxic chemical dumping, or any of the other atrocities that had to occur for the dice to fall where they are today.
- marci 6y ago
  "the standard of living now seen in major African cities" has been attained ~despite~ colonialism. Not thanks to it.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  > They would not have brought their technology over in exchange for a smile and a hug. Somehow you seem to have missed the entire point of my comment, which is that there were already existing relationships based on trade and exchange that were betrayed because military subjugation was cheaper in the long run.
  - dotancohen 6y ago
    I didn't miss that. I just disagree that trade was enough.
    - 6y ago
blueyes 6y ago
How about the fact that the British Empire, at great cost to its own interests, ended the practice of slavery widespread among Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrfjUzYvPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrfjUzYvPo That does not fit into the anti-colonialist narrative either.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  I'm not watching a two hour video on this, but how exactly was it against their own interests? Not only had they finally exited the slave trade, their colonization of of the area allowed them to use the manpower in their own empire.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  That is not at all how that works. How do you reconcile this altruism with Britain's continued trade with and reliance on goods from the Americas and their continued use of slave labour? How is it that so many Westerners keep making these strangely naïve and surface-level readings of history and politics? You might find this interesting: https://origins.osu.edu/review/after-abolition-britain-and-slave-trade-1807 https://origins.osu.edu/review/after-abolition-britain-and-s...
  - trabant00 6y ago
    > How do you reconcile this altruism with Britain's continued trade with and reliance on goods from the Americas and their continued use of slave labour? By simply not moving the goal posts. > so many Westerners keep making these strangely naïve and surface-level readings of history and politics So they are naive for noticing a good thing in an ocean of evil, and you are keeping it real by thinking that until everything is perfect no progress matters. Got it.
    - filleduchaos 6y ago
      It's not "moving the goal posts" to point out that the "great cost to her interests" was largely nonexistent considering that Britain kept right on benefiting from and funding it under the table - it's simply knowing enough of the history involved to not reason like a small child.
slothtrop 6y ago
Colonialism is just an extension of what was always occurring throughout History. It was no more necessary than all those conquests that shaped the world, which is another way of saying, it's no more necessary than civilization itself, the foundations for which were laid to build armies to wage war and reap the benefits. You could no more divorce the History of technology from barbarism and inhumanity than you could Civilization. You could project a better way over human history looking through present-day lens, but that way did not happen, and more than likely it would never have occurred the way we'd idealize. Revisionism is hardly necessary. Moralizing the past is senseless, whether you argue it was good or bad. It matters not that the colonial era is less old than others. All we can do with our newly calibrated compasses is decide what good means going forward.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  > it's no more necessary than civilization itself, the foundations for which were laid to build armies to wage war and reap the benefits. Civilization emerged around settled agriculture, not to wage war. Arguably this was a movement away from violence, as compared to nomadic tribes constantly competing over hunting and foraging territories. > Moralizing the past is senseless, whether you argue it was good or bad. It matters not that the colonial era is less old than others. All we can do with our newly calibrated compasses is decide what good means going forward. How exactly do we “calibrate our compasses” without reference to our past? It’s entirely valid to judge what in our past immoral in hopes that we can steer our present away from their reoccurrence. It’s hardly senseless, but indicative of our capacity to reflect, change, and not senselessly repeat these horrors.
  - zvorygin 6y ago
    > Civilization emerged around settled agriculture, not to wage war. Arguably this was a movement away from violence, as compared to nomadic tribes constantly competing over hunting and foraging territories. Is this even true? I remember when I was reading "Seeing like a State" (or possibly this is from "Against the Grain"), the book would talk about how the first settled civilizations were all violent and oppressive, because nobody wanted to engage in agriculture. Why would you, when anyone could walk into nature where there was an abundance of food and life was much easier. The original movement towards settled civilization was a violent one, where people were forced to work the land, and would try to escape. Nomadic tribes didn't violently compete with each other as much as settled societies. At least, that was the impression I was under.
newyankee 6y ago
BBC routinely runs articles rationalizing the positive sides of colonialism in India.
tdsamardzhiev 6y ago
Did Benin not fight and conquer weaker civilizations? Did Benin not trade African people for slaves? None of these are unique to European colonial powers. So in that sense, the question is "why not?" rather than "why?" Take away service-based economy, global trade and the internet, and the strong of today (or of any other time) would indeed have more use of a second TV than of world peace. I hope that thanks to the advancement of technology, people around the world will see this instance of prisoner's dilemma for what it is, and work towards a better world together. Sadly, what I observe in reality is that people who will get the most benefit out of this seem to be its strongest opponents.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  I quite feel you have managed to miss the entire point. This might help out a little: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24108231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24108231
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    He didn't miss the point. It's standard whataboutism. You see the same arguments concerning Native Americans in the US where the proposition is that since they didn't all live in peace, their extermination shouldn't be seen as out of the ordinary.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

