Colonialism
 

I'm trying to think of an example in which the native population benefited from Colonialization by a Western nation. I am truly open to any ideas. Also, I thought I would post this on the Asia board first before trying some of the other boards where the opinions tend not to be as considered.

I think India benefitted in some ways:

1. The British built a lot of the infrastructure in India - railroads and the capital city, in particular

2. The Indians picked up the English language and it is now spoken by many - a great benefit to Indians in competing in international commerce. All those call centers and software engineers could not function without it.

I am sure there are some that will say that there were negative effects of colonization as well.

USA

some areas of africa

cambridge, but it is an on-going failure

Craig- I'm not sure about India. I'll be ineterested to hear other thoughts on this.

Bob-I'm not sure the native population of the USA would agree that they benefited from European colonialism. Genocide and plagues are generally thought to be negative events.

and now they own large tracts of land throughout the country and are protected and supported by the government......

not to mention the casinos they own and operate---you are an expert on that i am sure...

they needed order in their life...

Panda - Is the question whether these countries benefitted WHILE they were colonized or whether they benefitted AFTER they became free and independent?

Interesting and difficult question, Andy. The question is always from whose perspective? Certainly the Native American population which was decimated by colonialism in the US wouldn't consider it a benefit... And things we call "progess" often are not for the local peoples. Colonialism disrupts the local order and often send places into political chaos which is then exploited by the colonial power (think many nationas in Africa).

I'd be interested in knowing more about the colonial history in Sarawak. I know that the local peoples had more voice in many things, and that the "White Rajah" is still perceived positively.

Craig-I'm inquiring about the long view. hence, after the end of colonialization.

Kathie-I suspect that the only positive examples will be on a relatively small scale, such as Sarawak.

Kathie-from the perspective of the native population today. Do they think that colonialization was a positive force?

I think we should leave the Native Americans (in N. America) out of this discussion for these reasons:

They are not really colonized in the traditional sense like Europe power did in India and parts of Africa. In the territories that's now United States, the English and then the independent US simply displaced the natives from their native land and establish their own cities and societies.

Colonization usually means actually ruling them, imposing Western laws, rules and their type of civilization. That mostly isn't the case in N. America.

Similar for Australia.

Anyways, if you look at a map of the modern world and check which ones have been colonized in the recent past, then I say SE Asia came out relatively well, despite many setbacks like war and corruption. By that I mean places like Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia.

[I am leaving out Hong Kong, Macau or Singapore, as those are basically just cities/islands with insignificant development before the Europeans arrived.]

I don't know enough about India to make a comment.

I think the worst are the native civilization and peoples of Central and Southern America. Whole civilizations were wiped out by the Spaniards.

Rkkwan-there is a certain scool of thought that suggests that the entire "New World" does not qualify for this discussion. Is there a singel instance in which the colonial powers left the native population in charge? It seems that in each instance, it was the colonials that had migrated that became the "free country". So for the sake of the discussion, let's ignore North and South America (the name of each continent is a colonial vestige).

Oh, and I think we can say colonization didn't really help Central Africa much.

Exactly-Rkkwan.

Is the jury still out on South Africa?

I really don't know Africa enough, but despite all its problems, South Africa is a pretty modern nation now, and nations in Eastern Africa are also okay. Which cannot be said of Central or Western Africa.

In general, I think of the colonial powers, England come out much better than the other European nations. At least at this time of history.

Andy, I don't know a lot about the perspective of the native population today in Sarawak. I do know that they have managed to retain more self-rule and autonomy than any other area in Malaysia (you get a separate passport stamp when you enter from somewhere else in Malaysia) or any place else I'm familiar with, there are special preferences for the native population in jobs and housing, people from other places need special permission to live or work there... basically they have kept themselves from being as overwhelmed by the colonizing culture as most other places have been.

I doubt they would say that colonization has been positive, but they might say that they learned from the mistakes of others and so were able to mitigate the impact.

THIS IS A TRAVEL WEB SITE NOT ONE FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSION...

Rhkkmk: I think politics shape the culture of the places I visit, so I think this is a valid discussion for a travel board.

Ignore Bob-he is a colonizer.

Please note that I started a similar thread in the Fodorite Lounge forum. It has taken a much different turn.

femi---my post is a private joke

Knowing you two I did have my suspicions!