Neil_Oz

I question whether the primary aim of intervening in Iraq was to bring the blessings of democracy. If it were, why aren't we invading Zimbabwe, Myanmar and North Korea?

Much more credible to me is that it was a Neo-con project designed to establish an oil-rich foothold in the Middle East, perhaps as an insurance policy against the possible overthrow of Saudi Arabia's friendly but despotic regime (another eminent candidate for invasion, if bringing democracy were our aim). I doubt that the architects of the plan would have been unduly disturbed if the Iraqi regime they wanted turned out to be less than democratic.

This scenario is perfectly consistent with the behaviour of colonialist powers, especially where oil supplies are at issue. The perfidious shafting of the Arabs by the British and French after WW1 comes to mind.

BTW, I would say that the effects of British occupation on the Australian native population were uniformly dire and are being felt to this day.

Gpanda

I'm not sure even Paul Wolfowitz would claim that the US was attempting to colonize Iraq. I think the errors of US policy in that area fall under the heading of neo-imperialism. It's hard to imagine any US citizens setting forth to settle in Iraq. Hence, I am arbitrarily ruling all Iraq discussions as irrelevant to the original topic. I do note for the record that I believe the Iraq policy is pure folly and destined to failure, but it's still not relevant.

The several discussions of India are interesting. It seems that different definitions of "benefit" lead to different conclusions. The latest reference to GDP is particularly interesting.

Neil_Oz

Gpanda, actually I agree. My post was a response to Craig's earlier comment, which I should have referenced:

"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."

I simply questioned whether that was the true intent of the invasion.

PS: by all means *request* that other posters refrain from discussing Iraq, but I suspect the surest way to fail in this object would be to *order* them to. There are just too many contrarians around.

Gpanda

Neil Oz-my experience is that it is impossible to keep a thread "on topic". It's actually part of the charm to see the peculiar directions towards which they can veer. I only chimed in because someone resurrected the thread after the passage of a week or two. Posters can talk about Iraq or any other place they want. I was merely pointing out that the Us has no obvious plans to send settlers to Iraq. It's sort of fun to see posters expand the definition of neo-colonialism to include geo-political startegies that do not include actual colonies. Do you think colonies of ants will adopt this brand of neo-colonialism?

Jake1

Which countries in Asia, Africa, and the Americas were not colonized, and how are they faring compared to nearby countries that were colonized?

Cicerone

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that a seemingly intelligent and well-traveled adult does not know what countries in Asia, Africa – or at the very least -- the Americas were not colonized. I am pretty sure you can tell me the length of Paris Hilton’s pending jail term, however. Think back to your high school history if nothing else...this may be a time to put down the People Magazine and pick up a book on the subject. As to whether non-colonized nations are faring better, don’t take someone’s opinion for it here, do your own research and analysis, and come up with your own opinion.

I will tell you one here in Asia (and you will probably smack yourself on the forehead when you read it). Japan. See, you do know more than you think. It seems to be doing pretty well, economy is maybe just so-so, but so in France and Germany (two former colonizers) and it’s a lot cleaner and has less crime and no skinheads.

Jake1

Cicerone: Actually I do know. I was trying to stimulate conversation. However, as long as you are around I think I will cease that effort as you do seem to be in permanent attack mode for some reason.

Femi

Cicerone,
I had the same question as Jake and posed it on the second version of this thread over in the Fodorites' lounge.

I guess you can count me among the 'People' reading, ignorant, untravelled, poorly educated masses because Japan did not leap immediately to my mind.

Now, can we get back to Lindsey Lohan?

easytraveler

Lindsey who?

To a certain extent I find Gpanda's attempt to segregate Iraq, etc. from a discussion of "colonialism" to be a bit strained.

Colonizing a country may be opposed to conquering a country where the conquerors move in and displace its government. India was conquered by the "Mongols" and had a long and successful Mughal dynasty. The British, on the other hand, colonized India, did not move their entire government over to India, but merely set up a separate government to rule over the colony.

The only difference between the British type of colonialism and the American type of colonialism is that the US insists on setting up a US-friendly "democratic" (haha, I've got to laugh here) local government in Iraq while controlling everything else - just look at Iraq's borders, the US is the country that dictates the tone of Iraq's relationships with Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. The US is the one bouncing off the walls about Iran and Syria, do you think this would be Iraq's tone were it truly independent of the US? I think not. Even though Iraq fought a war recently with Iran, the two countries also managed their relationship to live in peace longer than they were at war. What I mean is, were Iraq truly independent, it would not be waving a spear in Iran's face the way the US is. Of course, Iran is a problem, but, IMHO, the US has not been approaching this problem in the correct fashion.

The US is practising neo-colonialism in Iraq. It's neo-colonialism because it's economic and not territorial imperialism - so long as the local government is compliant with US wishes, the US will leave it be. Sort of like having modern day satrapies.

DonTopaz

Cicerone is correct that Japan has neither skinheads nor a significant crime issue. However, what Cicerone fails to mention (and I will not include any gratuitous remarks about her being well-traveled or intelligent) is that Japan's unwillingness to be a colonizer is rooted in their extremely insular culture. The inevitable result is that Japan, far more than Germany or France or any other colonizing country, is by far the most homogeneous of the developed countries. Non-japanese have social and cultural pariah status in Japan.

In the 1950s, it wasn't at all uncommon in the U.S., where I grew up, for hotels and restaurants and clubs to openly (and often very explicitly) exclude classes of people. Japan still does.

Make no mistake, I love Japan and its people. But the country's history of insularity has contributed greatly to its ignorance and lack of respect for other peoples and cultures. I am not speaking of courtesy -- not even the British can top Japan at that. But courtesy has nothing to do with social acceptance. (Think Southern USA in most of the 20th C, for example.) And if you need any proof, watch the reaction of some Tokyo-ites when a black man or woman sits down next to them on a subway train or a restaurant counter.

I like heterogeneous cultures, enjoy seeing lots of different colors on people's faces on the way down the sidewalk. I consider that to be a benefit of colonialization.

rkkwan

I have no intention of rejoining this thread, but Japan didn't colonize? I am sorry, but most historians and textbooks consider its 1895-1945 presence in Taiwan as colonization. [Even though they'll call its 1931-1945 presence in Manchuria as "occupation".]

easytraveler

And what about Manchuria? Where the Japanese set up a puppet government and wanted, to all intents and purposes, to remain on mainland Asia for a long time.

Let's not forget Korea...