bantunes 6y ago

I recently heard about Benin and the British "punitive expedition" that looted the country in a Vox video, of all things, about the world's largest open crime scene - the British Museum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTxiRWrvp8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTxiRWrvp8

Latty 6y ago

I think this is a very good way to frame it. I really dislike the "silver lining" narrative that seems to be common, because—as you say—it doesn't matter, the core thing is still indefensible. I'm British, and my education (up to GCSE History as it existed in 2007, I didn't take History at AS-level or above) just completely glossed over colonialism entirely. There was no “anti-colonialist message” because there was no message on colonialism at all. I feel that the desire is more to sweep it under the rug, and while it is better than glorifying the past, I think it encourages people to this kind of mindset, as if it was that bad, surely they'd know more? (Parallels to Americans finding out about the Tulsa race massacre recently).

JabavuAdams 6y ago
The lack of coverage of colonialism in the British curriculum is really surprising to me.
- steve_adams_86 6y ago
  It was much the same in western Canada 15 years ago for me. Learning the truth after school was genuinely difficult; it didn’t seem real at first. Even the colonization of western Canada had somehow been portrayed to me as positive all my life. The First Nations here were subjected to overt genocide and then protracted, relentless cultural erosion in the form of systemic racism, resource/opportunity control, and the notorious residential school system. Somehow I made it into my late teens before finding out what really happened. My kids are having a better experience, but I’ll have to wait until grade 7 or 8 to see how deep our education system is willing to dig into the atrocities that happened here. So far, at least, the school has been very positive and engaged in learning about and experiencing local First Nations culture. It’s an improvement.
- Joker_vD 6y ago
  I for one think that turning Tower into a British Colonialism's Crimes Museum and making the UK repent (and repay! All your City banks are belong to us) for the crimes of their distant ancestors for the next century or so is a fascinating idea, but that'd require, ah, quite a vigorous persuasion, so to speak. i propose we start by drafting a "Comprehensive International Plan of Action" ("Comintern" for short) and invite the UNSC to join it. P.S. There's a grain of joke in every joke.

Legogris 6y ago

Is it fair to say that * the colonization was a huge net negative and violation of the population at the time * the colonization arguably could be a net positive for current and future generations * the latter does not justify the former ?

Latty 6y ago
> the colonization arguably could be a net positive for current and future generations I think this is a misleading statement anyway, because it requires a comparison point. If it was to "no interaction at all with the colonial powers", then maybe? If it was to "free trade with the colonial powers", almost certainly not. Even in the first case I say maybe, because who knows what their society would have looked like. It may have advanced more slowly, but maybe that would have left them with more natural resources, more culture in tact, different advancements that benefited them in different ways. The trade-off there is very unclear and just saying it would be a "net positive" is a massive leap to me.
Emma_Goldman 6y ago
Keep in mind that inter-imperial conflict arguably led to two world wars, and that the first world war produced the Bolshevik Revolution, making the Cold War possible. There are a lot of counter-factuals involved in claims like this. Another problem is that settler colonialism exterminated the populations of the Americas and Australasia. The inter-generational comparison in those cases is primarily between two separate populations: the genocide of natives against the wealth of the ancestors of settlers.
- tgflynn 6y ago
  > Keep in mind that inter-imperial conflict arguably led to two world wars I'm not an historian but my impression is that WWI was primarily the result of intra-European conflicts between the great powers with any colonial issues being little more than a sideshow. WWII in Europe then seems to have been a nearly inevitable consequence of unresolved issues from the prior war. The only aspect of the two wars that does look a great deal like a war between competing colonial empires was the Pacific Theater of the Second World War.

jtbayly 6y ago

Japan didn’t avoid colonization entirely. It attempted to get some action on the colonizer side.

me_me_me 6y ago
That was the whole linchpin behind Japanese expansionism. Japanese government realized that they are behind in development both technological and economical. Those were the colonized countries. So to avoid being colonized, they did all in their power to become colonizers themselves. The irony is that out of all colonized countries the Japanese colonies were the one that net benefited from colonization. At the cost of brutal oppression and atrocities, but Japanese considered those their 'land' and instead focusing purely on extraction of wealth (europen model) they were developing infrastructure. All in all, the whole 'colonization was not so bad' is whitewashing of history. And we should stop putting positive light on it. Just because one slave owner was 'good' it doesn't make slavery justified.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  > The irony is that out of all colonized countries the Japanese colonies were the one that net benefited from colonization. This is a completely inaccurate representation of the various Japanese colonial projects. While some historians might refer to what became Taiwan in these terms, very few would say the same of Korea or the territories in China the Japanese occupied. In fact, the viciousness and extractive nature of the Japanese colonial projects are what justified to many the corollary anti-colonial violence that eventually escalated into civil war in the Korean peninsula. For example,An Jung-geun, who assassinated the Japanese colonial administrator Ito Hirobumi, is still considered a national hero in both the north and the south.
- DamnYuppie 6y ago
  I don't disagree that colonization was not a good thing. Yet in all of human history we have struggled against one another for dominion of land and resources. How is colonization really any different then all the other wars/conquests done before? Or is simply that it was done on such a scale that sets it apart or is it the relative nearness of it historically that brings it more to relevance for people?

recuter 6y ago

What Have The Romans ever done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ Colonisation was wholly inevitable. Japan, as per your example, had a big freak out when Perry forced them open - realised that "dutch studies" were a matter of national security - and modernised at absolute breakneck pace as they happened to have had all the social structures already in place to accomplish this. And no sooner had they closed the gap that they turned around and became ruthless colonisers themselves. Such was the game for all of human history until the 20th century.

blaser-waffle 6y ago
> Such was the game for all of human history until the 20th century It hasn't stopped, it just stopped being blatant. See Confessions of an Economic Hitman for the US approach, or the Belt & Road Initiative (and all if it's hidden enforcement measures and implications) for a Chinese implementation.
- recuter 6y ago
  Oh absolutely. And there's no shortage of pretty blatant examples to boot, people just conveniently avoid thinking about it. See East Timor for example. We have yet to fully step out of barbarism and into modernity as a species.

