Colonialism

CreedIsChrist · May 31, 2009

I'm having a hard time understanding how the same people, that say they support "progress" and structure at the same time condemn colonialism, the very thing that brought civil structure, innovation, technology, medical advance, and government to the world.

I really would like people to think what our world would be like if colonialism never happened. Would there be any progress or structure? Would we be able to live in generally safe environments in the comfort of our own homes? The point is we need to stop blacklisting these people. The colonialists were ambitious people who were seeking advancement and progress, something that the western world feeds on right now. Without the ambitions of these people, progress would have been halted and we would be stuck in much worse conditions.

Has anyone watched the documentary "Farewell Africa"? It is a documentary film about the de-colonization of Africa and the consequences that arises from it. I warn you however, if you are a sensitive politically correct person, don't watch it(because some comments are seen as racist by the director, but rather I would like people to see the documentary on the problems on de-colonization), because it will go against everything you have been taught.

Africa Addio / Farewell Africa (English Su Video

Braunwyn · May 31, 2009

I only watched the first few minutes. Is any of it in English?

LightHorseman · May 31, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
I'm having a hard time understanding how the same people, that say they support "progress" and structure at the same time condemn colonialism, the very thing that brought civil structure, innovation, technology, medical advance, and government to the world.

I really would like people to think what our world would be like if colonialism never happened. Would there be any progress or structure? Would we be able to live in generally safe environments in the comfort of our own homes? The point is we need to stop blacklisting these people. The colonialists were ambitious people who were seeking advancement and progress, something that the western world feeds on right now. Without the ambitions of these people, progress would have been halted and we would be stuck in much worse conditions.

Has anyone watched the documentary "Farewell Africa"? It is a documentary film about the de-colonization of Africa and the consequences that arises from it. I warn you however, if you are a sensitive politically correct person, don't watch it(because some comments are seen a racist by the director, but rather I would like people to see the documentary on the problems on de-colonization), because it will go against everything you have been taught.

Africa Addio / Farewell Africa (English Su Video

Maybe those of us in countries with a history of colonialism would do well to remember that colonialism has both good and bad sides? I'm sure, for example, the average Australian Aboriginal or Native American is quite happy to live in a world with TV and antibiotics... that doesn't however, mean they have to be grateful for the oppression their people have suffered in the past.

Double edged sword thing, at least.

CreedIsChrist · Jun 1, 2009

Braunwyn said:
I only watched the first few minutes. Is any of it in English?

no, only English subtitles. It was directed by an Italian. It shows the gruesome effects of de-colonization in Africa. The gunfights at the end are pretty exciting though.

The Nihilist · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
I'm having a hard time understanding how the same people, that say they support "progress" and structure at the same time condemn colonialism, the very thing that brought civil structure, innovation, technology, medical advance, and government to the world.

I really would like people to think what our world would be like if colonialism never happened. Would there be any progress or structure? Would we be able to live in generally safe environments in the comfort of our own homes? The point is we need to stop blacklisting these people. The colonialists were ambitious people who were seeking advancement and progress, something that the western world feeds on right now. Without the ambitions of these people, progress would have been halted and we would be stuck in much worse conditions.

Has anyone watched the documentary "Farewell Africa"? It is a documentary film about the de-colonization of Africa and the consequences that arises from it. I warn you however, if you are a sensitive politically correct person, don't watch it(because some comments are seen a racist by the director, but rather I would like people to see the documentary on the problems on de-colonization), because it will go against everything you have been taught.

Africa Addio / Farewell Africa (English Su Video

Your argument is basically that the ends justify the means, which is hardly a morally defensible position.

CreedIsChrist · Jun 1, 2009

The Nihilist said:
Your argument is basically that the ends justify the means, which is hardly a morally defensible position.

All actions are to achieve an end, otherwise you'd have no reason to act...you can't avoid it.

b&wpac4 · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
All actions are to achieve an end, otherwise you'd have no reason to act...you can't avoid it.

That's not what he's saying at all. Evil acts to obtain a good end are usually viewed as immoral, even if the end is good.

LightHorseman · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
All actions are to achieve an end, otherwise you'd have no reason to act...you can't avoid it.

Of course all actions are to achieve an end... that does not mean that the end always justifies the means.

Take, I don't know... Stalin's purges... they achieved their end... but did that end justify the purges? Most people would say not.

CreedIsChrist · Jun 1, 2009

LightHorseman said:
Of course all actions are to achieve an end... that does not mean that the end always justifies the means.

