Colonialism
Apr 18th, 2007, 08:44 PM
#23
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a local living in Malaysia, I feel colonization was bad the first half (18th-19th century) and it was spurred by greed and turf tussle. Then again it wasn't all colonial British fault because greedy local noblemen and sultans were part of the scheme. They were the ones who roped in western forces in to fight local wars. In Sarawak, the Brooke family was brought in to dampen tribal wars.
In early 20th century, due to British influence, many locals sent their offsprings to England to get a western education and that shaped a new generation of population that's law abiding and intellectual. British civil service provided jobs and this too helped nurture the society before independence. Malaysian history would have been lost if not for the writings and recordings of these fine gentlemen and government officers. Among them was the first Prime Minister, a Malay prince who had an English education, loved golf, horse racing, pipe smoking and writing. His years in England opened up his eyes.
Now, if one compares Malaysia with neighbouring SE Asia (except Spore which is another ex-British), there'a stark difference. Most are millitary-based (generals or army-connected VIPs hold real power) and coup could happen at the drop of hat. The Malaysian parliamentary system was inherited from the Brits and I am glad officers in uniforms are taking the back seat. Another real benefit was the Brits helped draft the constitution which assured all races enjoy equal rights and freedom of religion - this is a hefty plus in a country which is home to a plethora of races and tribes. They also went all out to fight communism. The laws may not be perfect yet but everyone has the constitution to fall back on if some politicians take potshots to incite racial disharmony.
Finally, the best leftovers were English companies and of course the language itself. After independence, multinational English companies continued to fan Malaysian products all over the world until the country was able to stand economically well by itself. The Dutch did the same with Indonesia. English proficiency has helped tremendously in bringing investment. Today, big names like Dell, Motorola and Intel have their largest factories in Malaysia.
Being nationalist (sometimes a false front frequently used by politicians) is one thing but acknowledging colonial contribution is appropriate too. I am fully aware of Brits atrocities in olden Ireland and elsewhere (the movie Gandhi gives a good insight). I may be fried for mentioning this but left alone without colonization, Malaysia would not have enjoyed the lead as it does today among SE Asian countries. Singapore did better, I must say.
In early 20th century, due to British influence, many locals sent their offsprings to England to get a western education and that shaped a new generation of population that's law abiding and intellectual. British civil service provided jobs and this too helped nurture the society before independence. Malaysian history would have been lost if not for the writings and recordings of these fine gentlemen and government officers. Among them was the first Prime Minister, a Malay prince who had an English education, loved golf, horse racing, pipe smoking and writing. His years in England opened up his eyes.
Now, if one compares Malaysia with neighbouring SE Asia (except Spore which is another ex-British), there'a stark difference. Most are millitary-based (generals or army-connected VIPs hold real power) and coup could happen at the drop of hat. The Malaysian parliamentary system was inherited from the Brits and I am glad officers in uniforms are taking the back seat. Another real benefit was the Brits helped draft the constitution which assured all races enjoy equal rights and freedom of religion - this is a hefty plus in a country which is home to a plethora of races and tribes. They also went all out to fight communism. The laws may not be perfect yet but everyone has the constitution to fall back on if some politicians take potshots to incite racial disharmony.
Finally, the best leftovers were English companies and of course the language itself. After independence, multinational English companies continued to fan Malaysian products all over the world until the country was able to stand economically well by itself. The Dutch did the same with Indonesia. English proficiency has helped tremendously in bringing investment. Today, big names like Dell, Motorola and Intel have their largest factories in Malaysia.
Being nationalist (sometimes a false front frequently used by politicians) is one thing but acknowledging colonial contribution is appropriate too. I am fully aware of Brits atrocities in olden Ireland and elsewhere (the movie Gandhi gives a good insight). I may be fried for mentioning this but left alone without colonization, Malaysia would not have enjoyed the lead as it does today among SE Asian countries. Singapore did better, I must say.