romanoderoma 6y ago

I think this debate is very interesting and must be carried on among people coming from former African colonies. It gives us European more perspectives to look at and improves the level of the discussion that, in my opinion, has no particular value or chances of persisting new ideas if it takes place exclusively on social networks in the form of slogans and memes. I'm Italian, I ideally descend from the African born emperor Septimius Severus, who was born in Leptis Magna the modern Al-Khums in Lybia. I've always been fascinated by the strong bond that the early Roman empire had with northern Africa and Middle East, where all the modern western civilizations were born. They looked at them in respect, when Septimius Severus became emperor the Egyptians were already older to the Romans than Romans are to us today. Septimium Severus became emperor defeating his opponent, an usurper of the empire, Gaius Pescennius Niger. Niger in Latin means black, dark, but also evil and ill-omened, the latter being the ones that described him better. Niger is also the name of the river that gave name to Nigeria, but the meaning is completely different, yet it sounds exactly the same. When I was a kid studying ancient history at school I was always looking for coincidence like this one, I believed they were magic. Africa at the time of Septimius Severus was a very advanced country, in every aspect of life: they had some of the largest cities in the World, they were good sailors, they had prosperous markets, they had the largest library in the entire World and let's not forget the monumental buildings - still unarrived today. Romans were great engineers, they built roads, infrastructures such as bridges and aqueducts, but also thermal baths ran by geothermal energy (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquae_Sulis https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquae_Sulis) But Gaius Pescennius Niger usurped the empire and Septimius Severus had to fight him until Gaius was defeated and then killed. I'm fascinated by Roman history and I read a lot about it, but I cannot look the other way when I think at it on a human level: they were constantly killing each other no matter how many advancement they brought to society, engineering, politics, rule of the law, they killed each other, a lot! What I get from this essay is not that there was a good colonialism but that pre colonialism wasn't that good as well. My father used to read me "Roots: The Saga of an American Family" when I was a little kid and I will never condone what happened and the devastation it caused and that's why I ultimately believe that "debate should always serve the ultimate purpose of helping build ... rather than tearing things apart"

asa4akj 6y ago

trabant00 6y ago

> simple truth: colonisation was wholly unnecessary, and that is what makes it unethical no matter how much good one tries to link to it 1. Unnecessary. Unnecessary for what? Anything? Cause in that case I do not agree. The rise, expansion and collapse of empires is very necessary for the development and testing of human organizational models. The price for change (not necessarily good) is human life. That's the reality of the entire history of the human race, you can't simply wish it otherwise. 2. Unethical. Morals are highly subjective and debatable, but I do want to mention one thing. Magna Carta originated in evil white Europe and the whole world benefits from it's forceful spread.

heavenlyblue 6y ago
2. Manga Carta is far away from the first example of a democratic policy in a written form :) Will your next point be about British developing the radar and the radio?
- trabant00 6y ago
  Magna Carta has nothing to do with democracy. And what are those previos examples?
  - jandrese 6y ago
    The Magna Carta is all about decentralizing power, which is the foundation of Democracy.
baddox 6y ago
> The rise, expansion and collapse of empires is very necessary for the development and testing of human organizational models. Which attributes are being tested, other than the ability of a society to expand and conquer or destroy other societies?
- trabant00 6y ago
  It's evolution of human societies really. And like all evolution it's not moral, nor has any higher purpose. Different models compete with each other, the capacity to survive, expand and evolve is what is being tested. Preying is part of life. People forget we are animals. Sure, we try to impose some rules on the preying, but who can enforce them but the strongest? I am not trying to deny our need for liberty and safety. But you have to think about those in the real context of constant conflict. At any time you should look around and chose to support one predator over another, because there are real differences that will impact your needs. And many people from that time and place in the original article chose the white wolves. Edit to address you question more directly: empires need to provide some things to the ones who are being ruled, otherwise you can't keep order. Lack of order means lack of efficiency, which affects army, which affects their ability to control and expand the empire. So there is a constant quest for balance between taking resources and giving back things. New empires pop up that do it better and they kill everything around until they fall themselves. Evolution.

rbecker 6y ago

> Colonisation was a betrayal No, it was simply conquest. For example, the Umayyads did not betray Hispania when they invaded, because they never had any allegiance to Hispania in the first place.

solaceb 6y ago
I feel as though "conquest" is a rather neutral term, despite obviously communicating that some violence took place. Whereas "betrayal" feels to me like it carries a much heavier negative connotation and emphasis on the brutality of the affair. I would therefore term it a betrayal, and for me that is to say the colonizers betrayed Africans but also broader humanity -- their own humanity.
- Veen 6y ago
  I’m curious if you consider “betrayal” the appropriate term for all conquests, or just Western conquests. Did the Seljuk Turks betray the Byzantines when they conquered Anatolia? Or had Romans previously betrayed the Seclucids, who had previously betrayed the various other people who occupied the area. These same patterns of repeated conquest and colonization have been repeated throughout human history from the very earliest days, including within Africa. The British were themselves the product of multiple waves of conquest and colonization from the Paleolithic through the Iberian migrations, the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans up until 1066 and beyond. It’s a constant of human behavior and historical development, so I’m not sure betrayal is really the right way to the think about it.
  - filleduchaos 6y ago
    > I’m curious if you consider “betrayal” the appropriate term for all conquests, or just Western conquests. I would consider any conquest that involved the breaking of a centuries-long cordial relationship to be a betrayal, yes. What exactly is your point? > Did the Seljuk Turks betray the Byzantines when they conquered Anatolia? Or had Romans previously betrayed the Seclucids, who had previously betrayed the various other people who occupied the area > The British were themselves the product of multiple waves of conquest and colonization from the Paleolithic through the Iberian migrations, the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans up until 1066 and beyond. No offence to you personally, but this particular brand of intellectual dishonesty - discussing the British empire as though it is far-flung history and not very recent indeed - is quite annoying. The conquests you bring up were a thousand years ago, two thousand in the case of the Roman-Seleucid war. On the other hand the expedition that subjugated the Benin Kingdom was in 1897, and it (as part of the country now called Nigeria) did not gain its independence from Britain until 1960. My father was born under colonial rule, for crying out loud, and I'm not even thirty yet. People don't make a habit of jumping into discussions of the German invasion of France in WW2 with anecdotes on Charlemagne's conquest of Bavaria - why on earth do they think it's okay to do when talking about the colonial era?

dotancohen 6y ago

The European colonialism would not have happened had there not been resources - human and mineral - to exploit. They would not have brought their technology over in exchange for a smile and a hug. Without something to exploit their would have been no reason for the Europeans to have anything to do with Africa or the New World. Your comparison with passwords is apt. In fact, it was less than a decade ago that I would sniff wifi and collect all kinds of passwords. In fact, it was so easy that a browser extension was created specifically to sniff other wifi users' Facebook passwords. That browser extension was the straw that broke the camel: since then there has been a huge push towards HTTPS. Where does this fit into your analogy? Weakness invites exploitation, exploitation catalyses the push towards improvement. We see it everywhere: car safety, environmental regulations, Arab spring, gay rights. Yes, the colonialism _was_ necessary to get to the standard of living now seen in major African cities. As a Jew, I'll tell you that the Holocaust was a necessary step towards a modern, independent Jewish state. That does _not_ excuse colonialism, the Holocaust, password sniffing, toxic chemical dumping, or any of the other atrocities that had to occur for the dice to fall where they are today.

marci 6y ago
"the standard of living now seen in major African cities" has been attained ~despite~ colonialism. Not thanks to it.
filleduchaos 6y ago
> They would not have brought their technology over in exchange for a smile and a hug. Somehow you seem to have missed the entire point of my comment, which is that there were already existing relationships based on trade and exchange that were betrayed because military subjugation was cheaper in the long run.
- dotancohen 6y ago
  I didn't miss that. I just disagree that trade was enough.
  - 6y ago

blueyes 6y ago

How about the fact that the British Empire, at great cost to its own interests, ended the practice of slavery widespread among Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrfjUzYvPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrfjUzYvPo That does not fit into the anti-colonialist narrative either.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
I'm not watching a two hour video on this, but how exactly was it against their own interests? Not only had they finally exited the slave trade, their colonization of of the area allowed them to use the manpower in their own empire.
filleduchaos 6y ago
That is not at all how that works. How do you reconcile this altruism with Britain's continued trade with and reliance on goods from the Americas and their continued use of slave labour? How is it that so many Westerners keep making these strangely naïve and surface-level readings of history and politics? You might find this interesting: https://origins.osu.edu/review/after-abolition-britain-and-slave-trade-1807 https://origins.osu.edu/review/after-abolition-britain-and-s...
- trabant00 6y ago
  > How do you reconcile this altruism with Britain's continued trade with and reliance on goods from the Americas and their continued use of slave labour? By simply not moving the goal posts. > so many Westerners keep making these strangely naïve and surface-level readings of history and politics So they are naive for noticing a good thing in an ocean of evil, and you are keeping it real by thinking that until everything is perfect no progress matters. Got it.
  - filleduchaos 6y ago
    It's not "moving the goal posts" to point out that the "great cost to her interests" was largely nonexistent considering that Britain kept right on benefiting from and funding it under the table - it's simply knowing enough of the history involved to not reason like a small child.

slothtrop 6y ago

Colonialism is just an extension of what was always occurring throughout History. It was no more necessary than all those conquests that shaped the world, which is another way of saying, it's no more necessary than civilization itself, the foundations for which were laid to build armies to wage war and reap the benefits. You could no more divorce the History of technology from barbarism and inhumanity than you could Civilization. You could project a better way over human history looking through present-day lens, but that way did not happen, and more than likely it would never have occurred the way we'd idealize. Revisionism is hardly necessary. Moralizing the past is senseless, whether you argue it was good or bad. It matters not that the colonial era is less old than others. All we can do with our newly calibrated compasses is decide what good means going forward.

claudeganon 6y ago
> it's no more necessary than civilization itself, the foundations for which were laid to build armies to wage war and reap the benefits. Civilization emerged around settled agriculture, not to wage war. Arguably this was a movement away from violence, as compared to nomadic tribes constantly competing over hunting and foraging territories. > Moralizing the past is senseless, whether you argue it was good or bad. It matters not that the colonial era is less old than others. All we can do with our newly calibrated compasses is decide what good means going forward. How exactly do we “calibrate our compasses” without reference to our past? It’s entirely valid to judge what in our past immoral in hopes that we can steer our present away from their reoccurrence. It’s hardly senseless, but indicative of our capacity to reflect, change, and not senselessly repeat these horrors.
- zvorygin 6y ago
  > Civilization emerged around settled agriculture, not to wage war. Arguably this was a movement away from violence, as compared to nomadic tribes constantly competing over hunting and foraging territories. Is this even true? I remember when I was reading "Seeing like a State" (or possibly this is from "Against the Grain"), the book would talk about how the first settled civilizations were all violent and oppressive, because nobody wanted to engage in agriculture. Why would you, when anyone could walk into nature where there was an abundance of food and life was much easier. The original movement towards settled civilization was a violent one, where people were forced to work the land, and would try to escape. Nomadic tribes didn't violently compete with each other as much as settled societies. At least, that was the impression I was under.

newyankee 6y ago

BBC routinely runs articles rationalizing the positive sides of colonialism in India.

tdsamardzhiev 6y ago

Did Benin not fight and conquer weaker civilizations? Did Benin not trade African people for slaves? None of these are unique to European colonial powers. So in that sense, the question is "why not?" rather than "why?" Take away service-based economy, global trade and the internet, and the strong of today (or of any other time) would indeed have more use of a second TV than of world peace. I hope that thanks to the advancement of technology, people around the world will see this instance of prisoner's dilemma for what it is, and work towards a better world together. Sadly, what I observe in reality is that people who will get the most benefit out of this seem to be its strongest opponents.

filleduchaos 6y ago
I quite feel you have managed to miss the entire point. This might help out a little: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24108231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24108231
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  He didn't miss the point. It's standard whataboutism. You see the same arguments concerning Native Americans in the US where the proposition is that since they didn't all live in peace, their extermination shouldn't be seen as out of the ordinary.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]