Take, I don't know... Stalin's purges... they achieved their end... but did that end justify the purges? Most people would say not.

Stalins purges had no helpful effect on society however.

Also many of the colonialists did not want to fight, but had to, because they were being attacked by barbaric tribes. Colonialism was started to find new land and opportunity, bring civility, innovation, and structure, not start wars. And I don't know about you, but most people don't wanna live in 3rd world countries. The same people bashing colonialism are also the same ones who wouldn't step foot in a 3rd world country.

Joachim · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
Stalins purges had no helpful effect on society however.

Disagree. They helped him consolidate power and they instilled fear in the Soviet people. Those two attributes were necessary to fight Hitler. Had Stalin not had the purges, it is highly possible that he could have ended up the victim of a coup, or worse, that these generals would have sold out to Hitler in exchange for power in a new Nazi controlled Russia.

The same people bashing colonialism are also the same ones who wouldn't step foot in a 3rd world country.

That one I agree with.

CreedIsChrist · Jun 1, 2009

Joachim said:
Disagree. They helped him consolidate power and they instilled fear in the Soviet people. Those two attributes were necessary to fight Hitler. Had Stalin not had the purges, it is highly possible that he could have ended up the victim of a coup, or worse, that these generals would have sold out to Hitler in exchange for power in a new Nazi controlled Russia.

That one I agree with.

They almost did sell out before Germanys invasion of the Soviet Union. Germany and Soviet union had actually a pretty strong pact and diplomatic relations till the germans turned on them.

Russia was already communist anyway, it was more fear of the system than Stalins purges. Also a fearful leader dosen't always make a succesfull army. Purge or not, they still would have been forced to fight Germany during WWII. If anything the purges weakened Russia.

Some people like the claim that Russia was the biggest contributer of beating the Nazi's, especially in Stalingrad, allthough many schools would like you to think the US was the big victor of them all. Either way I don't think Russia would have stood a chance alone.. the only thing they had going for them was the cold weather

tanzanos · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
All actions are to achieve an end, otherwise you'd have no reason to act...you can't avoid it.

OH Goody! Now I can tell the Chinese or Russians that it is OK to colonise the US for the common good! May I quote you on this?

No wonder children are not allowed to drive!

Shemjaza · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
Also many of the colonialists did not want to fight, but had to, because they were being attacked by barbaric tribes. Colonialism was started to find new land and opportunity, bring civility, innovation, and structure, not start wars. And I don't know about you, but most people don't wanna live in 3rd world countries. The same people bashing colonialism are also the same ones who wouldn't step foot in a 3rd world country.

I disagree on two counts.

In many instances (I might say most) the colonists forcibly removed people from their homes and territories and even if they gave the native people the opportunity to convert to their religion, the natives wouldnt be equals in the culture.

You may believe that the end justifies the means (personally I dubious as to how that attitude matches up to Jesus turning the other cheek and dying for his children); but when I look around the world I see European colonies (like my home and yours) where the native people even after centuries are still disadvantaged and marginalised.

On the second point, maybe its different in America but a great many young Australians travel to India, Thailand, Lao and Vietnam. Some just go for cheap booze and meaningless hook ups, but many others do go to experience other cultures.

CreedIsChrist · Jun 1, 2009

tanzanos said:
OH Goody! Now I can tell the Chinese or Russians that it is OK to colonise the US for the common good! May I quote you on this?

No wonder children are not allowed to drive!

the US has already been colonized, lol..As far as Russia, do you even realize how much land they already have colonized? Advanced nations have the right to colonize in order the spread progress and structure to the world. Or would you rather have most of the world living in huts still practicing cannibalism and are unable to discern the value of life of a human being?

In many instances (I might say most) the colonists forcibly removed people from their homes and territories and even if they gave the native people the opportunity to convert to their religion, the natives wouldn't’t be equals in the culture.

You may believe that “the end justifies the means” (personally I dubious as to how that attitude matches up to Jesus turning the other cheek and dying for his children); but when I look around the world I see European colonies (like my home and yours) where the native people even after centuries are still disadvantaged and marginalized.

Homes? what homes were there when the colonizers arrived in the US? there weren't any buildings. The huts the Indians lived in were portable and easily put together, but there were not actual permanent homes in the vicinity.

