[Goofy Goober]

Well in my opinion it has hurt African and Asian countries as a whole, I think their history would be better off without it. Africa is an example of this. Most countries have very high poverty rates, and poor government stability.

Colonization has left a good percentage of the east behind Western superpowers.


I think most of us can agree it was morally unsound, the Opium Wars and African enslavement are some of the worst scars in history.

Discuss.

[welshgazza1992]

I think it helped the continents of america and oceania, it's left it's mark there , with english in the USA, Austrlia, New Zealand and with Spanish in Mexico and Portugese in Brazil.

[Robert Davidson]

depends on where you look at. colonization in the Americas (however brutal the conquests were) has produced positive, peaceful outcomes. if you look at Africa only, then i'd agree with you.

[welshgazza1992]

But what would Africa Be today without it ? no countries there i believe, I think there would be the tribes, better for the people though.

[Large Leader]

Africa has been ruined by colonialism.
Things weren’t good during colonialism, things weren’t good after colonialism, and things aren’t good now. When has Africa not got the short end of the stick?

Asia, outside of Indochina, has benefited from it in the long run.

[Viking]

It ruined the Middle East, and that's the most pressing issue at the moment.

[Robert Davidson]

Viking, on Mar 12 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

It ruined the Middle East, and that's the most pressing issue at the moment.

forgot about that too. how could i?... *Robert bangs his head with his Middle East college textbook*.

[Euroslavia]

welshgazza1992, on Mar 12 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

But what would Africa Be today without it ? no countries there i believe, I think there would be the tribes, better for the people though.

Africa wouldn't have been divided up into borders that Europe decided, which has become a huge problem, mixing in specific people that do not get along with others (civil wars, genocide, etc).

[King Comm]

Robert Davidson, on Mar 13 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

depends on where you look at. colonization in the Americas (however brutal the conquests were) has produced positive, peaceful outcomes.

==Not for all those Indians the perished during the conquest though...

Look at this way, with out colonisation, the western world would not have had the cheap natural resources and slave labour to kick start the industrial revolution the way they originally did, and the world would have progressed at a much slower pace.

[Lord GVChamp]

It has benefited everyone except Africa. Africa is...a very interesting case...

[cookavich]

I think the objective of colonization right around the time the Europeans moved into Africa/Asia.

[Loki Ire]

Goofy Goober, on Mar 12 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

Well in my opinion it has hurt African and Asian countries as a whole, I think their history would be better off without it. Africa is an example of this. Most countries have very high poverty rates, and poor government stability.

Colonization has left a good percentage of the east behind Western superpowers.


I think most of us can agree it was morally unsound, the Opium Wars and African enslavement are some of the worst scars in history.

Discuss.

It's a mixed bag. The USA is a great place to live. It got that way only after Smallpox-laden garments were traded to Native Americans, who were slaughtered en masse and ended up in what are essentially camps. On the Asian continent, consider that while a lot of bad was done, places like China are only holding off collapse thanks to western technologies keeping their economies afloat. If China didn't have western technology to manufacture toys and electronics, their economy almost certainly would have completely collapsed a long time ago. Other places like Iraq have not benefitted so much from western influence. They do have quite the potential to, however. If Iraq can gets its stuff together, it can make its people quite confortable with all the oil money they could have. In Africa, western technology has allowed tribal warfare to grow to unprecedented scales. It has also brought new medicines and farming techniques which have greatly reduced suffering in many areas.

Oh, and slavery existed widely throughout sub-Saharan Africa long before Europeans stepped foot on the continent. They even had a fairly developed slave trade before Europeans arrived. The first slaves carried on European ships from Africa were not captured, but rather were purchased from other Africans. When the existing slave trade of Africa began to fail to meet demand from colonies in places like America, slave traders began travelling further and further inland forcing people into slavery essentially at gunpoint. Europeans didn't create that particular horror, they merely expanded it in scale and intensity to a level far beyond anything imagined previously on the continent.

[Ethan Smith]

Lord GVChamp, on Mar 12 2008, 09:11 PM, said:

It has benefited everyone except Africa. Africa is...a very interesting case...

I'd say that for all of the sadness, it jumpstarted Africa into the modern world. Yes, the borders are ridiculous, but the tribes aren't likely to settle down.

What colonization did to the Middle East is even sadder. I honestly hate Churchill for how he royally $%&@ed up Iran by couping Mohhammed Mossadegh, who was basically an Iranian Ataturk, and replacing him with the Shah.

Besides the ridiculous lines drawn in the Middle East today that have little to do with reality.

[Loki Ire]

Euroslavia, on Mar 12 2008, 04:02 PM, said:

Africa wouldn't have been divided up into borders that Europe decided, which has become a huge problem, mixing in specific people that do not get along with others (civil wars, genocide, etc).

They were doing that long before arbitrary and nonsensical borders were drawn. It's like saying that the borders of Iraq create violence. No, the only thing it creates is one Hell of a problem when you go to form a government that you want to be representative of those groups. What's needed is someone with vast amounts of charisma, popular support that transcends ethnic and religious boundaries, and a real desire to help all the people by redrawing the borders in such a way that stable, representative governments can form.

Such a thing would be beneficial in Iraq, Iran, and much of Africa.

[Galaisa]

Loki Ire, on Mar 12 2008, 06:27 PM, said:

It's a mixed bag. The USA is a great place to live. It got that way only after Smallpox-laden garments were traded to Native Americans, who were slaughtered en masse and ended up in what are essentially camps.

Rather then take this apart piece by piece I will just say that in the Iroquois nation, if you didnt like the system you could secede. Enough said.

[Loki Ire]

welshgazza1992, on Mar 12 2008, 03:34 PM, said:

But what would Africa Be today without it ? no countries there i believe, I think there would be the tribes, better for the people though.

Well, it would be better in that they'd be killing each other with less devastating weapons. For all the technological wonders brought to the continent by western civilization, many have taken to using them exclusively for killing one another more efficiently. The only thing that brings groups in sub-Saharan Africa together is a common enemy they hate more than they hate each other.

[Ethan Smith]

Galaisa, on Mar 12 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

Rather then take this apart piece by piece I will just say that in the Iroquois nation, if you didnt like the system you could secede. Enough said.

Yes.

This does not work in a modern nation.

Hell, the states technically can secede if they wanted to, but is there any cause worth dying for now?

This post has been edited by Ethan Smith: 12 March 2008 - 03:31 PM

[Galaisa]

Ethan Smith, on Mar 12 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

Yes.

This does not work in a modern nation.

Hell, the states technically can secede if they wanted to, but is there any cause worth dying for now?

Seems to have worked for Kosovo.

[Loki Ire]

Ethan Smith, on Mar 12 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

Yes.

This does not work in a modern nation.

Hell, the states technically can secede if they wanted to, but is there any cause worth dying for now?

States in the US can secede far more easily now than in times past. If Vermont declared itself an independent state tomorrow (and there's a rather large movement there to make it happen), does anyone really think the President is going to order troops to fight their way to the Vermont capital to take it back?

Of course not. And as soon as they do it, California, Texas, and probably half the southern states are going to do it too.

[Loki Ire]

Galaisa, on Mar 12 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

Seems to have worked for Kosovo.

Isn't it a tiny bit early to say that? I mean, they made a declaration what, a week ago?