Apr 18th, 2007, 09:11 PM
#24
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I currently live in former British colony (10 years free this August), have lived in two other former British colonies, and traveled in many others and don’t see any “benefits” of colonialism. As V.S. Naipul says, just because someone comes in, takes over your house, and runs it better than you can does not mean you like being relegated to living in the attic, warm and dry as it may be.
I really don’t see how anyone can say India “benefited” from British colonialism, when, at the end in 1947 they literally ran off in the middle of the night after giving, IMO, quite precipitous notice that their occupation was going to end, millions of people were slaughtered and millions more lost their property and livelihoods. The price of that “benefit” is still being paid in nuclear tensions between Pakistan (entirely a colonial creation) and India.
Post-colonial Singapore “did better” than Malaysia because of a very hard working Chinese population and – let’s face it – a dictator named Lee Kwan Yew (now supplanted by the son).
If you look at all of the world’s worst places and trouble spots (don’t even get me started on the Middle East), and look into the history of how they got that way, you will invariably find that some European power at some point had control over that area and left either a power vacuum or put the wrong family, political party or ethnic group in charge, usually, IMO, out of sheer ignorance or arrogance. The history of how a Hindu maharajah came to be the ruler of a majority-Muslim area like Kashmir is a case in point, and is, IMO, the only reason why the area is in the fine mess it is in today.
It's fun to argue these esoteric points, but of course this is all past history and we should at least learn something from it. The frightening thing to me is that the US is now of course repeating the European pattern.
FYI, “decimate” means to kill a 1/10th of. The Native Americans in the US were not decimated, as many more than 10% of them were killed. Genocide is probably a better word.
I really don’t see how anyone can say India “benefited” from British colonialism, when, at the end in 1947 they literally ran off in the middle of the night after giving, IMO, quite precipitous notice that their occupation was going to end, millions of people were slaughtered and millions more lost their property and livelihoods. The price of that “benefit” is still being paid in nuclear tensions between Pakistan (entirely a colonial creation) and India.
Post-colonial Singapore “did better” than Malaysia because of a very hard working Chinese population and – let’s face it – a dictator named Lee Kwan Yew (now supplanted by the son).
If you look at all of the world’s worst places and trouble spots (don’t even get me started on the Middle East), and look into the history of how they got that way, you will invariably find that some European power at some point had control over that area and left either a power vacuum or put the wrong family, political party or ethnic group in charge, usually, IMO, out of sheer ignorance or arrogance. The history of how a Hindu maharajah came to be the ruler of a majority-Muslim area like Kashmir is a case in point, and is, IMO, the only reason why the area is in the fine mess it is in today.
It's fun to argue these esoteric points, but of course this is all past history and we should at least learn something from it. The frightening thing to me is that the US is now of course repeating the European pattern.
FYI, “decimate” means to kill a 1/10th of. The Native Americans in the US were not decimated, as many more than 10% of them were killed. Genocide is probably a better word.
Apr 18th, 2007, 09:31 PM
#25
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for sake of argument if one considers western civilization as those coming from the east, then one ends up back on the African and Asia continents -the cradle of life. I think if you leave out "western civilization" aren't we looking at an entire world that continues to have been colonized by one group or another. What we consider countries recently 'colonized' were first colonizing the colonizers. eh?
Since this is a travel forum -isn't travel/exploration a small and initial step to colonization? The effect that tourism has on a culture. What country's culture isn't being affected by and customs changing because of travelers? Isn't that a nongovernmental form of colonization. One only has to look at the hotles worldwide that take up much of the shoreline.
Since this is a travel forum -isn't travel/exploration a small and initial step to colonization? The effect that tourism has on a culture. What country's culture isn't being affected by and customs changing because of travelers? Isn't that a nongovernmental form of colonization. One only has to look at the hotles worldwide that take up much of the shoreline.