And you realize reservations get more benefits and welfare than the average American and the people whole live there have all the right to start their own lifestyles outside the reservation..No one has claim to one whole continent and either way the Indians came through the Bering straight just like the Europeans came from the Atlantic. No one has sole claim. But for the sake of humanity people should be able to live in safe structured environments with fair policy. People don't wanna live in barbaric times with straw houses, cheapened value of life, and polluted water. So yes, as far as this case goes, the end does justify the means and the means would have not been so hard if the colonizers wouldn't of been attacked 24/7 and their families slaughtered. In fact many of the larger entities in the native tribes preferred the colonizers and signed a number of pacts with them.

tanzanos · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
Advanced nations have the right to colonize in order the spread progress and structure to the world. Or would you rather have most of the world living in huts still practicing cannibalism and are unable to discern the value of life of a human being?

The Bushmen of the Kalahari (before they were colonised) lived in the open, had no technological progress; yet Murder, Rape, War, Incest, Cannibalism; were unheard of in their society. On the other hand in 1940; Germany was the worlds most advanced society technologically and had technological progress to be admired; yet they cooked humans in ovens, made soap from humans, conducted some of the worlds most heinous crimes against humanity. The US sent people to the moon yet they had no qualms on using napalm bombs on unarmed civilians in Indochina. A country that spends billions on creating technology specifically for killing humans yet has 50 million of its citizens without medical coverage.
Since when does technology make for a civilised society? You obviously do not know what the word Civilised means! Civilisation is the ability of society to conduct itself in a manner considered respectfull of others rights. A society where ethics, and culture have precedence over the technology used to subjugate and or murder fellow humans. The Bushmen did not have F-16s but they had more respect for their fellow humans.

CreedIsChrist · Jun 1, 2009

tanzanos said:
The Bushmen of the Kalahari (before they were colonised) lived in the open, had no technological progress; yet Murder, Rape, War, Incest, Cannibalism; were unheard of in their society. On the other hand in 1940; Germany was the worlds most advanced society technologically and had technological progress to be admired; yet they cooked humans in ovens, made soap from humans, conducted some of the worlds most heinous crimes against humanity. The US sent people to the moon yet they had no qualms on using napalm bombs on unarmed civilians in Indochina. A country that spends billions on creating technology specifically for killing humans yet has 50 million of its citizens without medical coverage.
Since when does technology make for a civilized society? You obviously do not know what the word Civilized means! Civilization is the ability of society to conduct itself in a manner considered respectfully of others rights. A society where ethics, and culture have precedence than the technology used to subjugate and or murder fellow humans. The Bushmen did not have F-16s but they had more respect for their fellow humans.

The Botswana government evicted them, not the colonialists.

Germany wasn't the most advanced society back then either and Hitlers leadership was short lived. However in many 3rd world countries this has been going on for centuries because, like I said, there is no structural progressive government.

LightHorseman · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
Stalins purges had no helpful effect on society however.

Also many of the colonialists did not want to fight, but had to, because they were being attacked by barbaric tribes. Colonialism was started to find new land and opportunity, bring civility, innovation, and structure, not start wars. And I don't know about you, but most people don't wanna live in 3rd world countries. The same people bashing colonialism are also the same ones who wouldn't step foot in a 3rd world country.

See my original point... yes, I'm quite sure that most sub saharan Africans, Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals are happy to live in a world with TV and anti-biotics. This does not, however, excuse the brutal repression these people have suffered in the past, does it?

quatona · Jun 1, 2009

Colonialism was actually selfless development help. Sure.

CreedIsChrist · Jun 1, 2009

LightHorseman said:
See my original point... yes, I'm quite sure that most sub saharan Africans, Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals are happy to live in a world with TV and anti-biotics. This does not, however, excuse the brutal repression these people have suffered in the past, does it?

repression is a 2-way street. You can say that America repressed the black race because of slavery, and I can say that in Africa their own people sold them out and auctioned them off as slaves in the first place. Africa had been selling their own people as slaves for decades long before US colonization. So its a 2-way street as always. Some people will have a problem and some won't. The ones that do have a problem and create large amounts of scandal and break harmony are the ones that tend to be the most repressed. And not because of hatred, but because of the keeping of peace among the people. A civilization cannot function well when there are people causing uprisings and general disorder.

Andreusz · Jun 1, 2009

CreedIsChrist said:
The Botswana government evicted them, not the colonialists.

.

Early Dutch colonists used to hunt Bushmen for sport.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Colonialism

Well-Known Member

Braunwyn

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Trying to stay away

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The flag is a protest for state flags

Well-Known Member

tanzanos

Guest

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

tanzanos

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency