4 ms·

I don't even know what to say about this comment. The definition of colonialism, according to Google: "noun: colonialism --- the policy or practice of acquirin

by smtddr 11y ago

I don't even know what to say about this comment. The definition of colonialism, according to Google: "noun: colonialism --- the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically." http://i.imgur.com/3wQbW11.png http://i.imgur.com/3wQbW11.png A blessing you say? Until now I didn't even know anyone considered colonialism much different from an invasion. The definition that I just posted seems to fit "invasion" pretty well imho. And how do you even move a culture forward? It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that. Please tell me there's some other definition of colonialism being used in this thread.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 11y ago
Yes, some cultures are better than others. My parents immigrated from Bangladesh to America for a reason, and it wasn't the weather I assure you.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
chlodwig 11y ago
There are really three types of colonialism. Type 1 is where is the colonizers set up new outposts in more-or-less unoccupied land. This happened in Hong Kong and Calcutta. This is usually benign for the host country. Type 2 is where the colonizers steal the land from the natives and occupy it themselves. This happened in the United States and to some extent in Ireland. This type of colonialism is usually terrible for the natives. Type 3 is where the colonizers install themselves as a ruling caste, but otherwise let the natives be. They extract taxes and provide governance in return. This was the case in India. It was also the case when the Normans invaded England, the Spanish invaded Mexico, or the British took over India. Type 3 often works out better for the natives, because the existing regime had to be pretty backward and corrupt in order to fall to a small band of foreigners. The foreigners install themselves as competent stationary bandits and the country at least enjoys some stability and rule of law. And how do you even move a culture forward? It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that. So you're saying Aztec culture wasn't worse than 19th century British culture? Cultures that had human sacrifice are equal to cultures that perfected the steam engine and flush toilets? Please tell me you are not that willfully ignorant. It should be blindingly obvious that certain elements of culture are worse than others, unless you are willing to argue that religions with human sacrifice are just as good as religions without human sacrifice, or that funerals with Sati are just as good as funerals without Sati. If certain elements of culture are better or worse, than it would be a miracle if all cultures exactly balanced out so that the positive elements and negative elements were equal, thus making all cultures equal to each other.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  You may want to find the Satyajit Ray movie A Game of Chess and watch it. A Bengali director, no less (apt for rayiner's case), and his take on colonialism.
- reagency 11y ago
  Type 3 covers the Nazi occupation of France, so...
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    So what? Please make your point, because I can't guess it. Yes, Nazis are bad, and war is bad. But if you put the German government in charge of France and look at the long-term effects that would have? Not a terrible thing. Also you're ignoring "small band". France could not have fallen to a small number of troops. An area without a strong government could.
- task_queue 11y ago
  Type 4 the type where you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to British rule in India Type 5 is where you start enumerating during your rant to make it seem as you have a point beyond "never mind mass murders, famines.. colonialism sure did a lot for culture"
- fractalb 11y ago
  >> Type 3 often works out better for the natives, because the existing regime had to be pretty backward and corrupt in order to fall to a small band of foreigners. The foreigners install themselves as competent stationary bandits and the country at least enjoys some stability and rule of law. Occupying a country is actually making them a favour!
  - mistermann 11y ago
    Hong Kong and Singapore seemed to have done all right, especially when compared to mainland China.
- 11y ago
rsync 11y ago
Some cultures are better than others.
mistermann 11y ago
> It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that. Assuming you believe the word culture actually has objectively true meaning, do you believe that while cultures are different, all differences everywhere somehow all balance out to a precisely equal level of "good"? And furthermore, are they all also equal with respect to any individual topic (sanitation, environment, honestly, etc)?
enupten 11y ago
You'd be surprised by the number of anglicized Indians who'd claim exactly that of the parent. That the British (and the Mughals before them) were a "blessing" on the subcontinent. Colonization complete.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - enupten 11y ago
    "तम आसीत्तमसा गूहळमग्रे" :)

by smtddr 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 11y ago

Yes, some cultures are better than others. My parents immigrated from Bangladesh to America for a reason, and it wasn't the weather I assure you.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

chlodwig 11y ago

There are really three types of colonialism. Type 1 is where is the colonizers set up new outposts in more-or-less unoccupied land. This happened in Hong Kong and Calcutta. This is usually benign for the host country. Type 2 is where the colonizers steal the land from the natives and occupy it themselves. This happened in the United States and to some extent in Ireland. This type of colonialism is usually terrible for the natives. Type 3 is where the colonizers install themselves as a ruling caste, but otherwise let the natives be. They extract taxes and provide governance in return. This was the case in India. It was also the case when the Normans invaded England, the Spanish invaded Mexico, or the British took over India. Type 3 often works out better for the natives, because the existing regime had to be pretty backward and corrupt in order to fall to a small band of foreigners. The foreigners install themselves as competent stationary bandits and the country at least enjoys some stability and rule of law. And how do you even move a culture forward? It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that. So you're saying Aztec culture wasn't worse than 19th century British culture? Cultures that had human sacrifice are equal to cultures that perfected the steam engine and flush toilets? Please tell me you are not that willfully ignorant. It should be blindingly obvious that certain elements of culture are worse than others, unless you are willing to argue that religions with human sacrifice are just as good as religions without human sacrifice, or that funerals with Sati are just as good as funerals without Sati. If certain elements of culture are better or worse, than it would be a miracle if all cultures exactly balanced out so that the positive elements and negative elements were equal, thus making all cultures equal to each other.

selimthegrim 11y ago
You may want to find the Satyajit Ray movie A Game of Chess and watch it. A Bengali director, no less (apt for rayiner's case), and his take on colonialism.
reagency 11y ago
Type 3 covers the Nazi occupation of France, so...
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  So what? Please make your point, because I can't guess it. Yes, Nazis are bad, and war is bad. But if you put the German government in charge of France and look at the long-term effects that would have? Not a terrible thing. Also you're ignoring "small band". France could not have fallen to a small number of troops. An area without a strong government could.
task_queue 11y ago
Type 4 the type where you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to British rule in India Type 5 is where you start enumerating during your rant to make it seem as you have a point beyond "never mind mass murders, famines.. colonialism sure did a lot for culture"
fractalb 11y ago
>> Type 3 often works out better for the natives, because the existing regime had to be pretty backward and corrupt in order to fall to a small band of foreigners. The foreigners install themselves as competent stationary bandits and the country at least enjoys some stability and rule of law. Occupying a country is actually making them a favour!
- mistermann 11y ago
  Hong Kong and Singapore seemed to have done all right, especially when compared to mainland China.
11y ago

rsync 11y ago

Some cultures are better than others.

mistermann 11y ago

> It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that. Assuming you believe the word culture actually has objectively true meaning, do you believe that while cultures are different, all differences everywhere somehow all balance out to a precisely equal level of "good"? And furthermore, are they all also equal with respect to any individual topic (sanitation, environment, honestly, etc)?

enupten 11y ago

You'd be surprised by the number of anglicized Indians who'd claim exactly that of the parent. That the British (and the Mughals before them) were a "blessing" on the subcontinent. Colonization complete.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- enupten 11y ago
  "तम आसीत्तमसा गूहळमग्रे" :)