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:00 PM
#26
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since Cicerone has pretty much said what I would like to say, except better, I'd just like to add a contrarian note here:
How much has the colonists themselves benefitted?
Before you tell me of how much rubber and tin has been taken out of Malaysia, or how many of the British crown jewels actually came from India, or how Rhodes went running around converting South Africa into a British colony because of the hoards of diamonds, let me tell you where I'm coming from.
I'm watching MacNeil's AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS, and tonight's first segment is on the Muslims in Europe while the second segment is on the Muslims in America.
The Muslims in Europe segment is about the Muslims who are BORN in Europe and the ferocious resentment they harbor within them - the bombing in Madrid, the incidents in England, etc. all were caused by "home-grown" Muslims.
In the end, how much benefit have the colonists themselves garnered and how much grief?
I could wish that in the clash of civilizations it could have been less violent, greedy, or debasing. Leaves me wondering about ALL human nature, conqueror and conquered.
Sorry, this Virginia Tech incident has put me in a black mood tonight.
How much has the colonists themselves benefitted?
Before you tell me of how much rubber and tin has been taken out of Malaysia, or how many of the British crown jewels actually came from India, or how Rhodes went running around converting South Africa into a British colony because of the hoards of diamonds, let me tell you where I'm coming from.
I'm watching MacNeil's AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS, and tonight's first segment is on the Muslims in Europe while the second segment is on the Muslims in America.
The Muslims in Europe segment is about the Muslims who are BORN in Europe and the ferocious resentment they harbor within them - the bombing in Madrid, the incidents in England, etc. all were caused by "home-grown" Muslims.
In the end, how much benefit have the colonists themselves garnered and how much grief?
I could wish that in the clash of civilizations it could have been less violent, greedy, or debasing. Leaves me wondering about ALL human nature, conqueror and conquered.
Sorry, this Virginia Tech incident has put me in a black mood tonight.
Apr 18th, 2007, 10:24 PM
#27
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to a desire for economic profit, nationalism also served as a reason for colonization. After the French Revolution, European nations had a strong sense of national pride, and felt that in order to prove themselves as a strong world power, they would need to gain control of other countries. By obtaining power over foreign lands, nations were also able to strengthen their military. This further increased their status as a world power.
Europeans used the ideas of the "White Man's Burden" to help justify their colonization of foreign lands. The White Man's Burden was the idea that as supreme beings, it was the job of the white people to spread their superior ways of living to the inferior people of other places. As stated by Englishmen Cecil Rhodes, "I contend that we Britons are the first race in the world, and the more of the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race. I believe it is my duty to God, my Queen, and my country..." In keeping with the ideas of white supremacy, Europeans also colonized to spread their religion to nations that they felt were inferior.
In the mid eighteenth century, India became one of Great Britain's most important colonies. Great Britain relied heavily on India as a source of raw materials. Britain profited from India's vast supply of tea and cotton. Beginning in 1757, the East India Company, which was overseen by the British government, ruled India. This system was very successful, until one hundred years later, when the Sepoy Rebellion occurred. In 1857, the Sepoys, or Indian soldiers, revolted against the British East India Company. The Sepoys, who were Muslims and Hindus, were upset to learn that the British used beef and pork to seal the rifle cartridges, as eating cows and pigs was forbidden by the Islamic and Hindu religions. Numberous bloody battles occured between the Sepoys and the East India Company over the span of about a year. Then, after helping the East India Company regain control of India, Britain took direct rule of the nation.
These were some of the consequense of colonialism.While Great Britain felt that they were being very generous to the Indian people in colonizing and modernizing the nation, the Indians did not always agree with this. Under British rule, many new roads, railways, and harbors were built, and a telegraph system was created. While the Indians were forced to do much labor in the construction of these things, they were often kept from enjoying and benefiting from the finished products. In fact, the Indian people were treated as second class citizens in their own nation. They were banned from many government positions, and had little rights. They often received lower wages than Europeans working in the same job, and their educations did little for them. The Indians eventually came together to fight against the way that they were treated influenced by the same sense of nationalism that had prompted the British to colonize India more than a century before. After much hard work, India finally gained independence from Great Britain in August 1947.
Europeans used the ideas of the "White Man's Burden" to help justify their colonization of foreign lands. The White Man's Burden was the idea that as supreme beings, it was the job of the white people to spread their superior ways of living to the inferior people of other places. As stated by Englishmen Cecil Rhodes, "I contend that we Britons are the first race in the world, and the more of the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race. I believe it is my duty to God, my Queen, and my country..." In keeping with the ideas of white supremacy, Europeans also colonized to spread their religion to nations that they felt were inferior.
In the mid eighteenth century, India became one of Great Britain's most important colonies. Great Britain relied heavily on India as a source of raw materials. Britain profited from India's vast supply of tea and cotton. Beginning in 1757, the East India Company, which was overseen by the British government, ruled India. This system was very successful, until one hundred years later, when the Sepoy Rebellion occurred. In 1857, the Sepoys, or Indian soldiers, revolted against the British East India Company. The Sepoys, who were Muslims and Hindus, were upset to learn that the British used beef and pork to seal the rifle cartridges, as eating cows and pigs was forbidden by the Islamic and Hindu religions. Numberous bloody battles occured between the Sepoys and the East India Company over the span of about a year. Then, after helping the East India Company regain control of India, Britain took direct rule of the nation.
These were some of the consequense of colonialism.While Great Britain felt that they were being very generous to the Indian people in colonizing and modernizing the nation, the Indians did not always agree with this. Under British rule, many new roads, railways, and harbors were built, and a telegraph system was created. While the Indians were forced to do much labor in the construction of these things, they were often kept from enjoying and benefiting from the finished products. In fact, the Indian people were treated as second class citizens in their own nation. They were banned from many government positions, and had little rights. They often received lower wages than Europeans working in the same job, and their educations did little for them. The Indians eventually came together to fight against the way that they were treated influenced by the same sense of nationalism that had prompted the British to colonize India more than a century before. After much hard work, India finally gained independence from Great Britain in August 1947.
Apr 18th, 2007, 11:09 PM
#28
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To futher my point of view,colonialism amounts to tresspassing into someones home,refurbish it,enjoy the hospitality of the owner while making him work for your stay,susequently leave it behind,claiming it would benifit him.
Colonialism,is nothing but
government legitimised thievery.To say its helped any nation progress is absurd.
Colonialism,is nothing but
government legitimised thievery.To say its helped any nation progress is absurd.
Apr 19th, 2007, 04:24 AM
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add some heat to the discussion, some contend that colonialism is not limited to occupying a foreign land. For instance, some might say that "bringing democracy" to a country, e.g., Iraq, Afganistan, is a form of neo-colonialism.
Now, what does this have to do with travel? A lot. For instance, I wonder whether the magic of Thailand is heightened by the absence of European colonization.
Now, what does this have to do with travel? A lot. For instance, I wonder whether the magic of Thailand is heightened by the absence of European colonization.
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:26 AM
#32
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panda, I notice that many of our over-night posters have addressed what countries were going through WHILE there were colonized rather than what happened after independence.
The situation in Iraq is different because the intent is to leave eventually - some of course would prefer that to happen sooner rather than later. On the other hand one could ask whether or not the process of imposing western democratic values on the Iraqis is a form of colonization.
The situation in Iraq is different because the intent is to leave eventually - some of course would prefer that to happen sooner rather than later. On the other hand one could ask whether or not the process of imposing western democratic values on the Iraqis is a form of colonization.
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:35 AM
#33
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hanuman-the genesis of this thread is that I was unable to think of a single example of positive colonialization. There have been several thoughtful replies proposing possible examples. They require more thought.
I suspect that even on the Fodorite Lounge or Europe forum that there would not be anyone giving positive examples of slavery. Speaking of which, who did the actual work in constructing the temples around Siem Riep?
I suspect that even on the Fodorite Lounge or Europe forum that there would not be anyone giving positive examples of slavery. Speaking of which, who did the actual work in constructing the temples around Siem Riep?
Apr 19th, 2007, 05:40 AM
#34
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your perspectives TravelTwiddle, Cicerone and Harsha, which really round out this discussion.
Cicerone, thanks for the origin of the word "decimate" You are certainly right that I misused it in my comments.
Cicerone, thanks for the origin of the word "decimate" You are certainly right that I misused it in my comments.
Apr 19th, 2007, 06:05 AM
#36
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read some sScience Fiction in my long-forgotten youth, I seem to recall many plots involving slaves revolting agianst oppressive masters, whether human or alien. An interesting take has been provided by Mike Resnick who wrote about planets colonized by humans and left to have their own governments thereafter. He wrote several using different countries in Africa as models.
Apr 19th, 2007, 10:10 AM
#37
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While reading harsha's comments I had flashes of parallels to the colonization, annexation or downright thievery, if I may borrow the term for my own people and the now State of Hawaii.
We were once a kingdom acknowledged by every known government in the world at that time.
Have the Hawaiian people prospered by this colonization? I think not.
Aloha!
We were once a kingdom acknowledged by every known government in the world at that time.
Have the Hawaiian people prospered by this colonization? I think not.
Aloha!
Apr 21st, 2007, 03:38 AM
#38
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cicerone has made a very valid point re the partition of modern day India - when the British left they created a country which was to the east (now bangladesh) and west of india (pakistan) with india in between - little wonder that this division lasted for such a short time and caused wars. But Bangladesh has little competitive advantages to flourish and is today a very poor and corrupt country - anyone who thinks India benefited has only to think of the lives lost in Partition and the millions affected then ask whether it did indeed.
May 14th, 2007, 01:40 PM
#39
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A study of a countries economic/cultural status before and after colonization clearly shows that it has never benefited the native population.
There is nothing surprising about this; after all colonization is meant to rob a country of its resources; any benefit is an accidental by product.
For those who think that the British Raj was a blessing for India (thank god we can now speak English!); read your history to find out how much the British took from India. India was a leading economic force before the British and controlled 24% of the world GDP
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi..._estimates>
In 1770 about 10 million died in a famine that was induced by the British <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770>.
The native population has never benefited from colonization and it takes decades if not centuries for a country to recover from the effects. Iraq is a modern day example.
There is nothing surprising about this; after all colonization is meant to rob a country of its resources; any benefit is an accidental by product.
For those who think that the British Raj was a blessing for India (thank god we can now speak English!); read your history to find out how much the British took from India. India was a leading economic force before the British and controlled 24% of the world GDP
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi..._estimates>
In 1770 about 10 million died in a famine that was induced by the British <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770>.
The native population has never benefited from colonization and it takes decades if not centuries for a country to recover from the effects. Iraq is a modern day example.
May 14th, 2007, 04:00 PM
#40
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its always interesting to hear people's opinions about colonisation and the misery it caused, but I think one aspect that is rarely mentioned are the conditions in countries such as Britain for the common man during the 19th and lesser degree the 20th centuries.
The average family was living in squalor, working 6 days a week, with children as young as 6 going out to work. Infant mortality was through the roof, and they had little or no education.
In addition the British army opened fire and killed its own citizens during domestic civil unrest, and therefore what happened 'overseas' was just systematic of what was happening at home.
Not very pleasant times for the vast majority of the population
Geordie
The average family was living in squalor, working 6 days a week, with children as young as 6 going out to work. Infant mortality was through the roof, and they had little or no education.
In addition the British army opened fire and killed its own citizens during domestic civil unrest, and therefore what happened 'overseas' was just systematic of what was happening at home.
Not very pleasant times for the vast majority of the population
Geordie
